FAIR - User contributions [en]

Book of Abraham/By his own hand

2009-09-03T13:08:55Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Criticism */ punctuation

{{BofAPortal}}
{{draft}}
==Criticism==

* Critics claim that the Book of Abraham's claim to have been written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus" is falsified since the papyrus dates to after the Abrahamic period.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* {{CriticalWork:Larson:By His Own Hand|pages=xxx}} {{nc}}

==Introduction==

{{ref|fn.0}}When the Prophet Joseph Smith published the ﬁrst installments of the Book of Abraham in 1842, the caption in the ''Times and Seasons'' read as following:

:"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."{{ref|fn.1}}

Kirtland Egyptian Paper (KEP) - A1 likewise has the following caption:

:“Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.”{{ref|fn.2}}

The phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” has drawn a number of investigative remarks. Critics have alleged that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” must necessarily be indicating that Joseph Smith thought that the papyrus he obtained was written by the hand of Abraham himself. The problem, however, is that the papyri donʼt date to Abrahamʼs time. Critics have argued that this is, therefore, another point against Joseph Smith and the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

LDS scholars have approached this issue from a number of perspectives. This article sets forth two underlying LDS apologetic approaches that have been advanced in evaluating the significance of this phrase in the heading for the Book of Abraham. Regardless of which approach may be correct, it is clear that the assumptions of those critical of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham are unfounded in this regard.{{ref|fn.3}} Either option resolves the issue; both would have to be untenable for the critics to have a case.

==Option #1: “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” as an Egyptian Title==

Hugh Nibley, writing in 1981, suggested that “the statement "written by his own hand, upon papyrus"... is actually part of the original Egyptian title: "called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus"—that was Abraham's own heading. This is important, since much misunderstanding has arisen from the assumption that the Joseph Smith Papyri were the original draft of Abraham's book, his very own handiwork.”{{ref|fn.4}} Nibley, quoting himself from an earlier article,{{ref|fn.5}} goes on to explain the following, reproduced here at length:

:Two important and peculiar aspects of ancient authorship must be considered when we are told that a writing is by the hand of Abraham or anybody else. One is that according to Egyptian and Hebrew thinking any copy of a book originally written by Abraham would be regarded and designated as the very work of his hand forever after, no matter how many reproductions had been made and handed down through the years. The other is that no matter who did the writing originally, if it was Abraham who commissioned or directed the work, he would take the credit for the actual writing of the document, whether he penned it or not.

:As to the ﬁrst point, when a holy book (usually a leather roll) grew old and worn out from handling, it was not destroyed but renewed. Important writings were immortal—for the Egyptians they were "the divine words," for the Jews the very letters were holy and indestructible, being the word of God. The wearing out of a particular copy of scripture therefore in no way brought the life of the book to a close—it could not perish. In Egypt it was simply renewed (ma.w, sma.w) "fairer than before," and so continued its life to the next renewal. Thus we are told at the beginning of what some have claimed to be the oldest writing in the world [the Shabako Stone], "His Majesty wrote this book down anew. . . . His Majesty discovered it as a work of the Ancestors, but eaten by worms. . . . So His Majesty wrote it down from the beginning, so that it is more beautiful than it was before." It is not a case of the old book's being replaced by a new one, but of the original book itself continuing its existence in a rejuvenated state. No people were more hypnotized by the idea of a renewal of lives than the Egyptians—not a succession of lives or a line of descent, but the actual revival and rejuvenation of a single life.

:Even the copyist who puts his name in a colophon does so not so much as publicity for himself as to vouch for the faithful transmission of the original book; his being "trustworthy (iqr) of ﬁngers," i.e., a reliable copyist, is the reader's assurance that he has the original text before him. An Egyptian document, J. Spiegel observes, is like the print of an etching, which is not only a work of art in its own right but "can lay claim equally well to being the original . . . regardless of whether the individual copies turn out well or ill." Because he thinks in terms of types, according to Spiegel, for the Egyptian "there is no essential difference between an original and a copy. For as they understand it, all pictures are but reproductions of an ideal original." . . . This concept was equally at home in Israel. An interesting passage from the Book of Jubilees [a text unknown before 1850] recounts that Joseph while living in Egypt "remembered the Lord and the words which Jacob, his father, used to read from amongst the words of Abraham." Here is a clear statement that "the words of Abraham" were handed down in written form from generation to generation, and were the subject of serious study in the family circle. The same source informs us that when Israel died and was buried in Canaan, "he gave all his books and the books of his fathers to Levi his son that he might preserve them and renew them for his children until this day." Here "the books of the fathers" including "the words of Abraham" have been preserved for later generations by a process of renewal. [Joseph's own books were, of course, Egyptian books.]

:In this there is no thought of the making of a new book by a new hand. It was a strict rule in Israel that no one, not even the most learned rabbi, should ever write down so much as a single letter of the Bible from memory: always the text must be copied letter by letter from another text that had been copied in the same way, thereby eliminating the danger of any man's adding, subtracting, or changing so much as a single jot in the text. It was not a rewriting but a process as mechanical as photography, an exact visual reproduction, so that no matter how many times the book had been passed from hand to hand, it was always the one original text that was before one. . . .

:But "written by his own hand"? This brings us to the other interesting concept. Let us recall that that supposedly oldest of Egyptian writings, the so-called Shabako Stone, begins with the announcement that "His Majesty wrote this book down anew." This, Professor Sethe obligingly explains, is "normal Egyptian usage to express the idea that the King ordered a copy to be made." Yet it clearly states that the king himself wrote it. Thus when the son of King Snefru says of his own inscription at Medum, "It was he who made his gods in [such] a writing [that] it cannot be effaced," the statement is so straightforward that even such a student as W. S. Smith takes it to mean that the prince himself actually did the writing. And what could be more natural than for a professional scribe to make an inscription: "It was her husband, the Scribe of the Royal Scroll, Nebwy, who made this inscription"? Or when a noble announces that he made his father's tomb, why should we not take him at his word? It depends on how the word is to be understood. Professor Wilson in all these cases holds that the person who claims to have done the work does so "in the sense that he commissioned and paid for it." The noble who has writing or carving done is always given full credit for its actual execution; such claims of zealous craftsmanship "have loftily ignored the artist," writes Wilson. "It was the noble who 'made' or 'decorated' his tomb," though one noble of the Old Kingdom breaks down enough to show us how these claims were understood: "I made this for my old father. . . . I had the sculptor Itju make (it)." Dr. Wilson cites a number of cases in which men claim to have "made" their father's tombs, one of them speciﬁcally stating that he did so "while his arm was still strong"—with his own hand!

:Credit for actually writing the inscription of the famous Metternich Stele is claimed by "the prophetess of Nebwen, Nest-Amun, daughter of the Prophet of Nebwen and Scribe of the Inundation, 'Ankh-Psametik,'" who states that she "renewed (sma.w) this book [there it is again!] after she had found it removed from the house of Osiris-Mnevis, so that her name might be preserved." The inscription then shifts to the masculine gender as if the scribe were really a man, leading to considerable dispute among the experts as to just who gets the credit. Certain it is that the Lady boasts of having given an ancient book a new lease on life, even though her hand may never have touched a pen.

:Nest-Amun hoped to preserve her name by attaching it to a book, and in a very recent study M. A. Korostovstev notes that "for an Egyptian to attach his name to a written work was an infallible means of passing it down through the centuries." That may be one reason why Abraham chose the peculiar Egyptian medium he did for the transmission of his record—or at least why it has reached us only in this form. Indeed Theodor Böhl observed recently that the one chance the original Patriarchal literature would ever have of surviving would be to have it written down on Egyptian papyrus. Scribes liked to have their names preserved, too, and the practice of adding copyists' names in colophons, Korostostev points out, could easily lead in later times to attributing the wrong authorship to a work.

:But whoever is credited with the authorship of a book remains its unique author, alone responsible for its existence in whatever form.{{ref|fn.6}}

Thus, according to this line of reasoning, considering how the ancient Egyptians viewed the nature of their texts, namely, that there was no real difference between an original and a copy but simply a renewal of the original text, the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” need not warrant the assumption that the text is holographic in nature.

Two LDS apologists, Russell C. McGregor and Kerry Shirts, have likewise shown that the idiom “by his own hand” in Egyptian thought has a parallel to the Israelite view of the nature of their sacred texts. They note that “it is obvious from reading the Hebrew Bible that the phrase by his own hand is a Hebrew idiom beyadh, which means “by the authority of,” as we can clearly see in the Stuttgartensian Hebrew text that Kohlenberger translates. He renders Exodus 9:35 as “just as the Lord said through Moses,” while the Hebrew has beyadh, that is “by the hand of.” Clearly it was the Lordʼs hand—the Lordʼs authority, which had led Moses against Pharaoh, that is, by the Lordʼs authority. Though we donʼt
get it that way in the English, the Hebrew deﬁnitely has “by the hand of.”{{ref|fn.7}}

McGregor and Shirts continue to explain that “at 1 Samuel 28:15 we see another example—the English translation reads that God would not appear to Saul either by the prophets or by dreams. In the Hebrew we again ﬁnd beyadh, “by the hand of,” or in other words, by the prophetʼs authority from God. In other words, Abraham may not even have touched the documents that bear his name, the very ones that fell into Josephʼs hands in the 1830s, since Abraham could have had them commissioned and written for him. Yet for all this, the documents would still bear his signature, since they were authorized by him, “by his own hand,” even though a scribe may have written it instead of Abraham.”{{ref|fn.8}}

Thus, according to LDS researchers such as Nibley, McGregor and Shirts, it need not be assumed that the phrase “by his own hand” indicates a holographic nature of the Book of Abraham. As Professor John Gee reminds us, there is a difference between the date of a text and the date of a copy of a text. {{ref|fn.9}} The two are not the same. Thus, while the date of the text of the Book of Abraham could have dated from Abrahamʼs time,{{ref|fn.10}} the copy of the Book of Abraham received by Joseph Smith could have a later copy dated to the Ptolemaic Era.{{ref|fn.11}}

The critics scoff at this suggestion. They insist that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” must absolutely be speaking about Abraham literally writing on the papyrus that Joseph Smith possessed. Likewise, they question as to whether the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” can even be read as being a part of the ancient title of the text, as proposed by Nibley, since it is not capitalized like “the Book of Abraham” is in the caption.

However, these criticisms are problematic for a number of reasons. It must be remembered that there was no standardized capitalization of letters in Egyptian as there is in English. Thus, if the phrase was a part of the ancient text, the title would have read something along the lines of the following: “the book of abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus”. The capitalization and punctuation would have been the work of the 19th century scribes, who may not have realized that such was the entire title and thus only capitalized the “Book of Abraham” portion of the title since such was most familiar with their 19th century understanding.{{ref|fn.12}}

Furthermore, the critics also demand that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” can mean nothing but that the Book of Abraham claims to be a holograph from Abraham. Such an argument, however, is nothing more than a presentist fallacy when analyzed in the light of the Egyptological evidence. It is not a question of what the modern critics think, but what the ancient Egyptians thought.

In 2007, Professor Gee published an article with the ''Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists''. In it, Dr. Gee explored whether or not the ancient Egyptians considered their sacred texts to be divinely written. In reference to the tale of Setne, Dr. Gee notes that “in this text, the book is said to be written "by his own hand” (n-dr.t=h=f) upon papyrus (dmʼ) which need not be taken as indicating anything more than authorship.”{{ref|fn.13}}

This newly published evidence bolsters the LDS apologetic claim that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” need not be construed as meaning an autographical nature for the text. As argued by Nibley and Shirts, it could merely be indicative of attributing authorship to Abraham. It is possible that the phrase, indeed the entire title, was redacted by the 2nd century copyist scribe working with the text, assuming that, as argued by Professor Gee, there was in fact a portion of papyri that contained a text like the Book of Abraham. Considering the nature of Egyptian texts, as explained by Nibley, it wouldnʼt have been out of place for an Egyptian, or, as Kevin Barney has argued,{{ref|fn.14}} a Jewish redactor of the text to insert the phrase. And if this is the case, from the ancient Egyptian perspective the phrase wouldn’t automatically indicate a holographic nature of the text.

==Option #2: “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” as a 19th Century Redaction==

If Nibley is incorrect in suggesting that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” was a part of the original title of the ancient text, then it follows that the phrase is a 19th century redaction by either Joseph Smith, or the two scribes in whose handwriting the documents are written in, viz., W. W. Phelps and Willard Richards, respectively. This is bolstered, as mentioned earlier, by the addition of the phrase “and found in the catacombs of Egypt” that appear in KEPA 1. It is obvious from the historical data that Joseph Smith and the early brethren considered the scroll of Horos to be the source of the Book of Abraham (though not, as is argued by the critics, necessarily the Book of Breathings text). It seems likely that the early brethren, when working with the papyrus, would have assumed a holographic nature of the papyrus. In other words, they would have thought that Abraham himself physically wrote on the papyrus in their possession. As Michael Ash explained, “it seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph may have believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating... Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham and it would have been natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri.”{{ref|fn.15}}

The late Luke Wilson, of the decidedly anti-Mormon Institute for Religious Research, came to similar conclusions, albeit for more polemical purposes against the Latter-day Saints. After making his case that Joseph Smith claimed to be translating a holographic Book of Abraham, Wilson concludes that “the weight of evidence from the testimony of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries is clearly” in favor of such.{{ref|fn.16}}

If these claims are correct,{{ref|fn.17}} then it would explain why Joseph Smith and his associates included the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” in the caption of the manuscript of the text. They would have thought just that, namely, that Abraham himself penned the text that Joseph Smith was translating. In this case then, the phrase “by his own hand” would therefore be interpreted in the most literal sense possible.

Furthermore, if in fact the phrase is a 19th century redaction, then the Book of Abraham itself wouldnʼt be claiming an autographical nature. Such would be an assumption about the Book of Abraham by the 19th century brethren, who inserted the phrase. Based on no evidence within the text itself can the critics decry the Book of Abraham as claiming a holographic nature.

==A Question of Assumptions==

But is it troubling that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries may have assumed an autobiographical nature of the text? This depends on oneʼs
assumptions. If one is inclined towards a fundamentalist assumption (which is also a presentist assumption) about Prophets, or that Prophets must be 100% right 100% of the time or else they are not Prophets at all, then one could cite this as evidence of Joseph Smithʼs fraud. If one believes that Prophets must always be right lest they compromise their prophetic calling, then this is problematic for Joseph Smith.

However, in order to establish that Joseph Smithʼs prophetic abilities are hampered or called into question by this possible assumption of his, one must ﬁrst cite evidence that Joseph Smithʼs understanding of the nature of the papyrus (namely, whether or not it dated to the time of Abraham) came from revelatory or divine means. Only then can one question Joseph Smith. It would be folly to criticize Joseph the Prophet when merely Joseph the speculator or Joseph the assumer was speaking. If the Prophet Joseph Smith never claimed on a prophetic or revelatory basis to know if the papyri was a holograph of Abraham, then one cannot attack him for a position he never took.

If on the other hand the Prophet did base his belief on a holographic nature of the papyri on purely human speculation or thought, then it only necessitates that the Prophet had a mistaken speculation. As Michael Ash has demonstrated at length, Prophets, especially those of the LDS tradition, have never claimed infallibility. If one acknowledges the fact that Joseph Smith never himself claimed infallibility or omniscience, and does not carry such a fundamentalist assumption about the nature of Prophets, then this is all much ado about nothing. Returning to Ash’s article once again:

Now 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 or most likely misinformed belief, according to modern scholarship, 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 according to his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri.{{ref|fn.19}}

Furthermore, Joseph Smith’s own assumptions or thoughts about whether or not the papyri was holographic in nature is independent of the actual authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Regardless of what Joseph Smith or others may have thought as per the nature of the text (if it be holographic or not) such has no implications for what the text itself actually claims or whether Joseph Smith was able to actually translate such by the gift and power of God.

Thus, the whole question revolves more around one’s assumptions about Prophets than the actual Book of Abraham.

==Conclusion==

Whether or not one accepts that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” is an ancient or modern redaction to the text, a few things are certain.

First, if the phrase was a part of the ancient title of the text then there is no justification from the Egyptological evidence that the phrase requires a holographic nature of the papyri. The ancient Egyptians who used the phrase or ones like it never mandated that such be viewed as implying holographic claims.

Second, if the phrase is a 19th century redaction to the text then this is an issue concerning not the Book of Abraham's authenticity but the assumptions of Joseph Smith and his associates. If Joseph Smith did in fact harbor such assumptions, that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the actual Book of Abraham itself. Likewise, unless it can be shown that Joseph Smith’s views of the nature of the authorship of the papyri came by revelatory means, then one cannot hold the Prophet to an impossible standard of perfection (one that the Prophet never established for himself) and criticize him for merely doing what humans do; have opinions and speculations.

Thirdly, if the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” is a 19th century redaction and if Joseph Smith assumed a holographic nature of the papyri, then the whole issue is one of assumption. If one believes that Prophets must be right about everything or they are false prophets, then such an assumption reflects only the thoughts and background of the person holding the assumption. The same for those who hold no such assumption and acknowledge the fallibility of Prophets. We should therefore be careful to not impose our own assumptions on those figures in the past who may not have shared such assumptions or standards.

In either case, the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” cannot be used as a club against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. If anything, it is actually confirmatory evidence of the book’s ancient authenticity or a statement on the assumptions of Joseph Smith (and, by association, our own assumptions as well), and nothing more.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn.0}} This wiki article is based on a paper written by Stephen O. Smoot and included here with his permission. Given the nature of a wiki project, the original may have been edited, added to, or otherwise modified.
#{{note|fn.1}} "The Book of Abraham," ''Times and Seasons'' 3 (1842): 704. KEPA 4, the manuscript used for publication of the first installments of the Book of Abraham and written in the hand of Willard Richards, likewise contains this caption used in the ''Times and Seasons''.
#{{note|fn.2}} {{Nibley18|pages=546}}
#{{note|fn.3}} Unless otherwise noted, the assumption underlying this article run along the so-called “missing papyrus theory” as proposed by scholars such as Professor John Gee. This theory states that Joseph Smith owned a portion of physical papyri dating to the Ptolemaic Era that contained the text of the Book of Abraham as translated by the Prophet but that said papyri were subsequently destroyed and are no longer extant. See: [[Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|Missing papyrus?]] for further details.
#{{note|fn.4}} {{NibleyAE|pages=4}} Reprinted in {{Nibley14_1|start=1–}}.
#{{note|fn.5}} {{BYUS1|author=Hugh Nibley|article=As Things Stand at the Moment|vol=9|num=1|date=1968|start=74-78}}{{nl}}
#{{note|fn.6}} {{NibleyAE|pages=4–7}}
#{{note|fn.7}} {{FR-11-1-9}} See pages 82–83.
#{{note|fn.8}} McGreggor and Shirts, 82–83.
#{{note|fn.9}} {{GuideJSP1| start=25–28}}
#{{note|fn.10}} This is falling in line with the traditional LDS understanding of the Book of Abraham. Namely, that it is not pseudepigraphical, but was written by Abraham himself. There are, it should be noted, some scholars who do theorize that the text translated by Joseph Smith was pseudepigraphical, dated to the Hellenic world. Other LDS scholars, such as Dr. Nibley, have even compared the text of the Book of Abraham to other Hellenic pseudepigrapha. Such an attempt at textual justification for an ancient Book of Abraham text, however, should not be seen as it is by some as equating the Book of Abraham with ancient pseudepigrapha.
#{{note|fn.11}} This assumes, of course, that Joseph Smith translated physical papyri and did not receive the Book of Abraham on purely revelatory means as per the “catalyst theory” for the Book of Abraham.
#{{note|fn.12}} Admittedly, the phrase “and found in the catacombs of Egypt” does cast doubt on the claim that “by his own hand” was a part of the ancient title as it is clearly 19th century editorializing. However, it is possible that it is just that; a 19th century editorializing of the text. It does not completely refute Nibley’s thesis.
#{{note|fn.13}} J. Gee, “Were Egyptian Texts Divinely Written?”, ''Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists'', ed. J. C. Goyon, C. Cardin (Paris: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies Leuven, 2007), 806. Parenthetically, this article has other implications for Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith Papyri studies, not the least of them being Professor Gee’s discussion of the fact that the so-called “Book of Breathings Made by Isis” text should actually be called the “Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis”. In light of Hugh Nibley’s studies of the Joseph Smith Papyri in 1975 and Professor Gee’s studies published in 2006, this new understanding advances the concept of the Letter of Fellowship text as an more of an initiatory text than an actual “funerary text”. See, respectively, {{NibleyMJSP1|start=1}}, Reprinted as {{Nibley16_1|start=1}}; John Gee, “The Use of the Daily Temple Liturgy in the Book of the Dead,” ''Sonderdruck aus Totenbuch-Forchungen'', eds. B. Burkhard, I. Munro, S. Stöhr (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 73–86.
#{{note|fn.14}} {{BarneyJred1|start=107–130}}
#{{note|fn.15}} Michael Ash, “Book of Abraham 201: Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology”, presented at the 2006 FAIR Conference. {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Book_of_Abraham_201.html}} (Accessed 29 August, 2009).
#{{note|fn.16}} L. Wilson, “Did Joseph Smith claim His Abraham Papyrus was an Autograph?”, (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 2006), 12. It is not within the scope of this paper to attempt an engagement or refutation of Wilson’s main arguments. Needless to say, Wilson (p. 12) himself admits that “the nature of the evidence presented in this paper is circumstantial and inferential on a number of points.” 
#{{note|fn.17}} This is by no means the consensus view. Several LDS apologists and scholars have likewise tackled this issue, and have come to different conclusions than Ash and Wilson. Ben McGuire, writing for FAIR, has critiqued Wilson on a number of points, including the assertions made by Wilson that Joseph Smith assumed a holographic nature of the text. See B. McGuire, “Responding to Errors in an Anti-Mormon Film: “The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim” (Redding: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2002). {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf}} (Accessed 29 August, 2009).
#{{note|fn.18}} {{SFS|pages=19–34}}
#{{note|fn.19}} Ash, "Book of Abraham 2001."

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{BookofAbrahamWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{BookofAbrahamFAIR}}

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

===Printed material===
{{BookofAbrahamPrint}}
[[Category:Book of Abraham]]

Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant/Did Oliver admit hoax

2009-08-28T12:33:58Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Provenance of the letter */ punctuation

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Oliver Cowdery admitted to his law partner that the Book of Mormon was a hoax, and that it was derived from the Spalding manuscript.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*Robert B. Neal, COWDERY'S RECANTATION CONFIRMED, "Sword of Laban" Leaflets, No. 13., ''The American Anti-Mormon Association'', 1907.
**Stephen Van Eck, "The Book of Mormon: One Too Many M's," (2002). (Source: Neal)

==Response==
===Letter from Judge W. Lang===
The following letter was published in an anti-Mormon flyer in November 1881. The letter is said to have been written by Judge W. Lang, a law partner of Oliver Cowdery during the period between his excommunication and re-baptism. The entire letter is reproduced below:

:TIFFIN, O., Nov. 5, 1881,

:DEAR SIR: -- Your note of the 1st inst. I found upon my desk when I returned home this evening and I hasten to answer. Once for all, I desire to be strictly understood when I say to you that I cannot violate any confidence of a friend, though he be dead.

:This I will say, that Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anybody except to me. We were intimate friends.

:The plates were never translated and could not be, were never intended to be. What is claimed to be a translation is the "Manuscript Found" worked over by Cowdery. He was the best scholar amongst them. Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburg, as I have stated. I often expressed my objection to the frequent repetition of "And it came to pass" to Mr. Cowdery, and said that a true scholar ought to have avoided that, which only provoked a smile from Cowdery. Without going into detail or disclosing a confided word, I say to you that I do know, as well as can now be known, that Cowdery revised the "manuscript," and Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the "Book of Mormon."

:I have no knowledge of what became of the original. Never heard Cowdery say as to that.

:Smith was killed while Cowdery lived here. I well remember the effect upon his countenance when he read the news in my presence. He immediately took the paper over home to read to his wife. On his return to the office we had a long conversation on the subject, and I was surprised to hear him speak with so much kindness of a man that had so wronged him as Smith did. It elevated him greatly in my already high esteem, and proved to me more than ever the nobility of his nature. Cowdery never gave me a full history of the troubles of the Mormons in Missouri and Illimois, but I am sure that the doctrine of polygamy was advocated by Smith and opposed by Cowdery.

:Then when they became rivals for the leadership, Smith made use of this opposition by Cowdery, to destroy his popularity and influence, which finally culminated in the mob that demolished Cowdery's house the night when he fled.

:This Whitmer you speak of must be the brother-in-law of Cowdery, whose wife was a Whitmer. It may be true that Whitmer has the original MS.

:Now as to whether Cowdery ever "openly denounced Mormonism," let me say this to you: No man ever knew better than he how to keep one's own counsel. He would never allow any man to drag him into a conversation on the subject. Cowdery was a Democrat and a most powerful advocate of the principles of the party on the stump. For this he became the target of the Whig stumpers and press, who denounced him as a Mormon and made free use of Cowdery's certificate * at the end of the Mormon Bible to crush his influence. He suffered great abuse for this, while he lived here on that account.

:In the second year of his residence here, he and his family attached themselves to the Methodist Protestant Church, where they held fellowship to the time they left for Elkhorn.

:I have now said about all that I feet at liberty to say on these points, and hope it may aid you some in your researches. If Mrs. Cowdery is still living, I would be glad to learn her post-office address, so as to enable me to write to her.

:You have now the substance of all I remember on the subject and if it proves of any benefit to your enterprise (to which I wish you success), you are certainly welcome. I could only answer your questions in the manner I did, because some of them were not susceptible of a direct answer by me. Resptfully yours, W. LANG.

===Analysis of the letter===
There are a number of items mentioned in the letter which make this claim suspect.
#The letter was written over thirty years after Oliver Cowdery's death.
#The idea that Oliver would claim that the Book of Mormon was derived from the [[Book of Mormon and Spaulding manuscript|Spalding's "Manuscript found."]] This claim was made by Lang in 1881, while the Spalding theory still had some traction. The theory collapsed three years later in 1884 with the discovery of Spalding's manuscript. The primary support for the Spalding theory were the [[The Hurlbut affidavits#Spalding manuscript claims and reliability|affidavits collected by Doctor Phiastus Hurlbut]] from Solomon Spalding's family and neighbors published in E.D. Howe's 1834 anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed.'' With the discovery that the Spalding manuscript did not support their theory, critics postulated the existence of a ''second'' Spalding manuscript in order to explain the affidavits of Spalding's neighbors. Critic Fawn Brodie actually ''discounted'' these affidavits, suggesting that some "judicious prompting" by Hurlbut may have been involved in the affidavits that were gathered to support the Spalding theory.{{ref|brodie1}}
#The idea that Sidney Rigdon obtained the Spalding manuscript while in Pittsburgh. Sidney Rigdon did not meet Joseph Smith until after he saw the Book of Mormon for the first time. There is absolutely no source which indicates a connection between Sidney and Joseph prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.
#The author's insistence that he cannot "violate any confidence of a friend, though he be dead," yet share a detail which would be as devastating as this, then conclude by saying that he "really can't say much more "[w]ithout going into detail or disclosing a confided word" of his friend. Lang even covers the fact that Oliver never said this to anyone else by claiming that "Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anybody except to me."

===Provenance of the letter===
The 1881 letter is no longer extant and there is reason to believe that all or part of the letter is a forgery. After reviewing claims made about the letter's provenance, Spalding theory researcher Dale Broadhurst concludes, "Judge Lang's purported 1881 reference to Solomon Spalding's ''Manuscript Found'' should be viewed with a modicum of scholarly distrust."

It seems unlikely that two Spalding theorists (William Lang and Thomas Gregg) suppressed Oliver's devastating admission in their own publications. A third Spalding theorist, Rev. Robert B. Neal, printed the 1881 letter between the first two only after their deaths. In the same 1906 tract, Neal also published the known forgery ''Defense in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter-day Saints.'' That he pointed out his sensational Oliver Cowdery material to his readers specifically to raise money may indicate an additional motive for fabricating evidence.

As noted, William Lang's own writings published in his lifetime do not use Oliver Cowdery to support the Spalding theory. Lang's 1880 ''History of Seneca County'' mentions Cowdery multiple times. For example, Lang became a legal apprentice to Cowdery soon after his 1840 move to Tiffin, Ohio (p. 387). In a lengthy appendix on Mormonism (p 646- ), Lang makes a reference to Cowdery being "a respected citizen" who had lived there, and a few paragraphs later introduces the Spalding theory without using Cowdery as a source. He also has a two-page biography (p. 364-5) about Oliver Cowdery where he hints that "Cowdery had more to do with the production of the Mormon Bible than its history ever gave him credit for," but nothing connects Oliver to the Spalding manuscript.

The supposed recipient of the letter, Thomas Gregg, was a long time newspaper publisher in the Hancock, Illinois, area. His intermittent associate in the newspaper business, Thomas Sharp, had played a large role in stirring up anti-Mormons to kill Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Frank Worrell, Gregg's brother-in-law, had failed to protect the Smiths as a guard at Carthage jail and was later shot by the deputized Porter Rockwell at the behest of the non-Mormon sheriff, Jacob Backenstos. Many of his publications over a 50-year span set forth his less-than-impartial version of Mormon history. For example, his 1880 History of Hancock county contained a lengthy Mormon section. More to the point, in 1890 he published the 550 page ''The Prophet of Palmyra''. Gregg's biographer describes it thusly:

:It is not so much a biography of Smith as a history of the Latter Day Saints' Church from the appearance of The Book of Mormon through the exodus from Illinois. Here, too, Gregg's attitude toward the Prophet and other Mormon leaders is consistently negative. He views The Book of Mormon as a carefully planned deception, based partly on Solomon Spaulding's ''Manuscript Found'' (c. 1813), and he relies on a number of Mormon exposes - such as E. D. Howe's ''Mormonism Unveiled'' (1834) and William Harris's ''Mormonism Portrayed'' -for information about Smith.

Despite a desire to defend and document the Spalding theory, Thomas Gregg did not print William Lang's supposed 1881 letter.

===What did Oliver himself say?===
Oliver Cowdery made many statements during his life, even during the period during which he had been excommunicated from the church, in which he confirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Oliver even testified of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon even as he was dying.

:Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.{{ref|cowdery1}}

This is not consistent with Lang's story of a man who readily admitted to a hoax of the magnitude that he suggests.

==Conclusion==
If not among the forgeries promulgated by Robert Neal, William Lang's letter repeats the standard Spalding theory and disingenuously assigns this claim to Oliver Cowdery, who had been dead for over thirty years and was not available to rebut the claim.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|brodie1}}Fawn M. Brodie, [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 446–447.
#{{note|cowdery3}} Andrew Jenson, ''LDS Biographical Encyclopedia'' (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 1:246.

==Further reading==

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

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

===Video===
{{Video:Anderson:2004:Witnesses of the Book of Mormon}}

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

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

Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Recant/Did Oliver admit hoax

2009-08-28T12:30:34Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Analysis of the letter */ typo

==Criticism==
Critics claim that Oliver Cowdery admitted to his law partner that the Book of Mormon was a hoax, and that it was derived from the Spalding manuscript.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*Robert B. Neal, COWDERY'S RECANTATION CONFIRMED, "Sword of Laban" Leaflets, No. 13., ''The American Anti-Mormon Association'', 1907.
**Stephen Van Eck, "The Book of Mormon: One Too Many M's," (2002). (Source: Neal)

==Response==
===Letter from Judge W. Lang===
The following letter was published in an anti-Mormon flyer in November 1881. The letter is said to have been written by Judge W. Lang, a law partner of Oliver Cowdery during the period between his excommunication and re-baptism. The entire letter is reproduced below:

:TIFFIN, O., Nov. 5, 1881,

:DEAR SIR: -- Your note of the 1st inst. I found upon my desk when I returned home this evening and I hasten to answer. Once for all, I desire to be strictly understood when I say to you that I cannot violate any confidence of a friend, though he be dead.

:This I will say, that Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anybody except to me. We were intimate friends.

:The plates were never translated and could not be, were never intended to be. What is claimed to be a translation is the "Manuscript Found" worked over by Cowdery. He was the best scholar amongst them. Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburg, as I have stated. I often expressed my objection to the frequent repetition of "And it came to pass" to Mr. Cowdery, and said that a true scholar ought to have avoided that, which only provoked a smile from Cowdery. Without going into detail or disclosing a confided word, I say to you that I do know, as well as can now be known, that Cowdery revised the "manuscript," and Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the "Book of Mormon."

:I have no knowledge of what became of the original. Never heard Cowdery say as to that.

:Smith was killed while Cowdery lived here. I well remember the effect upon his countenance when he read the news in my presence. He immediately took the paper over home to read to his wife. On his return to the office we had a long conversation on the subject, and I was surprised to hear him speak with so much kindness of a man that had so wronged him as Smith did. It elevated him greatly in my already high esteem, and proved to me more than ever the nobility of his nature. Cowdery never gave me a full history of the troubles of the Mormons in Missouri and Illimois, but I am sure that the doctrine of polygamy was advocated by Smith and opposed by Cowdery.

:Then when they became rivals for the leadership, Smith made use of this opposition by Cowdery, to destroy his popularity and influence, which finally culminated in the mob that demolished Cowdery's house the night when he fled.

:This Whitmer you speak of must be the brother-in-law of Cowdery, whose wife was a Whitmer. It may be true that Whitmer has the original MS.

:Now as to whether Cowdery ever "openly denounced Mormonism," let me say this to you: No man ever knew better than he how to keep one's own counsel. He would never allow any man to drag him into a conversation on the subject. Cowdery was a Democrat and a most powerful advocate of the principles of the party on the stump. For this he became the target of the Whig stumpers and press, who denounced him as a Mormon and made free use of Cowdery's certificate * at the end of the Mormon Bible to crush his influence. He suffered great abuse for this, while he lived here on that account.

:In the second year of his residence here, he and his family attached themselves to the Methodist Protestant Church, where they held fellowship to the time they left for Elkhorn.

:I have now said about all that I feet at liberty to say on these points, and hope it may aid you some in your researches. If Mrs. Cowdery is still living, I would be glad to learn her post-office address, so as to enable me to write to her.

:You have now the substance of all I remember on the subject and if it proves of any benefit to your enterprise (to which I wish you success), you are certainly welcome. I could only answer your questions in the manner I did, because some of them were not susceptible of a direct answer by me. Resptfully yours, W. LANG.

===Analysis of the letter===
There are a number of items mentioned in the letter which make this claim suspect.
#The letter was written over thirty years after Oliver Cowdery's death.
#The idea that Oliver would claim that the Book of Mormon was derived from the [[Book of Mormon and Spaulding manuscript|Spalding's "Manuscript found."]] This claim was made by Lang in 1881, while the Spalding theory still had some traction. The theory collapsed three years later in 1884 with the discovery of Spalding's manuscript. The primary support for the Spalding theory were the [[The Hurlbut affidavits#Spalding manuscript claims and reliability|affidavits collected by Doctor Phiastus Hurlbut]] from Solomon Spalding's family and neighbors published in E.D. Howe's 1834 anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed.'' With the discovery that the Spalding manuscript did not support their theory, critics postulated the existence of a ''second'' Spalding manuscript in order to explain the affidavits of Spalding's neighbors. Critic Fawn Brodie actually ''discounted'' these affidavits, suggesting that some "judicious prompting" by Hurlbut may have been involved in the affidavits that were gathered to support the Spalding theory.{{ref|brodie1}}
#The idea that Sidney Rigdon obtained the Spalding manuscript while in Pittsburgh. Sidney Rigdon did not meet Joseph Smith until after he saw the Book of Mormon for the first time. There is absolutely no source which indicates a connection between Sidney and Joseph prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.
#The author's insistence that he cannot "violate any confidence of a friend, though he be dead," yet share a detail which would be as devastating as this, then conclude by saying that he "really can't say much more "[w]ithout going into detail or disclosing a confided word" of his friend. Lang even covers the fact that Oliver never said this to anyone else by claiming that "Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anybody except to me."

===Provenance of the letter===
The 1881 letter is no longer extant and there is reason to believe that all or part of the letter is a forgery. After reviewing claims made about the letter's provenance, Spalding theory researcher Dale Broadhurst, concludes "Judge Lang's purported 1881 reference to Solomon Spalding's ''Manuscript Found'' should be viewed with a modicum of scholarly distrust."

It seems unlikely that two Spalding theorists (William Lang and Thomas Gregg) suppressed Oliver's devastating admission in their own publications. A third Spalding theorist, Rev. Robert B. Neal, printed the 1881 letter between the first two only after their deaths. In the same 1906 tract, Neal also published the known forgery ''Defense in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter-day Saints.'' That he pointed out his sensational Oliver Cowdery material to his readers specifically to raise money, may indicate an additional motive for fabricating evidence.

As noted, William Lang's own writings published in his lifetime do not use Oliver Cowdery to support the Spalding theory. Lang's 1880 ''History of Seneca County'' mentions Cowdery multiple times. For example, Lang became a legal apprentice to Cowdery soon after his 1840 move to Tiffin, Ohio (p. 387). In a lengthy appendix on Mormonism (p 646- ), Lang makes a reference to Cowdery being "a respected citizen" who had lived there and a few paragraphs later introduces the Spalding theory without using Cowdery as a source. He also has a 2 page biography (p. 364-5) about Oliver Cowdery where he hints that "Cowdery had more to do with the production of the Mormon Bible than its history ever gave him credit for," but nothing connects Oliver to the Spalding manuscript.

The supposed recipient of the letter, Thomas Gregg, was a long time newspaper publisher in the Hancock, Illinois area. His intermittent associate in the newspaper business, Thomas Sharp, had played a large role in stirring up anti-Mormons to kill Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Frank Worrell, Gregg's brother-in-law had failed to protect the Smiths as a guard at Carthage jail and was later shot by the deputized Porter Rockwell at the behest of the non-Mormon sheriff, Jacob Backenstos. Many of his publications over a 50 year old span set forth his less-than-impartial version of Mormon history. For example, his 1880 History of Hancock county contained a lengthy Mormon section. More to the point, in 1890 he published the 550 page ''The Prophet of Palmyra''. Gregg's biographer describes it thusly:

:It is not so much a biography of Smith as a history of the Latter Day Saints' Church from the appearance of The Book of Mormon through the exodus from Illinois. Here, too, Gregg's attitude toward the Prophet and other Mormon leaders is consistently negative. He views The Book of Mormon as a carefully planned deception, based partly on Solomon Spaulding's ''Manuscript Found'' (c. 1813), and he relies on a number of Mormon exposes - such as E. D. Howe's ''Mormonism Unveiled'' (1834) and William Harris's ''Mormonism Portrayed'' -for information about Smith.

Despite a desire to defend and document the Spalding theory, Thomas Gregg did not print William Lang's supposed 1881 letter.

===What did Oliver himself say?===
Oliver Cowdery made many statements during his life, even during the period during which he had been excommunicated from the church, in which he confirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Oliver even testified of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon even as he was dying.

:Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.{{ref|cowdery1}}

This is not consistent with Lang's story of a man who readily admitted to a hoax of the magnitude that he suggests.

==Conclusion==
If not among the forgeries promulgated by Robert Neal, William Lang's letter repeats the standard Spalding theory and disingenuously assigns this claim to Oliver Cowdery, who had been dead for over thirty years and was not available to rebut the claim.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|brodie1}}Fawn M. Brodie, [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 446–447.
#{{note|cowdery3}} Andrew Jenson, ''LDS Biographical Encyclopedia'' (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 1:246.

==Further reading==

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

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

===Video===
{{Video:Anderson:2004:Witnesses of the Book of Mormon}}

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

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

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:59:33Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, ''MormonThink's'' claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given ''MormonThink's'' stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}

===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most 19th century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}

===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period—and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}

===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of "tradition"? We suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}

===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:57:23Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ punctuation

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, ''MormonThink's'' claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given ''MormonThink's'' stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}

===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most 19th century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}

===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period—and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}

===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:54:40Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, ''MormonThink's'' claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given ''MormonThink's'' stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}

===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most 19th century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}

===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:44:23Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ consistent italics

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, ''MormonThink's'' claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given ''MormonThink's'' stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}

===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:43:38Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ consistent italics

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, ''MormonThink'''s claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given ''MormonThink'''s stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}

===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:33:17Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ punctuation

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had "tricked" the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}

===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:30:54Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ grammar

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. However, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}

===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:08:08Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ punctuation

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site authors may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—one of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:06:04Z

TanyaSpackman: /* A list of things that "would make the Church true" */ making italics consistent

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of ''MormonThink'' authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site author's may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—One of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:04:47Z

TanyaSpackman: /* A list of things that "would make the Church true" */

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to ''MormonThink.com'', if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of MormonThink authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site author's may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—One of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T13:04:01Z

TanyaSpackman: /* What quality of "thinking" is recommended? */ punctuation

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'', then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of MormonThink authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site author's may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—One of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink

2009-08-12T12:56:59Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Summary */ punctuation error

__NOTOC__
=''MormonThink's'' list of 25 items that would "make the Church true"=
{{Epigraph|You say that I may have contributed to “accelerating someone’s journey through Mormonism”. That seems to imply that they would eventually leave Mormonism anyway so all I did was speed up the process. If that’s the case, I would say that I probably did them a favor. If they would eventually leave the church regardless then isn’t it better that they make that decision now and just move on? —"Truthseeker," webmaster at MormonThink.com, email, July 7, 2009}}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of [those] camouflaged as..."Latter-day Saint[s]"....I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. —Stephen Robinson{{ref|robinson.1}}}}

=Overview=
==FAIR's evaluation of the web site ''MormonThink''==

*FAIR's responses to "Ask the Apologist" queries and data from the FAIR Wiki are placed in a context in which they are misrepresented to support the site's negative conclusions. FAIR does not endorse the use of its material to bolster the negative conclusions drawn by the ''MormonThink'' site, or the way in which the site addresses issues of LDS belief, history, and scripture which FAIR views as flawed in significant ways.
*It is encouraging that a few small changes were made when LDS members pointed out various problems. However, though this seems to enhance the site's veneer of balance, the conclusions and insinuation about the Church, its leaders, and its members remain the same—always negative.
* It is ironic that a site which frequently criticizes the Church for a lack of "honesty" or "transparency" claims to be a source operated by faithful and believing members who are not forthright about their own identities.

==Summary==
The web site ''MormonThink.com'' claims to be operated by active members of the Church with an interest in presenting objectively the "truth" about Mormonism. In general, the conclusions reached by the site reflect negatively on the Church. Its purpose is to introduce members to as much information as possible in order to persuade them to "think" their way out of the Church, and, quite possibly, a belief in God. The site operators state they "would rather have a somewhat smaller church full of knowledgeable, loyal, full-believing members than a large church full of inactive, semi-believing members." The site is a popular reference for many anti-Mormon sites because it claims to be balanced due to its inclusion of links to a few faith-promoting sites such as FAIR. In fact, answers to questions sent to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" have been included on the site and used to "support" some of the site's negative conclusions by omitting context and relevant information.

==What quality of "thinking" is recommended?==
The site is not merely an attempt to "steady the ark" by redirecting the Church according to the vision of its authors, but in some ways represents an attempt to actually lead members out of the church. The site's overall attitude toward religion is best summarized by their link to a routine by the late comedian George Carlin called "Religion is BS". ''MormonThink'' comments:
<blockquote>
''Comedian George Carlin has a 10 minute bit on why all religion is phony. Although comedic (and irreverent), it does make you think.''
</blockquote>
Thus, according to ''MormonThink'', the validity of truth claims of not only the Church, but of ''any'' religion, ought to be reevaluated in light of a 10-minute shtick performed by a comedian. This is like recommending that one renegotiate his or her faith after viewing Bill Maher's [[Religulous]]. ''This'' then, represents the level of "thinking" that ''MormonThink'' wishes readers to engage in. While encouraging an honest, objective look at the Church, the site does not uphold the standards it claims, as discussed below.

=A list of things that "would make the Church true"=
According to MormonThink.com, if the Church actually contained God's truth and authority, "we would expect the following things to have happened in this way." The following is a list of issues presented by the website followed by FAIR's response. Most of the list are actually standard anti-Mormon fare, issues FAIR believes have been "asked and answered" many times. Nearly all points appeal to some type of intellectual or religious fundamentalism.

Further, it seems odd, to say the least, that a site devoted to "Mormon thinking" would express a series of items that would "make the Church true." Is one to assume that if this list were not required, in the eyes of MormonThink authors, that the Church would somehow be true? Nowhere do the authors address the very simple concept that the best way to find out whether the Church is true is to do what God directs—to ask Him. This list doesn't represent what would make the Church true; it represents a list of things which its authors feel make the Church false.

'''Note:''' All of the following questions in the blue boxes come from the ''MormonThink'' web page <nowiki>www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm</nowiki>.

{{Heading2|1. Joseph would have told the same version of the First Vision throughout his life. He would have gotten the details correct surrounding the most important, spectacular moment anyone could ever have in this life.}}

===Response===
* One might expect a performer or con-man to tell the same story in exactly the same words to every audience.
* Joseph's accounts of the First Vision are both stable and consistent through time.
* The supposed "contradictions" are more in the minds of critics than in the texts themselves and this criticism is a form of question-begging.
* {{ReadMore|First_Vision/Accounts|l1=First Vision: accounts}}

{{Heading2|2. Joseph's five brothers (and probably the rest of the household) that were sleeping in his room on September 21, 1823 would have been awakened by the presence of Moroni. They would have testified of his visit as well.}}
===Response===
*Admittedly, FAIR found this point odd, considering Joseph's visions involved both natural and supernatural elements, yet ''MormonThink'' spends over 3600 words in explanation (<nowiki>http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>). FAIR's response is much simpler:
*{{s||Luke|1|37}}
<blockquote>
''For with God nothing shall be impossible.''
</blockquote>
*The web site author's may wish to look at page 54 of the August 2009 ''Ensign''. The painting "He called me by name," by Liz Lemon Swindle shows Joseph sitting up in his bed listening to Moroni. All three of his siblings are fast asleep alongside him. The official Church website ''also'' shows such a painting—One of Joseph's siblings is [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD clearly shown asleep during Moroni's visit.]
*{{ReadMore|Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep|l1=Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?}}

{{Heading2|3. If the angel did indeed take back the gold plates and the urim and thummim from Joseph when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages, he would have returned the urim and thummim to Joseph when he returned the gold plates to him, instead of having Joseph finish the translation using a common stone he found when digging a well.}}

===Response===
* If Joseph was perpetuating a scam, why would he use a method—the seer stone in the hat—that would be open to ridicule and misrepresentation? If he could perform the impressive feat of producing the Book of Mormon in two months, why not do it with eyes closed in a solemn voice to impress everyone? There are too many hypothetical points to consider to allow such a criticism carry much weight.
* The critic overlooks the fact that the translation process was also a spiritual growing experience for Joseph. Granted, he initially required the Nephite interpreters and was thrilled with them. But, with practice, his abilities increased to the point that he did not require the use of the physical interpreters or seer stones.
* Joseph did not regard the stone as "common"—he and the early saints referred to both the Nephite interpreters and his other seer stones as Urim and Thummim. Joseph was unable to translate when Martin Harris secretly swapped the seer stone with a common stone.
* {{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Seer stones|l1=Joseph Smith: seer stones|Joseph_Smith/Seer stones#Why_did_use_of_the_seer_stones_subside.3F|l2=Spiritual growth during translation process}}

{{Heading2|4. Joseph would likely have actually used the gold plates in the translation process, instead of putting an ordinary stone in a hat without even looking at the plates.}}

===Response===
* This is like the "noisy angel" complaint—having Joseph translate ancient characters with divine instruments and aid with the text in front of him would be perfectly acceptable, but being able to translate the same characters ''without'' the text in front of him is too ridiculous to be believed?
* The critic fails to distinguish between early and late stages in the translation process.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon_translation_method|l1=Book of Mormon: translation method}}

{{Heading2|5. When the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would have simply retranslated the 'stolen' pages. If the pages were really stolen by evil men bent on foiling Joseph, the pages would have resurfaced in some form - either as a ransom attempt or foiled attempt to discredit Joseph. The stolen pages wouldn't have simply been destroyed by men who went to such trouble to obtain them.}}

===Response===
*The web site takes a very pedestrian view of the incident of the lost 116 pages. The Lord taught Joseph an important lesson with the loss of the manuscript, and He provided an alternate text to compensate. The Lord ''commanded'' Joseph not to retranslate the pages, therefore this is really an issue of whether or not one believes that Joseph was actually a prophet. Had the pages not been lost, we would not have the following:
*{{s||DC|3|6-10}}
<blockquote>
''And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work.''
</blockquote>
*This was an object lesson for Joseph Smith—he learned of the very real consequence of transgression.

{{Heading2|6. The translation of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham would match what Egyptologists say they mean. The rediscovered papyri would also support the Book of Abraham as well.}}
===Response===
* Evidently, the author has no professional expertise in Egyptology and hopes readers will accept the authority of non-LDS experts. Yet, there are LDS experts who disagree with the conclusions of the critics. In an area in which the author(s)—and most readers—are not competent to judge, a reasonable response might prefer less dogmatism.
* Since we are missing an estimated 80% of the papyri in Joseph's possession, the author's biases become apparent when he/she insists that the fragments we ''do'' have ''must'' support the Book of Abraham. However, it is not explained why the small parts of the whole are expected to match.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus|l1=Book of Abraham: amount of missing papyrus}}
* The author actually ignores some Egyptological translations which ''do'' match Joseph Smith's translation.
* The author also ignores the many textual elements in Joseph's translation which match the Abrahamic literature that has since become available.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Abraham/Hits|l1=Book of Abraham: hits}}
* The author neglects to account for the fact that Egyptological symbols and iconography may have been adapted when the papyri were produced, an unfortunate and simplistic assumption that does not deal with the relevant scholarship on the circumstances.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long)#A_Jewish_redactor|l1=A Jewish redactor of Egyptian symbols?}}

{{Heading2|7. The Book of Mormon would not mention things that did not exist in the Americas during Book of Mormon times such as horses, elephants, cattle, goats, wheat, barley, silk, steel, etc. It would probably mention things that did exist such as corn, yams, beans, squash, llamas, sloths, jaguars, and monkeys.}}

===Response===
* A solid understanding of the history of archeological method and findings would discourage such simplistic assertions. Many things supposed to have been "anachronisms" to Joseph Smith's contemporaries have turned out not to be anachronisms after all. More knowledge has made Joseph's construction more, not less, plausible. This trend encourages more humility when dealing with anachronism.
* The claim about anachronisms ignores the nature of translated texts—even a true anachronism in a translated text is compelling evidence for the date of the text's ''translation'', not its ''composition''.
* {{ReadMore|Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms|l1=Supposed "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon}}

{{Heading2|8. The BOM would be supported by archeological and linguistic evidence. Perhaps not so much evidence that we still wouldn't need faith, but something to show that the ancient Jews could have been in America.}}
===Response===
*The site authors are attempting to define just ''how much evidence is required'' in order to have faith. This presumption gives no compelling argument for its reasoning, and also directly contradicts the scriptures themselves. Moroni states that confirmation ''follows'' the exercise of faith, rather than the other way around:
<blockquote>
''And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.'' —{{s||Ether|12|6}}
</blockquote>
* Many believers, including members of FAIR, believe that there is abundant information available to encourage and confirm our faith.
* Archaeology and related disciplines have provided progressively more support for the Book of Mormon. Because some difficulties remain, even as the score improves, the critic hopes we will simply give up.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon archaeology}}

{{Heading2|9. There would be some remains of two large battles at the Hill Cumorah where over two million people fought and died.}}

===Response===

* The author is assuming, without demonstrating, that the Hill in which the plates were buried was the site of the Nephites' last battle, even though the Book of Mormon text contradicts this assumption.
* {{ReadMore|Archaeology_and_the_Hill_Cumorah|l1=The Hill Cumorah}}

{{Heading2|10. DNA evidence would support that the American Indians and South American peoples descended from Israel.}}
===Response===
* No LDS expert would expect that DNA evidence would provide any such support.
* LDS scholars and leaders have made remarks in this vein for [[Book_of_Mormon_geography/Statements|over a century]].
* LDS anthropologist John Sorenson warned in the ''Ensign'' as early as 1984 that this type of assumption would provide fodder for critics, and he was right. But, attentive students of such matters were aware (well ''before'' the critics discovered DNA) that such matters could say little about the Book of Mormon.{{ref|sorenson.1}}
* The author's approach requires that we read the text in the most naive, ill-informed manner possible, and ignore more than a century of work on the topic.
* {{ReadMore|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence|Book of Mormon and DNA evidence/Geography issues|l2=DNA and Geography}}

{{Heading2|11. Joseph would have either denounced the Kinderhook Plates as a fraud, or at least said he didn't know what they were.}}
===Response===
*The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is simply the fact that no one said anything about it at the time. A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to expose Joseph as a fraud, why did they wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they announce their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.
*{{ReadMore|Kinderhook Plates}}

{{Heading2|12. The witnesses would have said all objective statements testifying of the BOM's divinity. They would not have said things like "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.}}
===Response===
*Again, the historical record appears to be misrepresented. Consider the following:
<blockquote>
''And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.'' —From the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three Witnesses]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.'' —[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns From the Testimony of Eight Witnesses]
</blockquote>
*Critics wish to suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two alleged quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.” It is uninformed and misleading to present these quotes without the many other statements made by Harris and the other witnesses. Further, MormonThink's claims are unfaithful to the historical record, which is surprising, given MormonThink's stated goal of presenting accurate history. There can be no historical doubt that the witnesses regarded their vision of the plates as tangible and literal.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Spiritual or literal|"Eye of Faith"/"Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris|l1=Book of Mormon witnesses—Spiritual or literal?|l2="Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris}}

{{Heading2|13. Some of the witnesses should have been critics or skeptics and not related to each other. Each witness should have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a pre-prepared statement.}}
===Response===
*It is strange to imply that ''enemies'' of Joseph Smith ought to have been included as witnesses. The Lord only granted that privilege to those who humbled themselves and were honestly seeking the truth, not to those who were attempting to destroy it. The Lord Himself set the requirements for being a witness:
*{{s||DC|5|23-25}}
<blockquote>
''And now, again, I speak unto you, my servant Joseph, concerning the man that desires the witness—Behold, I say unto him, he exalts himself and does not humble himself sufficiently before me; but if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.''
</blockquote>
*From the time that the ''Book of Mormon'' was first published, the testimonies of the Three and Eight Witnesses were printed over their names as part of the book. At no time throughout their lives did any of these 11 men dispute what was printed in the thousands of copies of the book that went throughout the world.
* It is inaccurate to claim that none of the witnesses were skeptical—for example, Martin Harris took repeated steps to test Joseph's story by visiting Charles Anthon and swapping Joseph's seer stone for another which matched it. The witnesses used their critical faculties—but they were not unremittingly hostile.
*{{ReadMore|Book of Mormon witnesses/Character|l1=The character of the Book of Mormon witnesses}}

{{Heading2|14. God's true church would likely have been one of the first churches to proclaim equality for blacks instead of the last major religion in America to accept blacks as equals.}}
===Response===
*In some ways, the Church was actually quite progressive with regard to its attitude towards blacks during a time when slavery was an accepted part of American society. The authors simplistically employ a 21st-century term "equality for blacks" without any regard for the social fabric of the 19th-century society in which this would have occurred.
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood}}

{{Heading2|15. There would never have been teachings such as blacks received the curse from Cain for being less valiant in the pre-existence, or that they are destined to be servants only in the next life.}}
===Response===
*The concept of the "Curse of Cain" was a ''Protestant'' invention, and existed long before the Church was organized in 1830. The idea that the “mark of Cain” and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept. Early Latter-day Saint leaders who converted from Protestantism brought along many of their previous beliefs regarding the "Curse of Cain."
* This criticism reveals a naivete concerning the role of prophets. Latter-day Saints do not see prophets as perfect men removed from their environment, or without the weakness or perspectives of their host culture. Further, they do not expect God to immediately and decisively correct every error or misconception of truth. The truth is revealed "line upon line."
*{{ReadMore|Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|l1=The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"}}

{{Heading2|16. Polygamy would have never been practiced. If it was really commanded by God, then it would have been done differently. It would have been practiced openly, honestly and with dignity, with no marriages to women already married or to underage girls. Joseph's wife would have full knowledge of the marriages and would have had to give her permission for each one. And probably one additional wife would have been sufficient instead of at least 33 wives for Joseph.}}
===Response===
*The authors of the site simply assume that the practice of polygamy could never have been ordained by God. They then further qualify this by saying the ''if'' it ''were'' ordained of God, then the way that the Church practiced it was not the ''correct'' way, even going so far as to determine just ''how many'' wives would have been "sufficient."
*This is an unfortunate over-simplification of an extremely complex and difficult issue that faced the early Saints. The assumptions made by ''MormonThink'' diminish the tremendous sacrifice made by early Church members, both men and women, to practice something they sincerely believed the Lord had commanded them to do. The application of such naive or trite 21st-century retro-thinking to this issue is unlikely to provide any real understanding.
* The critic ignores that most nineteenth century members felt at least as strongly about these matters as he/she does—yet, many reported powerful spiritual experiences which convinced them of the rightness of Joseph's course of action. Such a witness is equally available to modern members who are troubled as it was to those of Joseph's day.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith and polygamy|Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations|l2=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families}}

{{Heading2|17. Joseph would not have proclaimed that a Greek Psalter was really a dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. He would have either said what it really was, or that he just didn't know.}}
===Response===
*This claims stems from a single hostile source: Henry Caswall. There is no other evidence of Henry Caswall's claim save his own overtly anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.
* Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown language—even if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. Citing this example demonstrates a clear lack of historical analysis of the sources employed. It is akin to taking reports from the ''National Enquirer'' as reliable journalism today.
*{{ReadMore|Joseph Smith/Greek psalter|l1=Joseph Smith and the Greek psalter}}

{{Heading2|18. The prophets since Joseph, including the current one, would have the same prophetic abilities Joseph had. They would finish the translation of the Bible that Joseph started, and they would get answers from God for the many troubling issues members have about the history and doctrine of the Church like blacks and the priesthood or the Book of Abraham papyri translation problems.}}
===Response===
*It is unclear why the authors assume all prophets should be identical in approach. The Bible itself demonstrates a wide variety of the nature of the prophetic office. Joseph Smith was establishing the Church. He therefore had to receive frequent, ongoing instruction in order to do so.
*The authors appear to believe that a prophet should simply ask God to answer all of the tough questions in life. This was certainly ''not'' how Joseph operated:

: Toward the end of his life [Joseph] told a Pittsburgh reporter that he could not always get a revelation when he needed one, but "he never gave anything to his people as revelation, unless it was revelation."{{ref|bushman.1}}
*{{ReadMore|Prophets don't prophesy|Fallibility of prophets|Revelation after Joseph Smith|Censorship and revision of LDS history/Hiding the facts|l1=LDS prophets don't prophesy?|l2=Prophetic inerrancy?|l3=Revelation after Joseph Smith|l4=Where have the facts of Church history been hidden?}}

{{Heading2|19. The temple endowment ceremony would not have come from the Masonry rituals that began in the middle ages.}}

===Response===
*Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory include the following facts:
#Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
#Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
#The Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment and Freemasonry}}

{{Heading2|20. The temple endowment ceremony would be a spiritual, uplifting experience for everyone that went through it, and it probably would not be so secretive.}}
===Response===
*The endowment ''is'' a spiritual, uplifting experience for those that go through it.
*What the web site authors are really saying here is that they would prefer that the endowment was different in some way. This is ironic, considering that the next criticism they offer is that the Church has ''changed'' the endowment ceremony over the years, and these changes have continued to keep the endowment in line with modern attitudes.
*We consider temple ordinances to be very sacred in nature—we do not invite or encourage the public to make it a spectacle. Consider that the text of the endowment in its various forms has been published by critical sources for many years. Why, then, are members supposed to refrain from discussing it outside the temple? Because these things, whether or not the public mocks them openly, are sacred to Latter-day Saints. We make our covenants in the temple with God, not the general public. We honor those covenants even in the face of any mockery or criticism that we are attempting to keep "secrets."

{{Heading2|21. The temple endowment ceremony would never have had...uncomfortable penalties, oath of vengeance, etc. would never have been in there either. If any of these things were really from God, then they'd still be in the ceremony now.}}
===Response===
*'''NOTE''': FAIR inserted the ellipsis in the quote above to avoid displaying temple content that was removed from the ceremony in the early 1990s. Although this particular content is no longer part of the temple ceremony, it was at the time many of us went through the temple. The covenants that we made with the Lord are still in force, and we will therefore not discuss such content in this forum.
* The critic seems unwilling to accept that the endowment is a ''symbolic'' ordinance. As John A. Widtsoe of the Twelve noted:
:We live in a world of symbols. No man or woman can come out of the temple endowed as he should be, unless he has seen, beyond the symbol, the mighty realities for which the symbols stand.{{ref|widtsoe.1}}
* Symbols both give and are given meaning. As times and culture changes, the meaning and implication of symbols can also change. The purpose of the endowment is to teach the ''reality'' for which the symbols stand. Why is it therefore surprising that the symbolic ''means'' to teach those truths would be adjusted to suit the needs of a different time? Would the critics be any happier if archaic symbols that communicated the wrong message were left in place just because of 'tradition'—we suspect not. If so, ''that'' criticism would probably find its way onto a similar list as this one.
*{{ReadMore|Temple endowment changes|Penalties in the endowment}}

{{Heading2|22. The Church would have always had the same, correct name since it was formed in 1830 and not changed four years later to a name that didn't even include Christ in the name. It would not have to change it again another four years later to yet another name.}}
===Response===
*The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in {{s||DC|115|3}}. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
*{{ReadMore|Name of the Church}}

{{Heading2|23. Testimonies wouldn't have to override facts and conflict with science.}}
===Response===
*Consider if such a statement were made in the 19th century. Many of the "facts" established by science at that time seem simplistic, misguided, or simply false in retrospect. Do the web site authors now consider all science and facts to be known?
* Most informed members do not regard their testimonies in conflict with the "facts" or "science." Indeed, Church belief and activity has been shown to ''increase'' with the amount of secular education which someone receives—this pattern bucks the trend in most faiths, suggesting that there is something intellectually compelling and satisfying about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
*{{ReadMore|Mormonism and science|Mormonism_and_education/Education_and_belief|l2=Does education threaten belief?}}

{{Heading2|24. If testimonies are real, then everyone that prays about the Church or the Book of Mormon should get the same confirming answers.}}
===Response===
*This misunderstands the LDS doctrine of seeking truth. The authors of the web site think that the search for spiritual truth should be a simple, one-step process of praying and waiting for the answer to come. Note the ''conditions'' that Moroni placed on his promise:
*{{s||Moroni|10|4}}
<blockquote>
''And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.''
</blockquote>
*Prayer is only ''one'' part of the process. If an individual prays ''without'' having a sincere heart, or ''without'' real intent, or ''lacking'' faith in Christ, then they will get the answer that they are seeking—nothing. In other words, those who pray and expect not to receive an answer, will ''not'' receive an answer.
* Moreover, how does the critic know ''what'' answer anyone else receives? Each person only has access to his own experience. How do we know others are truthful about their experiences? How do we know the critic is truthful about his/hers? We do not because we believe we cannot. We can only trust God and follow our own mind and heart—which is how it is intended to be. Truth is not discovered or declared by "majority rules."
*{{ReadMore|Burning in the bosom}}

{{Heading2|25. The true church would be the most honest of organizations. It would never publish artwork or articles in its official magazines that mislead readers as to how the Book of Mormon was translated, or that Joseph was alone when Moroni visited him. It wouldn't sugarcoat its history. The true church would be totally open and disclose what the leaders get paid (even public corporations do that). They would publish their financial statements and budgets as do many other churches. The true church would teach everything honestly and lead by example. It would not change the wording in its lesson manuals to act as if Joseph Smith and Brigham Young only had one wife each. You should never have to worry that there is another side of its history not taught by the church itself.}}
===Response===
*Artists, whether they be members of the Church or not, do not set out to mislead those who view their work. Art is the interpretation of the individual artist. The fact that the Church chooses to use the works of individual artists that may not be accurate as to historical details does not mean that the Church is attempting to be dishonest.
*With regard to "Church art" leading people to believe that Joseph was alone during Moroni's visit, we refer the reader to the August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, which shows a depiction of Moroni's visit by artist Liz Lemmon Swindle ("He Spoke My Name"). The painting clearly shows three of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed beside him as he listens to Moroni.
*{{ReadMore|Church art and historical accuracy}}
*The site states that "even public corporations" disclose what their leaders get paid. Public corporations are ''required'' to provide such information to their stockholders—''private'' organizations are not.
*It is unclear why the authors believe the Church should disclose all financial information. It would be useful to know the motivation behind the request.
*The constant accusations of dishonesty lead us to ask the question: Where do the critics think that this dishonesty is introduced? At the bishopric level? At the stake level? At the regional level? In the Quorum of the Twelve? It is difficult to imagine how a church which is operated primarily through lay leadership could institutionalize dishonesty in the manner in which the critics claim.
*{{ReadMore|No Paid Ministry}}
*Regarding the accusation that lesson manuals ought to discuss polygamy, the most accurate response can be found in the 2008-2009 lesson manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith'', (2007), pages vii–xiii:
<blockquote>
'''Teachings for Our Day'''

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

==Endnotes==
#{{note|robinson.1}} {{FR-3-1-21}}
#{{note|sorenson.1}} {{DiggingPt1}} For second part of the article, see {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20october%201984%20.htm/digging%20into%20the%20book%20of%20mormon%20our%20changing%20understanding%20of%20ancient%20america%20and%20its%20scripture%20part%202%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
#{{note|bushman.1}} {{RSR1|start=xxi}} citing ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', September 15, 1843, ''Papers of Joseph Smith'' 1:443.
#{{note|widtsoe.1}} John A. Widtsoe, "Temple Worship," ''Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine'' (April 1921): 62.

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T12:40:32Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone */ fix typo

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The website states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? Joseph didn't mention if he had short or long hair in his account, but we do not assume his head was shaved bald.

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam sleeping through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being alone—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T12:39:43Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions? */ punctuation and grammar fix

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The website states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? Joseph didn't mention if he had short or long hair in his account, but we do not assume his head was shaved bald.

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam sleeping through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T12:35:58Z

TanyaSpackman: minor grammar

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The website states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? Joseph didn't mention if he had short or long hair in his account, but we do not assume his head was shaved bald.

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Moroni's visit/Siblings remained asleep

2009-08-12T12:34:58Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Criticism */

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''MormonThink'', "Moroni's Visitation". <nowiki>http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm</nowiki>

*Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68.

==Response==
{{Main|Website reviews/MormonThink|l1=FAIR's Analysis of the website "MormonThink.com"}}

===Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?===
The web site states,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is when Moroni came and spoke with Joseph in the night of September 21, 1823, why didn't this wake up Joseph's brothers who were sleeping in the very same room with him?"
</blockquote>

Let's start with the basics. {{s||Genesis|2|21}} tells us,
<blockquote>
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
</blockquote>

What if we were to state,
<blockquote>
"Now the big question is that when the Lord God removed one of Adam's ribs, why didn't he wake up?"
</blockquote>

For anyone who believes that for God nothing is impossible, the question is simple to answer. Why, then, must we insist that Joseph's brother's ''should'' have been awakened? Why is it unreasonable to assume that God simply kept them asleep? Recall that Joseph was useless the next day on the farm. He was exhausted and totally drained from the experience. The family was very very poor, and they could not afford to take a day off of work. Had the other boys woken up with Joseph every time, they too would have been useless, and the farm would have suffered as a result. The animals wouldn't be fed, the cows wouldn't be milked, the crops wouldn't have been tended too. That would have created some severe problems for an already poverty stricken family.

Van Wagoner and Walker argue that it is possible Joseph saw Moroni in vision through his seer stone. In response, Mark Ashurst-McGee noted:
<blockquote>
"This argument falls short theoretically. For those who do not believe in Joseph's visions, there was nothing to wake anyone anyway. For those who do believe in Joseph's visions, the argument sounds theologically naive. Could not Moroni manifest himself to Joseph only? None of Paul's companions on the road to Damascus saw the resurrected Christ. A vision needs only to hold the attention of the visionary. Joseph's brothers can sleep in peace." {{ref|ashurst.293}}
</blockquote>

===Joseph didn't ''say'' that his family didn't wake up===
The site continues to drill down in detail by noting that "[t]here has never been anything recorded by Joseph Smith that the all-powerful creator used his powers to keep ten people from waking up during the night of September 21, 1823."

Why should Joseph Smith have recorded this mundane fact? Even the writer of the paragraph acknowledges that most people don't even think about it. Why should Joseph Smith have thought to mention it? Joseph didn't mention if he had short or long hair in his account, but we do not assume his head was shaved bald.

===Has God used his power to enforce sleep on other occasions?===
The site claims that there "no precedent for our Heavenly Father using his divine powers to keep people from waking up during spectacular events."

This is simply incorrect. Just a few examples from the Bible:
*Jesus sleeping in the boat during a storm
*Paul's companions not hearing or seeing Jesus appear to Paul
*Stephen's vision while being stoned
*The hosts of angels that Elijah couldn't see before him
*The angel that freed the apostles in prison
*Adam slept through his rib being removed
*The Lord calling to Samuel and Eli sleeping through it.

We also have this from the Book of Mormon ({{s||Mosiah|24|19}}),

<blockquote>
And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep.
</blockquote>

The assertion that there is "no precedent" for using "divine power" to keep people from waking up is simply a bad argument. The owners of ''MormonThink'' appear to be quite unfamiliar with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

===God altering people's consciousness?===
Now the site gets to the real point of this entire argument. The claim is presented that, "If God would actually use his powers to alter people's consciousness then how could anyone really ever trust their senses?" In other words, the entire argument is simply a setup to prove that you can't trust visions. Joseph's experience with Moroni is then characterized as "dream or a hallucination," or even a "inspired fantasy."

This entire hypothesis is based on their premature conclusion that there is no way Joseph's brothers could have slept through the experience.

===Church artwork portrays Joseph as being alone===
''Some'' Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being along—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 ''Ensign'', page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. ''Even the official LDS web site'' has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: [http://www.josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c08679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ].

==Conclusion==
The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ashurst.293}}Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 293.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Website reviews/MormonThink|FAIR's review of the website ''MormonThink.com'']]

Brigham Young/Women not to meddle

2009-06-23T15:44:49Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Presentism */

{{draft}}
==Criticism==

Brigham Young said women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God." This is used to portray Brigham as authoritarian and sexist.

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

* {{CriticalWork:Denton:American Massacre|pages=38}}

==Response==

Sally Denton uses this quote, and uses D. Michael Quinn, as her source. Unfortunately, Denton omits the context which Quinn's volume provides:

:[women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.{{ref|quinn.1}}

Brigham then continued, "When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern."{{ref|seventies.1}}

Brigham's statement about "meddling," then, in no way reflects on women's competence or skills—he insists that many know better than men. Brigham's point is that women have no right to priesthood government. This statement was probably precipitated by Emma Smith's use of her role as head of the Relief Society to resist Joseph's teachings, especially plural marriage.{{ref|emma.1}} Brigham is signaling that those without priesthood power may not dictate to ordained priesthood leaders about ''religious'' matters.

===Presentism===

The author relies on presentism, since Brigham and virtually all of his contemporaries (men ''and'' women) likely had attitudes about women's roles which would strike us as "sexist." Though the quote seems offensive and exclusionary, we need to remember the context of the time. Attitudes toward women during that time, and even 100 years later, were far from our current attitudes. It is unreasonable to expect people living in a different time to fit 21st century perspectives. Brigham was, however, quite liberal for his day—he encouraged women to get an education: for example, he even assigned several to travel to the eastern United States to get training as physicians.

==Conclusion==

Brigham's intent has been distorted, and the author has used presentism to bias the reader against him.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Mormon Hierarchy|pages=650}}
#{{note|seventies.1}} Seventies Record, 9 March 1845, holograph, LDS Church Archives (cited in Beecher, see below).
#{{note|emma.1}} {{Sunstone1|author=Maureen Ursenbach Beecher|article=Women in Winter Quarters|date=July 1983|num=8:4/15|start=note 37}}

Brigham Young/Disobey Brigham and be sheared down

2009-06-18T12:02:55Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==

Critics claim that "any man who defied Young's orders would be put to death was made evident in his statement 'When the time comes to burn and lay waste our improvements, if any man undertakes to shield his, he will be sheared down.'"

===Source(s) of the criticism===
* {{CriticalWork:Denton:American Massacre|pages=167}}

==Response==

As is typical in such cases, the critics quote only a fragment of Brigham's speech. The more complete text reads:

:...I have told you that if there is any man or woman that is not willing to destroy anything and everything of their property that would be of use to an enemy, if left, I wanted them to go out of the Territory; and I again say so to-day; for when the time comes to burn and lay waste our improvements, if any man undertakes to shield his, he will be sheared down; for "judgment will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet." Now the faint-hearted can go in peace; but should that time come, they must not interfere. Before I will suffer what I have in times gone by, there shall not be one building, nor one foot of lumber, nor a stick, nor a tree, nor a particle of grass and hay, that will burn, left in reach of our enemies. I am sworn, if driven to extremity, to utterly lay waste, in the name of Israel's God....

:I naturally dislike to have any trouble, and would not, were I not obliged to; but we are obliged to defend ourselves against the persecution of our oppressors, or have our constitutional rights rent from us, and have ourselves destroyed.... If the people prefer it, they may stop their improvements and take care of their wheat, and cache a supply of grain, flour, &c., where no other persons can find it; though we can raise grain here all the time,—yes, all the time....We have no desire to kill men, but we wish to keep the devils from killing us....I am not speaking of the Government, but of the corrupt administrators of the Government. {{ref|brigham.1}}

Brigham was anticipating the need for a 'scorched earth' policy against the invading U.S. army.

Brigham makes the following statements that the critics ignore:
* Those who do not wish to destroy their property before the army arrives may leave in peace.
* Those who remain will be left alone, if they do not interfere with the military necessity of scorched earth, should it be necessary.
* This would only happen "if driven to extremity."
* Brigham does not want trouble or war, or killing, but he fears violence against his people—for which they had ample precedent.
* Brigham provides the option of caching their goods out of the army's reach rather than destroying them.
* Brigham's quarrel is not with the United States, but with "corrupt administrators."

The only threat made is to those who, under military conditions, actively seek to resist the legal order of the territorial governor and militia commander to refuse aid and supplies to a military enemy. The property could not be preserved in such a case, because it would either be destroyed ''or'' appropriated by the enemy army. Military and militia commanders in all ages would have done nothing less, and Brigham's stance was moderate and merciful—no one was compelled to remain, no one was compelled to destroy anything.

But, if retreat became necessary, he would not allow supplies or shelter to fall into the hands of the enemy, which could cost Utahan lives if the war turned hot. This is not a dictatorship or megalomania; it was simply military prudence.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|brigham.1}} {{JD1|author=Brigham Young|vol=5|start=232}} (13 Sept 1857)

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{MMMWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}

===Videos===
{{Video:Sessions:2003:Shining New Light}}

===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{MMMPrint}}

[[Category:Brigham Young|Mormon Reformation|Mountain Meadows Massacre]]

Question: What is the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?

2008-10-27T20:31:27Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Answer */

{{question}}
==Question==
What is the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?

==Answer==

The ''General Handbook of Instructions'' states:
:Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have a great responsibility not only for bearing children but also for caring for them through childhood…. Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel.{{ref|ghi1}}

The Church has always discouraged the practice of contraceptions for [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/Birth_Control.htm selfish reasons]. As President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

:Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.{{ref|benson1}}

Yet, there has also been a recognition that the health of the mother must be the first concern of every couple.

David O. McKay wrote a letter in 1916 that was endorsed by the First Presidency in 1917:

:In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.{{ref|mckay1}}

In 1969, the First Presidency emphasized the need for revelation to each couple in making such decisions:

:It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.{{ref|1stpres1}}

Ezra Taft Benson, while discouraging contraception, made it clear that this was an individual decision for each couple, requiring revelation:

:So, I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity.{{ref|benson2}}

Thus, there is no absolute ban against contraception in the LDS Church. Each couple is encouraged to consider the matter prayerfully, with the health of the mother as a first priority, and the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" as a guide.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|ghi1}}The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ''General Handbook of Instructions'' (Salt Lake City, 1989), 11–14; cited in {{EoM|author=Homer S. Ellsworth|article=Birth Control|vol=1|start=116|end=117}}{{link|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=29}}
#{{note|benson1}}Ezra Taft Benson, “To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.
#{{note|mckay1}}David O. McKay, ''Relief Society Magazine'' (July 1916) 3:7.
#{{note|1stpres1}} Letter from the First Presidency, 14 April 1969.
#{{note|benson2}} {{TETB|start=539|end=543}}

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Lies_and_self-contradiction#Demands_on_mothers | Lies and self-contradiction]]
{{CultureAttitudeWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{CultureAttitudeFAIR}}

===External links===
* Various, Statements on Birth Control from LDS Leaders, ''lightplanet.com'' {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/Birth_Control.htm}}
* {{EoM|author=Homer S. Ellsworth|article=Birth Control|vol=1|start=116|end=117}}{{link|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=29}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Homer S. Ellsworth|article=I Have a Question: Is it our understanding that we are to propagate children as long and as frequently as the human body will permit? Is there not any kind of “gospel family-planning,” for lack of a better way to say it?|date=August 1979|start=23}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1979.htm/ensign%20august%201979%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0#LPTOC1}}
* {{EoM|author=Terrence D. Olson|article=Sexuality|vol=3|start=1306|end=1308}}{{link|url=http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=171}}
{{CultureAttitudeLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{CultureAttitudePrint}}

Native Americans to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage?

2008-07-09T13:49:53Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Is there an 1831 revelation? */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church “suppressed” a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831 which encouraged the implementation of polygamy by intermarriage with the Indians in order to make them a “white and delightsome” people.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{AntiBook:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=184, footnote}}
*B. Carmon Hardy, ''Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise''
*H. Michael Marquardt, ''The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary'', (Signature Books: Salt Lake City, 1999)
*{{AntiBook:Tanner:Changing World|pages=208-212}}

==Response==
===Is there an 1831 revelation?===

Critics claim that the church "suppressed" a 1831 revelation in which the Church was commanded to make the Indians a “white and delightsome” people through polygamous intermarriage. The basis for this claim is a letter written by W. W. Phelps in 1861 (30 years after the revelation was said to have been given) in which he recounts from memory some of Joseph's comments in Independence, Missouri, on 17 July 1831. At present, the only evidence that an 1831 revelation was given is the 1861 document written by Phelps.

According to critics, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was Church historian at the time, stated that the principle of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith in a revelation given in July 1831.{{ref|smith.1935}} Critic Fawn Brodie claims that Joseph Fielding Smith told her about the revelation but would not allow her to see it.{{ref|noman.184}} Critics conclude that the “real reason” that the revelation was not released was because it commanded Church members to marry the Indians in order to make them a “white and delightsome” people.

===W. W. Phelps 1861 recollection of the revelation===
In 1861, 30 years after it was said to have been given, W. W. Phelps wrote from memory his recollection of what he claimed was the revelation given in 1831 by the Prophet:

:Part of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jr. given over the boundary, west of Jackson Co. Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when Seven Elders, viz: Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson, and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnants of the Lamanites and Nephites, and the people of that Section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the gospel, and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon.
:Among the company, there being neither pen, ink or paper, Joseph remarked that the Lord could preserve his words as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded:
:Verily, verily, saith the Lord your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye can not discerne with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the Zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed. …
:[I]t is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.
:Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; …
:Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered unto you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though ye cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen.

===Does the 1831 "revelation" talk about polygamy?===
A note written by W. W. Phelps in the 1861 document implies that marriage with the Indians coincided with Joseph Smith's planned intent to institute polygamy.

:About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives of the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation."

It is important to note that Phelp's wrote his note 30 years after the revelation was said to have been given, after polygamy had been openly practiced for a number of years.

The only contemporary report of a possible revelation on marriage with the Indians was written in a letter to the ''Ohio Star'' on 8 December, 1831 by Ezra Booth, who had apostatized from the Church.{{ref|booth1}} This letter was republished in Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book ''Mormonism Unvailed''. Booth states that,

:...it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent...{{ref|howe.220}}

Booth makes no mention of polygamy, and instead implies that the "matrimonial alliance" was for the purpose of gaining "residence" in the Indian territory.{{ref|whittaker.35}} One would think that if Booth, given his opposition to the Church at the time, had been aware of something as controversial as a proposal that polygamy be instituted among the Indians, that he would have been highly motivated to proclaim this in a public forum. In fact, Booth actually states that in order to marry one of the natives, that one elder needed to be "free from his wife." Booth does go on to say:

:...It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state that '''the Lord had made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman'''; and the only crime I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But '''before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the State of New York and settle his business''', for fear, should he return after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal.{{ref|howe.220}}{{ea}}

This quote implies that it was not to be a polygamous union.

===Were the Indians to become "white and delightsome" through marriage?===

There are quotes from Church leaders indicating that they believed that the Indians were becoming "white and delightsome." However, it was always implied that the process of becoming "white and delightsome" was to be achieved through the power of God—not through intermarriage. Critics cite a statement made by Spencer W. Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:

:I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.{{ref|era.1960}}

Although this is an interesting statement by President Kimball, it has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy or intermarriage with the Indians. It is simply President Kimball’s own observation that he felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God. Then-Elder Kimball was likely unaware that Joseph Smith had edited the Book of Mormon text in 1837 to say "pure and delightsome," possibly to counter the idea that the change referred to was predominantly physical, rather than spiritual. This change was lost in future LDS versions of the Book of Mormon until 1981. (See [[Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes/%22white%22_changed_to_%22pure%22|here]] for more information).

==Conclusion==
There is no evidence that the instructions contained in the revelation regarding intermarriage with the Native Americans were actually implemented. There is no contemporary evidence, other than that provided by Booth, that anyone was even aware of the revelation at the time that it was supposed to have been given. The only evidence that a revelation was even given is the 1861 document by W. W. Phelps, which he recalled word-for-word from memory 30 years later at a time when the Church was actively and publicly justifying the practice of polygamy.

It is also interesting to note that the typical critical argument against polygamy is that a revelation on polygamy was not received until 1843 and that prior to that time that Joseph Smith was living in adultery with his plural wives. Yet, in this case, the critics are perfectly content to argue the case ''for'' a revelation on polygamy actually existing in 1831 as long as it can be tied to making the Native Americans a "white and delightsome" people. While there is evidence that Joseph was discussing plural marriage by 1831, it is difficult to believe that Phelps' text is an exact rendition of any revelation Joseph may have shared with him.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|smith.1935}}The source is said to be a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith to J. W. A. Baily dated September 5, 1935.
#{{note|noman.184}}{{AntiBook:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=184, footnote}}
#{{note|booth1}}Ezra Booth letter, ''Ohio Star'' (Ravenna, Ohio), 8 December 1831.
#{{note|howe.220}}{{AntiBook:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=220}}
#{{note|whittaker.35}}{{Dialogue | author=David Whittaker| article=Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical and Bibliographical Introduction|vol=18|num=4|date=Winter 1985|start=33|end=60 }}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=23069&CISOSHOW=22861}}
#{{note|howe.220}}{{AntiBook:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=220}}
#{{note|era.1960}}''Improvement Era'', December 1960, pp. 922-23.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Polygamy}}
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai166.html|topic=Native Americans}}

===External links===
*{{FR-19-2-12}} 
*{{Dialogue | author=David Whittaker| article=Mormons and Native Americans: A Historical and Bibliographical Introduction|vol=18|num=4|date=Winter 1985|start=33|end=60 }}.{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=23069&CISOSHOW=22861}}

===Printed material===

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

2007-05-12T02:59:38Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Racist doctrine? */

{{RacePortal}}
{{Summary}}
==Criticism==

*Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race.
*They are critical of the Church waiting until 1978 to lift the ban on ordaining black members to the priesthood.
*They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines.
*They cite passages from LDS scripture that Latter-day Saints used to provide a rationale for the priesthood ban.
*They question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift, portraying it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.

==Introduction==

Members of African descent were restricted from holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood until 1978. Critics with an agenda, as well as sincere seekers with a laudable abhorence of racism have used this fact to portray the former (or present) Church and its members as racist.

Understanding the priesthood ban is sometimes difficult, because the historical record is not entirely clear about the ban's institution. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. Some members believe the ban was commanded by revelation. Others believe that Church leaders responded to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures persisted.

However, once the ban was in place—whether as a matter of revelation, or as a policy that arose out of the Church's 19th-century origins—members and leaders did not feel that they could simply "change" things.

Many modern Protestant denominations believe in a "priesthood of all believers," and settle doctrinal differences via councils, meetings, or plebescites. As new social realities develop (e.g., the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, "gay rights," etc.), denominations adapt or modify previous stances.

This is not how the Church functions, and non-members may not appreciate this fact. Members or leaders of the Church do not feel that they have the right to alter previous practices or doctrines without direct revelation from God. Much as the ban confused and troubled many members—black and white—leaders did not feel at liberty to alter them without divine guidance. It is also important to realize that priesthood, in the LDS tradition, is not a right, nor is it something to be used to grant or enhance spiritual or social "status."

Furthermore, efforts to use political pressure against the Church may have slowed the change, since members do not believe that God will allow the Church to appear 'manipulated' by outside forces to create a convenient 'revelation' merely to satisfy social pressures.

It also important to give credit to Church members' strengths in the pre-1978 period:
* Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did
* Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites
* Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings
* the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together
* the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.
* sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

==Racist doctrine?==

The most unfortunate legacy of the ban is perhaps an aspect that was least intended. Since many members were sincerely concerned about the justice of the ban, many sought to explain it through a variety of hypotheses. Such "doctrinal folklore" was never official, but became widespread as members sought to reconcile their ideas about the justice and mercy of God with the ban's reality. In a good faith effort to understand, members drew on ideas about blacks then current in Protestantism generally.

Leaders of the Church have repeatedly emphasized that such explanations were misguided and never represented official doctrine.

For example, Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:

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

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

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

Interviewed for a PBS special on the Church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger [apostles] to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.{{ref|holland1}}

Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that members of the LDS church must put aside any thoughts or legacy of racial intolerance or unkindness:

:Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

:Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

:Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

:Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

:Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley1}}

==Further details==

It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted.

This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.

'''Please consult the sub-page which treats the issue(s) which interest you:'''

* Would God ever deny privileges based on race? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Deny based on race?}}
* What was the origin of the priesthood ban? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Origin of the priesthood ban?}}
* Given that the ban was rescinded in 1978, how should we understand pre-1978 statements by members and leaders of the Church?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Understanding pre-1978 statements}}
* What about LDS scriptures cited in support of the ban? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:LDS scriptures}}
* What can you tell me about lifting the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Lifting the ban}}
* Did social pressure play a role in lifting the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Social pressure?}}
* Are there any previously-taught ideas which have been repudiated by Church leaders since the ban?{{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Repudiated ideas}}

==Conclusion==

Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why he does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on his part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we ''do'' know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time.

Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
#{{note|holland1}} Jeffrey R. Holland, Interview, 4 March 2006. {{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html}}
#{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20may%202006.htm/the%20need%20for%20greater%20kindness.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0}}
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===

{{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}

===External links===

{{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}

===Printed material===

{{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}

Mormonism and the nature of God/God is a Spirit/Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"

2006-12-27T22:59:43Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */

==Criticism==
The Lectures on Faith, which used to be part of the Doctrine and Covenants, teach that God is a spirit. Joseph Smith's later teachings contradict this.

More generally, critics argue that Joseph Smith taught an essentially "trinitarian" view of the Godhead until the mid 1830s, thus proving the Joseph was "making it up" as he went along.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*"Godhead Doctrines," ''Mormons in Transition'' website (accessed 2 October 2005).
* Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in ''Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine'', edited by Gary James Bergera, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17–33.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Case Against Mormonism'', 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128.
* Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Mormonism: Shadow or Reality'', 4th edition, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1982), 169.
*Grant Underwood, "Origins of Mormonism Revisited," ''Jouranl of Mormon History'' 15 {1989): 16–17.

==Response==
The Lectures on Faith are seven lessons on theology delivered by the presiding officers of the Church to the School of the Elders at Kirtland, Ohio, in late 1834. The lectures are organized in the form of a catechism, with each lecture starting with instructions on doctrine, and the first five lectures concluding with a question-and-answer section to check class participants for understanding.

The Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion), and remained in the D&C until they were removed from the 1921 edition.

Lecture 5 deals with the nature of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Lecture 5.2 teaches:

:There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: ''The Father being a personage of spirit'', glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, ''a personage of tabernacle'', made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;(emphasis added.){{ref|leconfaith1}}

Efforts to see this as evidence for an essentially 'trinitarian' view, are flawed, however.{{ref|paulsen1}}

===Early conceptions of God===

Critics who wish to claim that in the 1830s Joseph Smith had only a vaguely "trinitarian" idea of God (and so would see the Father and the Son as only one being) have missed vital evidence which cannot be ignored.

====1829====

The Book of Mormon (translated in 1829) contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in ''spirit'' bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: {{s|3|Nephi|11||}}, {{s|1|Nephi|11|1-11}}, {{s||Ether|3|14-18}}.)

====1830====
Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph rendered {{s||Genesis|1|26|27}} as:

:And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ({{s||Moses|2|26-27}}.)

There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of {{s||Genesis|5|1-2}} read

:In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; ''in the image of his own body'', male and female, created he them ({{s||Moses|6|8-9}}, emphasis added)

Thus, by 1830 Joseph was clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God:

:"the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle."{{ref|lms1}}

====1831====

Anti-Mormon writers in 1831 noted that Joseph Smith claimed to have received "a commission from God"; and the Mormons claimed that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."{{ref|anti1}} That the Prophet's enemies knew he claimed to have "seen God," indicates that the doctrine of an embodied God that could be seen was well-known early on.

====1832====
Furthermore, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were to receive a visionary revelation of the three degrees of glory in the same year that Joseph wrote his earliest-known First Vision account. The 'three degrees' vision clearly teaches a physical separation of the Father and Son, bearing witness of seeing both of them, side by side. (See {{s||DC|76|14,20–24}}.){{ref|dcref}}

====1832–1833====

Two of Joseph's close associates reported their own visions of God in the winter of 1832–1833. Both are decidedly not in the trinitarian mould.

Zebedee Coltrin:

:"Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling...a personage walked through the room from East to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did, and Joseph answered that this was Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire. [I] experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw him....

:He was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but This appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed that I should melt down in His presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.'"{{ref|coltrin1}}

John Murdock:

:"During the winter that I boarded with Bro[ther] Joseph... we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophet’s chamber.... In one of those meetings the Prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exersise [sic] strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I had ever before seen. His countenance was the most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree."{{ref|murdock1}}

====Before 1836====

Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, lived in Kirtland for four years (1832–1836). He described LDS beliefs:

:[The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself. {{ref|coe1}}

====Other Lecture evidence====

The "catchecism" section of Lecture 5 also contains the following:

:How many personages are there in the Godhead.
:Two: the Father and Son.

Thus, even the Lecture in question saw the personages of the Father and Son as separate. The role of the Holy Ghost was less clear at this point; the same catechism describes the "Only Begotten of the Father possessing the same mind with the Father, ''which mind is the Holy Spirit.''" (emphasis added).

The exact nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the Father and the Son was not made explicit until 1843:

:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.{{s||DC|132|22}}

Thus, the Lectures did not have a trinitarian view of God—the Father and the Son were clearly distinct personages, united in mind by the Holy Spirit. But, the conception of the Holy Spirit as a personage in the same sense as Father and Son was not so clear. Nor was the form of embodiment of the Father specified, though there can be no doubt that he ''was'' seen as embodied.

==Conclusion==

After exploring the early evidence for Joseph's belief in an embodied Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (whether in flesh or spirit bodies), one author concluded:

:What, then, shall be made of the lecture’s referring contrastingly to the Father as "a personage of spirit" and to the Son as "a personage of tabernacle"? Again, Webster’s 1828 dictionary is helpful. It lists "our natural body" as one use of the term tabernacle. Our natural body, I take it, is a body of flesh and bones. If so, the lectures affirm that God the Son has a flesh-and-bones body, humanlike in form, while God the Father has a spirit body, also humanlike in form. As mentioned, Joseph later knew that the Father, as well as the Son, has a glorious, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. No doubt, his understanding of the mode of the Father’s embodiment was enlarged and refined as he continued to receive and reflect on revelation.{{ref|paulsen1}}

The Lectures on Faith clearly taught a separation of the Father and Son. They also clearly taught that the Father and Son were "embodied," with visible forms having precise dimensions and position in space. Evidence from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Church members, and the Church's antagonists all demonstrate that these doctrines go back to the earliest days of the Restoration. (This is not surprising, given that Joseph's First Vision would have made the separate nature of the Godhead crystal clear.)

Whether Joseph Smith understood at this point that the Father had a physical body (as distinct from a spirit body upon which man's body was patterned) is not clear. But, he clearly did not believe in the unembodied God of classical trinitarianism. Nor did Joseph teach of a Father and Son "of one substance" as the trinitarian creeds of his day would have understood them.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|leconfaith1}} {{LecOnFaith|num=5|start=5:2a|end=5:2e''}}
#{{note|paulsen1}} See {{BYUS|author=Daivd L. Paulsen|article=The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Resotration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives|vol=35|num=4|date=1995–96|start=6|end=94}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=665}}{{NB}}
#{{note|lms1}}{{LucyMackSmith-Nibley1|start=161}}
#{{note|dcref}}The current D&C 76 vision was first published in ''Evening and Morning Star'', Independence, Missouri, July 1832.
#{{note|coltrin1}}3 October 1883, ''Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book 1883'' (Palm Desert, California: ULC Press, 1981), 39; cited in Paulsen, 34.
#{{note|murdock1}}An Abridged Record of the Life of John Murdock Taken From His Journal by Himself," (typescript) Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 13; cited in Paulsen, 35.
#{{note|coe1}} {{BYUS|author=Milton V. Backman, Jr.|article=Truman Coe's 1836 Description of Mormonism|vol=17|num=3|date=1977|start=347|end=350, 354}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=560}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
{{DCWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{DCFAIR}}

===External links===
*{{BYUS|author=Daivd L. Paulsen|article=The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Resotration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives|vol=35|num=4|date=1995–96|start=6|end=94}}{{pdflink|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=665}}{{nb}}
{{DCLinks}}

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

Question: Are Latter-day Saint prophets not really "prophets" because they don't foretell unknown events?

2006-08-24T20:41:40Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Criticism */ fixing typo

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Some critics say that Latter-day Saint prophets aren't really "prophets" because they don't prophesy. They commonly issue challenges such as, "If Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet, tell me one event that he's prophesied."


==Response==
The LDS Bible Dictionary has a good response to this:

:The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will. The message was usually prefaced with the words "Thus saith Jehovah." He taught men about God's character, showing the full meaning of his dealings with Israel in the past.... It was also the prophet's duty to denounce sin and foretell its punishment, and to redress, so far as he could, both public and private wrongs. He was to be, above all, a preacher of righteousness. When the people had fallen away from a true faith in Jehovah, the prophets had to try to restore that faith and remove false views about the character of God and the nature of the Divine requirement. ''In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a ''forthteller'' rather than a ''foreteller.''{{ref|bd-prophet}}

Foretelling future events is only one calling of a prophet. Many Biblical and modern prophets have carried out their calling by focusing on other roles. For example, Elijah is considered one of the great prophets of the Old Testament, and yet he didn't prophesy about the future.

==Conclusion==
Prophets have many roles, only one of which is to prophesy future events. Most modern LDS prophets have been ''forthtellers'' rather than ''foretellers''.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|bd-prophet}}"Prophet," ''Bible Dictionary,'' p. 754; emphasis added. {{link|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[Fallibility of prophets]]
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]
*[[Joseph Smith and prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18|Prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18]]

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: '''Prophets''' {{fairlink|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai081.html}}
*John A. Tvedtnes, "The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy." {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html}}

Temples facing east

2006-08-22T17:37:08Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ spelling/grammar fixes

==Issue==
Do LDS temples always face east?


==Response==
The front of the temple is the elevation where the phrase "House of the
Lord" is found. So, for example, the "front" of the Provo temple is on
the east-northeast elevation as the temple itself is 20 degrees off of a
true east/west axis. The front of the Oakland Temple is the north
elevation, and the front of the Los Angeles Temple is the southeast
elevation. The Stockholm Temple faces due south, which, at such a
northern latitude, would be the direction of the most light; its front
is, therefore, the south elevation.

Nauvoo is an interesting case as it has the phrase on both the east and
west elevations of the building. We know that the original Nauvoo temple
had the phrase on the west elevation but no photographic record or
architectural drawings exist of the east elevation, so the design of the
east elevation of the modern Nauvoo Temple is guesswork. Thus, in the case
of Nauvoo, you can take your pick on the west or the east elevation as
the "front". Most people, however, would say that the west elevation is
the front of the building as there are no doors on the east elevation.

In summary, to find the "front" of an LDS temple you find the phrase
"House of the Lord" on the building itself, not on a sign. The elevation
that the phrase is on is the front of the building. It is not always the
east elevation. The angel Moroni statue has nothing to do with what is
the front of the building. Temples are placed on the site in the manner
that is most practical and artistically pleasing for that particular
site. They can face in any direction.

==Conclusion==
Temples face whatever direction is most practical and artistically pleasing for the
site they are on.


===External links===
Google Maps of the [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ll=37.80875,-122.199157&spn=0.002551,0.003701&t=k Oakland] and [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ll=34.052837,-118.433915&spn=0.002676,0.003701&t=k Los Angeles] Temples.

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-20T20:08:05Z

TanyaSpackman: /* I defer */

==Helen Mar==
* A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

**Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.
----
There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.
----
[[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===Here we go...===

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."
#Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
#What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
#I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
#I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)
--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|Suzanne A.]] 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.
:Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===I defer===
*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Below is an edited version that you can send Scott (you can edit it or rephrase). Is your friend LDS?:

1. Scott is reading things that just aren't there. FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any.

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid". Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word).

Quantz says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences.

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy."

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. You could say these were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, he gave her her own house, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thanks. Yes, he is LDS. He was quite helpful to me when I first entered the world of LDS apologetics. [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 14:08, 20 Aug 2006 (MDT)

==Sexual fixation==
I think the following sentence makes a very important point:
:Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.
However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --[[User:RobertCouch|RobertCouch]] 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

:Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

* Smug? MOI? :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. [[User:GregSmith|Greg Smith]] 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-20T20:06:27Z

TanyaSpackman: /* I defer */

==Helen Mar==
* A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

**Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.
----
There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.
----
[[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===Here we go...===

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."
#Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
#What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
#I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
#I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)
--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|Suzanne A.]] 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.
:Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===I defer===
*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Below is an edited version that you can send Scott (you can edit it or rephrase). Is your friend LDS?:

1. Scott is reading things that just aren't there. FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any.

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid". Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word).

Quantz says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences.

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy."

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. You could say these were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, he gave her her own house, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thanks. Yes, he is LDS. He was quite helpful to me when I first entered the world of LDS apologetics.

==Sexual fixation==
I think the following sentence makes a very important point:
:Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.
However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --[[User:RobertCouch|RobertCouch]] 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

:Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

* Smug? MOI? :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. [[User:GregSmith|Greg Smith]] 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-18T14:36:12Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Here we go... */

==Helen Mar==
* A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

**Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.
----
There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.
----
[[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===Here we go...===

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."
#Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
#What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
#I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
#I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)
--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|Suzanne A.]] 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.
:Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===I defer===
*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

==Sexual fixation==
I think the following sentence makes a very important point:
:Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.
However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --[[User:RobertCouch|RobertCouch]] 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

:Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

* Smug? MOI? :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. [[User:GregSmith|Greg Smith]] 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-18T14:35:50Z

TanyaSpackman:

==Helen Mar==
* A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

**Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.
----
There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.
----
[[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===Here we go...===

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."
#Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
#What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
#I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
#I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)
--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|Suzanne A.]] 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.
:Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

==Sexual fixation==
I think the following sentence makes a very important point:
:Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.
However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --[[User:RobertCouch|RobertCouch]] 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

:Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

* Smug? MOI? :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. [[User:GregSmith|Greg Smith]] 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-18T14:35:23Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Here we go... */

==Helen Mar==
* A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

**Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.
----
There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.
----
[[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===I defer===
*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

===Here we go...===

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."
#Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
#What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
#I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
#I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)
--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|Suzanne A.]] 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

*Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.
:Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

* Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--[[User:SuzanneArmitage|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

==Sexual fixation==
I think the following sentence makes a very important point:
:Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.
However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --[[User:RobertCouch|RobertCouch]] 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

:Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

* Smug? MOI? :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. [[User:GregSmith|Greg Smith]] 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-10T14:09:30Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Helen Mar */

Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2006-08-08T03:21:57Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Helen Mar */

Changes to the temple endowment

2006-08-06T21:46:46Z

TanyaSpackman: /* External links */

{{draft}} 
{{templedisclaimer}}
==Criticism==
Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?

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

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

==Conclusion==

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai132.html Changes in temple ceremony] - FAIR Topical Guide
*[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai127.html Temples and temple work]- FAIR Topical Guide

===External links===
*[http://www.mormonmonastery.org/?cat=31 Historical Changes Relating to Temples] - Mormon Monastery

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

Was Jesus crucified on a cross?

2006-07-19T15:31:02Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Answer */ minor formatting changes

{{question}}

{{draft}}

==Question==

I have been told that in the original Greek of the New Testament, accounts of Jesus' death only say he was put to death on "a pole." Is the belief of most of Christianity on "the cross" actually misguided?

==Answer==

It is true that the Greek word '''σταυρος;''' (''stauros'') used in the NT means a "pole" or "stake" driven into the ground, and not specifically a cross. Calling the upright portion a "pole" does not, however, tell us whether a crossbeam was attached to it or not.

The most common form of Roman crucifixion was to use the ''crux commissa'', which used a permanent pole driven into the ground, to which a cross beam was attached at the time of execution. This formed the shape of a capital 'T' and therefore is also called the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_cross Tau Cross] (it is also referred to as St. Anthony's Cross). This is different than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_cross Latin cross], which has a lowered cross piece, forming the classic "cross" shape (somewhat like a lower-case 't').

Accordingly, when the scripture talks about Jesus carrying his cross to the place of execution, it probably was not a huge Latin cross as depicted in the movies (such as Mel Gibson's ''The Passion of the Christ''), but a crossbeam called the ''patibulum'', which would then be placed over the permanently entrenched ''stauros'' or stake.

Thus, it is true that the Greek does not specify a cross ''per se''. However, historical evidence regarding the Roman practice of crucifixion makes it abundantly clear that Jesus was crucified on a type of cross, even if not quite the traditional Latin cross commonly portrayed.

For Latter-day Saints, the key point is not Jesus' precise method of execution, but that his suffering, death, and resurrection atoned for the sins of all humanity. (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/7-8#7 2 Nephi 9:7–8], [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/12#12 Alma 34:12].)


==Further reading==

===External links===
* Joe Zias, "Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Evidence," CenturyOne Foundation {{link|url=http://www.centuryone.org/crucifixion2.html}}. Includes archaelogic remains of a 1st century crucifixion victim.

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence

2006-07-12T14:02:11Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Response */ minor grammar changes and link fixes

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

===Sources of the Criticism===
*Thomas W. Murphy, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics," in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., ''American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002).
*Simon G. Southerton, ''Losing a Lost Tribe : Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

==Response==
Before we discuss DNA, we need to understand a little bit about Book of Mormon geography. The Church has never mandated any particular view of the geography of the Book of Mormon, though various leaders have had their own views on the subject. There have actually been dozens of different theories put forward since the Book of Mormon was first published, none of which is authoritative.{{ref|sorenson_bofmgeo}}

The traditional view of [[Book of Mormon geography]] is commonly referred to as the "Hemispheric Geography Theory" (or ''HGT''). According to this view, in the Book of Mormon the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=info&last=&help=&search=land+northward land northward] is all of North America, the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=land+southward land southward] is all of South America, and the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=narrow+neck narrow neck of land] is the isthmus of Panama. The usual assumption that goes with this theory is that all of North and South America was completely unpopulated at the time Lehi and his party arrived. In other words, the Book of Mormon migrations were the only ones to the New World prior to the coming of the Spanish.

Another view is commonly referred to as the "Limited Geography Theory" (or ''LGT''). According to this view, Book of Mormon activities did not span the whole of the Americas, but rather took place in a much smaller area, probably no bigger than size of California. Different locations have been proposed, but most proponents follow the model put together by John Sorenson that focuses on Mesoamerica, in southern Mexico and Guatemala, with the isthmus of Tehuantepec being the narrow neck of land.{{ref|sorenson_approachbofm}} The usual corollary to this theory is that there were already others in the land when the Book of Mormon migrations arrived.

Since the 1960s, virtually all serious students of the Book of Mormon have accepted the LGT. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason derives from a close reading of the Book of Mormon text itself: When you look at travel times between locations, it is clear that the theater of Book of Mormon operations is in the hundreds of miles, not thousands as a HGT would require.

For a long time there has been substantial evidence of various kinds of significant migrations from Asia into the Americas over a land bridge created during the last ice age. Book of Mormon scholars have long accepted this, because they acknowledge the existence of "others" in the land, so for them it is simply not a problem. They view the Lehite migration as a small incursion into a land with an already existing substantial population.

With this understanding, we can now turn to the DNA question. There have been some limited DNA studies of native Americans — about 6,000 have been tested from limited populations (i.e., not from all tribes in all geographic regions). The mitochondrial DNA of these native Americans overwhelmingly falls into one of four categories: A, B, C and D (and some into a fifth category, X). These "haplotypes" are characteristic of Asian populations. Since they are not characteristic of the Middle Eastern populations, the argument is that DNA evidence has disproven the Book of Mormon.

But this argument only says something about the HGT; it doesn't address the LGT, because according to that theory Lehi's group arrived to a land that already populated, intermarried with the natives, and their genetic "signature" was eventually lost in an overwhelming sea of native American DNA. This would mean that many — perhaps even most — of today's native Americans ''are'' descendants of Lehi and heirs of the Book of Mormon promises, but there is just no way to prove it using DNA evidence.

In 2002, anthropologist Thomas Murphy published an essay in which he argued that DNA evidence points to native Americans being related to Asians, and therefore this disproves the Book of Mormon. In 2004, plant biologist Simon Southerton published a book that made a similar argument. (Both were inactive Mormons who no longer believed the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed scripture.)

Unfortunately, neither of these men bothered to examine LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon before writing. They viewed Lehi arriving to an empty continent, and therefore all Native Americans should have a genetic inheritance solely from him. But they clearly assumed all Mormons believed the HGT, and so were caught off guard when Mormon scholars didn't surrender to their arguments after their publications came out. They were addressing a [[Logical_falacies#Straw_man| straw man]] and didn't even realize it; they simply didn't do their homework on the LDS side of things.

Since then they have been playing catch up, trying to argue that Mormons are ''required'' to accept the HGT because most LDS leaders in the past believed it and LDS leaders are never wrong. But that is a fundamentalist view of our religion that students of Mormonism reject. So Murphy and Southerton are reduced to making a religious argument, not a scientific one. And their religious argument is incorrect.

==Conclusion==
On 11 November 2003, the Church released the following statement:

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

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

:—"Mistakes in the News: DNA and the Book of Mormon" ([http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html http://newsroom.lds.org]).

==Endnotes==
#{{note|sorenson_bofmgeo}}For examples see John L. Sorenson, ''Book of Mormon Geography: A Source Book,'' Provo: FARMS, 1992. [http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p34400011.html BUY]
#{{note|sorenson_approachbofm}}Although the Book of Mormon does not directly state there were other people in the Americas when Lehi arrived, there is evidence of this "between the lines." For example, only one generation from Lehi's arrival, the prophet Jacob chastised the Nephite men for their widespread, unauthorized practice of polygamy (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/2 Jacob 2]); where did all these extra women come from? For an overview of additional evidence, see John L. Sorenson, [http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=3 "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?"], ''Journal of Book of Mormon Studies'' 1/1 (1992), pp. 1–34.

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: DNA and the Book of Mormon [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html *]
*"Is an Historical Book of Mormon Incompatible with DNA Science?"[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf *] (FAIR .pdf brochure).
*David Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon"[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html *] (FAIR paper).
*Allen Wyatt, "Motivation, Behavior, and Dissention"[http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200207.html *] (background on Thomas Murphy's anti-Mormon activity).

===External links===
{{DNA articles}}

===Printed material===
*{{Sunstone|author=Blake T. Ostler|article=Assessing the Logical Structure of DNA Arguments Against the Book of Mormon|date=December 2004|num=135|start=70|end=72}}
*{{Sunstone|author=Blake T. Ostler|article=DNA Strands in the Book of Mormon|date=May 2005|num=137|start=x|end=y}}
*{{Sunstone|author=Blake T. Ostler|article=Reply to David A. Anderson (letter to the editor)|date=September 2005|num=138|start=8|end=10}} [http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/138/02-10_letters%20web.pdf *]

Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

2006-07-01T00:18:11Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Why does the Book of Mormon match the KJV so closely? */

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. Critics claim that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites.

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

==Response==
===Why does the Book of Mormon match the KJV so closely?===
Critics have long adopted the cynical position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Version (KJV) Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates that he recognized as being from the Bible.

====Did Joseph simply copy the KJV text?====
There are several problems with this view.

1) Witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a later interview:

:I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat , with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

:''Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?''
:A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

:''Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?''
:A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.{{ref|emma1}}

Martin Harris also noted that Joseph would translate with his face buried in his hat in order to use the seer stone/urim and thummim. This would make referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...{{ref|harris1}}

2) It is not clear that Joseph even ''owned'' a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery later purchased a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph's straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.

3) It is not clear that Joseph's Biblical knowledge was at all broad during the Book of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:

:When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.{{ref|emma2}}

Emma also noted that

:Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a wonder,” as much so as to any one else.{{ref|emma3}}

And, if Joseph was merely inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.

4) If Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and complex text that made no reference to Biblical citations at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the Holy Bible KJV) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?

====Why then the KJV and Book of Mormon similarities?====

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% is simply copied from the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from ''already known Hebrew manuscripts''.{{ref|DSS1}} - ''need ref!!''

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts that were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time improving on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a true difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to improve the KJV.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analagous. For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access would not have differed significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were ''theologically significant'' differences between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved or clearer translation of a passage that is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from scratch, and distracting the reader with many differences that might be due simply to translator preference.

===Why is the JST different from the Book of Mormon?===

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. (See main article on the [[Joseph_Smith_Translation_as_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text|nature of the JST]] for a more detailed discussion.)

Thus, the Book of Mormon is likely a relatively "tight" translation of the Nephite records, with the focus on the important differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the Masoretic text.

By contrast, the JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/36#39 Joseph Smith History 1:36–39]). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

:18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding clink of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead.([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/128/18#18 D&C 128:18].)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible mortals]]. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

==Conclusion==

The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent.

Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|emma1}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|emma2}} Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," ''Journal of History'' 9 (January 1916): 454.
#{{note|harris1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited frequently, including by {{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=By the Gift and Power of God|date=January 1997|start=34|end=41}}[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20january%201997.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god.htm *]
#{{note|emma3}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|DSS1}} need ref!

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{jst links}}

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai102.html Joseph Smith Translation of Bible]

===External links===
*{{FARMSReview|author=Stephen D. Ricks|article=Death Knell or Tinkling Cymbals? Review of ''Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters''|vol=4|num=1|date=1992|start=235|end=250}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=105 *]
*W. John Welsh, [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_correct_errors.htm Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?], ''lightplanet.com''

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

Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

2006-07-01T00:01:58Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Criticism */

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Some passages from the Bible (parts of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. Critics claim that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites.

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

==Response==
===Why does the Book of Mormon match the KJV so closely?===
Critics have long adopted the cynical position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible, and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates which he recognized as being from the Bible.

====Did Joseph simply copy the KJV text?====
There are, however, several problems with this view.

1) In the first place, witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a later interview:

:I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat , with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

:''Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?''
:A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

:''Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?''
:A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.{{ref|emma1}}

Martin Harris also noted that Joseph would translate with his face buried in his hat in order to use the seer stone/urim and thumim. This would make referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...{{ref|harris1}}

2) Furthermore, it is not clear that Joseph even ''owned'' a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery were later to purchase a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph's straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.

3) In addition, it is not clear that Joseph's Biblical knowledge was at all broad during the Book of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:

:When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.{{ref|emma2}}

Emma also noted that

:Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a wonder,” as much so as to any one else.{{ref|emma3}}

And, if Joseph was merely inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.

4) Finally, if Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and complex text that made no reference to Biblical citations at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the Holy Bible KJV) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?

====Why then the KJV and Book of Mormon similarities?====

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% of the simply copies the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from ''already known Hebrew manuscripts''.{{ref|DSS1}} - ''need ref!!''

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts which were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time 'improving' on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a "true" difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to "improve" the KJV.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analagous. For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access did not differ significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were ''theologically significant'' between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved, or clearer translation of a passage which is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from 'scratch,' and distracting the reader with many differences which might be due simply to translator preference.

===Why is the JST different from the Book of Mormon?===

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. (See main article on the [[Joseph_Smith_Translation_as_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text|nature of the JST]] for a more detailed discussion.)

Thus, the Book of Mormon is likely a relatively "tight" translation of the Nephite records, with the focus on the important differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the Masoretic text.

By contrast, the JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/36#39 Joseph Smith History 1:36–39]). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

:18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding clink of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead.([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/128/18#18 D&C 128:18].)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible mortals]]. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

==Conclusion==

The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent.

Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|emma1}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|emma2}} Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," ''Journal of History'' 9 (January 1916): 454.
#{{note|harris1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited frequently, including by {{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=By the Gift and Power of God|date=January 1997|start=34|end=41}}[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20january%201997.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god.htm *]
#{{note|emma3}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|DSS1}} need ref!

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{jst links}}

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai102.html Joseph Smith Translation of Bible]

===External links===
*{{FARMSReview|author=Stephen D. Ricks|article=Death Knell or Tinkling Cymbals? Review of ''Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters''|vol=4|num=1|date=1992|start=235|end=250}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=105 *]
*W. John Welsh, [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_correct_errors.htm Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?], ''lightplanet.com''

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

Joseph Smith Translation and the Book of Mormon

2006-07-01T00:01:26Z

TanyaSpackman: /* Criticism */

{{draft}}
==Criticism==
Some passages from the Bible (part of Isaiah, for example) were included in the Book of Mormon text. However, the same passages were later revised for the Joseph Smith Translation of the Holy Bible. In some cases these passages are not rendered identically. Critics claim that if the JST was an accurate translation, it would match the supposedly more 'pure' Isaiah text possessed by the Nephites.

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

==Response==
===Why does the Book of Mormon match the KJV so closely?===
Critics have long adopted the cynical position that Joseph Smith simply copied the King James Bible text for the relevant portions of, for example, Isaiah. Even some Church members have presumed that the close match between the texts indicates that Joseph simply opened a Bible, and copied those chapters when he came to material on the gold plates which he recognized as being from the Bible.

====Did Joseph simply copy the KJV text?====
There are, however, several problems with this view.

1) In the first place, witnesses to the translation process are unanimous that Joseph did not have any books, manuscripts, or notes to which he referred while translating. Recalled Emma, in a later interview:

:I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for [Joseph] I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat , with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

:''Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?''
:A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.

:''Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?''
:A. If he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.{{ref|emma1}}

Martin Harris also noted that Joseph would translate with his face buried in his hat in order to use the seer stone/urim and thumim. This would make referring to a Bible or notes virtually impossible:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine...{{ref|harris1}}

2) Furthermore, it is not clear that Joseph even ''owned'' a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation. He and Oliver Cowdery were later to purchase a Bible, which suggests (given Joseph's straitened financial situation) that he did not already own one.

3) In addition, it is not clear that Joseph's Biblical knowledge was at all broad during the Book of Mormon translation. It seems unlikely that he would have recognized, say, Isaiah, had he encountered it on the plates. Recalled Emma Smith:

:When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.{{ref|emma2}}

Emma also noted that

:Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and wellworded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, . . . it is marvelous to me, “a marvel and a wonder,” as much so as to any one else.{{ref|emma3}}

And, if Joseph was merely inventing the Book of Mormon story, he picked some of the more obscure and difficult Bible passages to include.

4) Finally, if Joseph was forging the Book of Mormon, why include Biblical passages at all? Clearly, Joseph was able to rapidly produce a vast and complex text that made no reference to Biblical citations at all. If Joseph was trying to perpetrate a fraud, why did he include near-verbatim quotations from the one book (the Holy Bible KJV) with which his target audience was sure to be familiar?

====Why then the KJV and Book of Mormon similarities?====

Even academic translators sometimes copy a previous translation if it serves the purpose of their translation. For example, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) provided previously unknown texts for many Biblical writings. However, in some translations of the DSS, approximately 90% of the simply copies the KJV.

Surely we are not expected to believe that the DSS translators dropped back into King James idiom and just happened to come up with a nearly identical text! They, in fact, unabashedly copied the KJV, except where the DSS texts were substantially different from ''already known Hebrew manuscripts''.{{ref|DSS1}} - ''need ref!!''

Why was this done? Because, the purpose of the DSS translation is to highlight the differences between the newly discovered manuscripts and those to which scholars already had access. Thus, in areas where the DSS manuscripts agree with the Biblical texts which were already known, the KJV translation is used to indicate this.

This is not to argue that there may not be a better way to render the text than the KJV—but, it would be counterproductive for the DSS committee spent a lot of time 'improving' on the KJV translation. A reader without access to the original manuscripts could then never be sure if a difference between the DSS translation and the KJV translation represented a "true" difference in the DSS, or simply the choice of the DSS translators to "improve" the KJV.

The situation with the Book of Mormon is likely analagous. For example, most of the text to which the Nephites had access did not differ significantly from the Hebrew texts used in Bible translations. The differences in wording between the KJV and the Book of Mormon highlight the areas in which there were ''theologically significant'' between the Nephite versions and the Masoretic text, from which the Bible was translated. Other areas can be assumed to be essentially the same. If one wants an improved, or clearer translation of a passage which is identical in the Book of Mormon and the KJV, one has only to go to the original manuscripts available to all scholars. Basing the text on the KJV focuses the reader on the important clarifications, as opposed to doing a new translation from 'scratch,' and distracting the reader with many differences which might be due simply to translator preference.

===Why is the JST different from the Book of Mormon?===

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. (See main article on the [[Joseph_Smith_Translation_as_a_restoration_of_the_original_Bible_text|nature of the JST]] for a more detailed discussion.)

Thus, the Book of Mormon is likely a relatively "tight" translation of the Nephite records, with the focus on the important differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the Masoretic text.

By contrast, the JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding.

It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See [http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/36#39 Joseph Smith History 1:36–39]). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said:

:18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding clink of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead.([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/128/18#18 D&C 128:18].)

Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible mortals]]. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required.

==Conclusion==

The purposes of the Book of Mormon and JST translations were not identical. The LDS do not believe in one fixed, inviolate, "perfect" rendering of a scripture or doctrinal concept. The Book of Mormon likely reflects differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the commonly known Biblical manuscripts. The JST is a harmonization, expansion, commentary, and clarification of doctrinally important points. Neither is intended as "the final word" on a given concept or passage—continuing revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which members of the Church find themselves, precludes such an intent.

Critics impose their own inerrantist assumptions on LDS scriptures, but such assumptions simply do not apply to LDS doctrine.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|emma1}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|emma2}} Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," ''Journal of History'' 9 (January 1916): 454.
#{{note|harris1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited frequently, including by {{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=By the Gift and Power of God|date=January 1997|start=34|end=41}}[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1997.htm/ensign%20january%201997.htm/by%20the%20gift%20and%20power%20of%20god.htm *]
#{{note|emma3}} Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” ''Saints’ Advocate'' 2 (Oct. 1879): 51
#{{note|DSS1}} need ref!

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{jst links}}

===FAIR web site===
*FAIR Topical Guide: [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai102.html Joseph Smith Translation of Bible]

===External links===
*{{FARMSReview|author=Stephen D. Ricks|article=Death Knell or Tinkling Cymbals? Review of ''Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon by Wesley P. Walters''|vol=4|num=1|date=1992|start=235|end=250}}[http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=105 *]
*W. John Welsh, [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_correct_errors.htm Why Didn't Joseph Correct KJV Errors When Translating the JST?], ''lightplanet.com''

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