FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?

2010-04-17T01:57:36Z

TedJones:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==
===Overview===
The critical claim is made by the [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]] (IRR) in a YouTube video and on their web site. Some of IRR's YouTube video criticism seems to be based on what Bruce R. McConkie wrote in his ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' regarding Stephen's request while being stoned, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ({{s||Acts|7|59}}) Elder McConkie explained:
<blockquote>
"To whom did Stephen pray? Sectarian commentators say he prayed to Jesus and not to the Father, and they accordingly claim this instance as justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son. From the day of Adam, through all ages, however, the true order of prayer has been to “call upon God in the name of the Son.” ({{s||Moses|5|8}}) The only scriptural instances in which prayers were addressed directly to the Son were when—and because!—that Holy Being, as a resurrected personage, was standing before the petitioners. ({{s|3|Nephi|19|18-36}})" {{ref|mcconkie.79}}
</blockquote>

IRR challenges McConkie's response by citing other Old and New Testament cases where people appear to be praying to Jesus Christ (Old Testament prayers to Jehovah, {{s||John|14|14}} ESV; {{s||Acts|1|21-26}}; {{s||Acts|9|14}}, {{s||Acts|9|21}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|9-14}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|1|2}}; {{s|2|Corinthians|12|8-9}}; {{s|2|Timothy|2|22}}; {{s|1|John|5|13-15}}). The critics also state that "The Bible is clear: the gospel offers forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Jesus Christ in faith and appeal to him in prayer to save them ({{s||Acts|2|21}}, {{s||Acts|2|38}}; {{s||Acts|4|12}}; {{s||Acts|5|31}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|12-13}})."

We could discuss these scriptures in detail, however, we would be quibbling over what some would consider questionable examples of true prayers. Many seem to be cries for help or references to "calling on the Lord," which could also be describing prayers to God the Father in Christ's name. The critics are really questioning Elder McConkie's assertion that these verses are being used as "justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son." Elder McConkie's assertion should be considered an authoritative LDS opinion, but not LDS doctrine. The scriptures, on the other hand, are considered doctrine and do answer this criticism, but we need to examine the content of a few scriptures not cited by the critics.

===The Scriptural pattern for prayer===
The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in the Lord's Prayer found in {{s||Matthew|6|9-13}} and {{s||Luke|11|2-4}}. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "Our Father which art in heaven." The Lord also instructed us on several occasions to ask in his name:

<blockquote>
"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." {{s||John|14|13-14}}.
<br><br>
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." {{s||John|15|16}}.
<br><br>
And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. {{s||John|16|23-24}}.
</blockquote>

In the Book of Mormon Jesus also taught the Nephites to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name:
<blockquote>
"And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name." ({{s|3|Nephi|20|30-31}})
<br><br>
And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you. ({{s|3|Nephi|27|2}}, {{s|3|Nephi|27|28-29}})
</blockquote>

Christians who pray directly to Jesus are ignoring the Lord's specific instructions cited above. (See also
James E. Faust, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4db68d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Lifeline of Prayer,”] ''Liahona'', Jul 2002, 62, 67–69)

The IRR Youtube video completely ignores the scriptures cited above. We would ask those who criticize our prayers, why should we do as the critics recommend when it clearly goes against Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament and especially in the Book of Mormon? We would be ignoring the specific instructions the Lord has given us by modern revelation. It is this modern revelation that distinguishes us from Christians that rely solely on the Bible. The scriptures indicate that "to obey is better than sacrifice" ({{s|1|Sam.|15|22}}). This same principle could apply to prayers addressed to Jesus.

Additionally, praying directly to Jesus would seem to be unnecessary as he has taught us that he is our mediator and advocate with the Father (see {{s|1|John|2|1}}; {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}; {{s||DC|29|5}}; {{s||DC|32|3}}; {{s||DC|45|3}}; {{s||DC|110|4}}) and as such hears our prayer.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that:
<blockquote>
Jesus is our Advocate with the Father... The word advocate comes from Latin roots meaning a “voice for” or “one who pleads for another.” Other related terms are used in scripture, such as mediator (see {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}, {{s|2|Nephi|2|28}}; {{s||DC|76|69}}). From the Book of Mormon we learn that this responsibility to mediate, or make intercession, was foreseen before His birth: Jesus “shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved” ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9}}). {{ref|nelson}}
</blockquote>

===Statements made by early Christians===
Finally, we might cite many early Christians such as Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ] who wrote that "only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." {{ref|quasten}}And also “the Father alone is ho theos; the Son is simply theos…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.” {{ref|jots}}

Athanasius (A.D. 300-373) stated that we do not pray to the Great Unoriginate in the name of the Originated One, but rather to the Father, in the name of the Son. He wrote: “’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ And he did not call us to baptize ‘in the name of the Unoriginate and the Originate…’ but ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit….’ Those who name God ‘Unoriginate’ name him only from his external works…, but those who name God ‘Father’ immediately signify in him also the Son…, naming him from the intimate issue of his own being.’” {{ref|jenson}}

The Council of Carthage, North Africa, held in A.D. 397 wrote:
<blockquote>
“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.” {{ref|lacugna}}
</blockquote>

LaCugna also records that the A.D. 393 Council of Hippo stated:
<blockquote>
“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,” Ibid., 126.

Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck refers to the same Council and makes the same point: “The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father—a practice proposed as normative at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393,” {{ref|beeck}}
</blockquote>

==Conclusion==
Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's Prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture. We trust the Lord's word as revealed in both ancient and modern times and will continue to pray to our Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer directed.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|mcconkie.79}}Bruce R. McConkie, ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'', 2:79)
#{{note|nelson}}Russell M. Nelson, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ea426a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More,”] ''Ensign'', Apr 2000, 4.
#{{note|quasten}}Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Christian Classics, n.d.; 1st Holland 1950) 2.67, citing Origen, On Prayer 16.1 [translation in Ancient Christian Writers, volume 19, 1953])
#{{note|jots}}citing Comm. John 2.2; and contra Celsum 5.4; first published Journal of Theological Studies 13, 1962, 339-347. Maurice Wiles, “In Defence of Arius,” in Wiles, Working Papers in Doctrine [London 1976]: 28-37, p. 31
#{{note|jenson}}See Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity. God According to the Gospel (Philadelphia 1982): 18, citing Epistle on Decrees of Nicaea 31; contra Arianos 1.34; Epistle to Serapion 4-6. Also in R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London 1953): 111.
#{{note|lacugna}}Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us. The Trinity and Christian Life (Harper Collins 1993): 141, note 88, quoting J. Mansi, ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum (Paris 1901), III: 347-409.
#{{note|beeck}}van Beeck, God Encountered, Volume I [1989]: 228-9; see also Josef A. Jungmann, S.J., The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great [University of Notre Dame 1959]: 201.

Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?

2010-04-16T02:07:30Z

TedJones: /* Statements made by early Christians */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.

{{CriticalSources}}

==Response==
===Overview===
The critical claim is made by the [[Countercult ministries/Institute for Religious Research|Institute for Religious Research]] (IRR) in a YouTube video. Some of IRR's YouTube video criticism seems to be based on what Bruce R. McConkie wrote in his ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'' regarding Stephen's request while being stoned, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ({{s||Acts|7|59}}) Elder McConkie explained:
<blockquote>
"To whom did Stephen pray? Sectarian commentators say he prayed to Jesus and not to the Father, and they accordingly claim this instance as justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son. From the day of Adam, through all ages, however, the true order of prayer has been to “call upon God in the name of the Son.” (Moses 5:8.) The only scriptural instances in which prayers were addressed directly to the Son were when—and because!—that Holy Being, as a resurrected personage, was standing before the petitioners. ({{s|3|Nephi|19|18-36}})" {{ref|mcconkie.79}}
</blockquote>

IRR challenges McConkie's response by citing other Old and New Testament cases where people appear to be praying to Jesus Christ (Old Testament prayers to Jehovah, {{s||John|14|14}} ESV; {{s||Acts|1|21-26}}; {{s||Acts|9|14}}, {{s||Acts|9|21}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|9-14}}; {{s|1|Corinthians|1|2}}; {{s|2|Corinthians|12|8-9}}; {{s|2|Timothy|2|22}}; {{s|1|John|5|13-15}}). The critics also state that "The Bible is clear: the gospel offers forgiveness of sins to those who turn to Jesus Christ in faith and appeal to him in prayer to save them ({{s||Acts|2|21}}, {{s||Acts|2|38}}; {{s||Acts|4|12}}; {{s||Acts|5|31}}; {{s||Acts|22|16}}; {{s||Romans|10|12-13}})."

We could discuss these scriptures in detail, however, we would be quibbling over what some would consider questionable examples of true prayers. Many seem to be cries for help or references to "calling on the Lord," which could also be describing prayers to God the Father in the Lord's name. The critics are really questioning Elder McConkie's assertion that these verses are being used as "justification for the apostate practice of addressing prayers to the Son." Elder McConkie's assertion should be considered an authoritative LDS opinion, but not LDS doctrine. The scriptures, on the other hand, are considered doctrine and do answer this criticism, but we need to examine the content of a few scriptures not cited by the critics.

===Biblical pattern for prayer===
The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in the Lord's Prayer found in {{s||Matthew|6|9-13}} and {{s||Luke|11|2-4}}. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "Our Father which art in heaven." In the Book of Mormon Jesus teaches us specifically to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name:

<blockquote>
"And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name." ({{s|3|Nephi|20|30-31}})
<br><br>
And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you. ({{s|3|Nephi|27|2}}, {{s|3|Nephi|27|28-29}})
</blockquote>

Christians who follow the critics' misinformed guidance are ignoring the Lord's specific instructions. (See also
James E. Faust, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4db68d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “The Lifeline of Prayer,”] ''Liahona'', Jul 2002, 62, 67–69)

The IRR Youtube video completely ignores the scriptures cited above. We would ask those who criticize our prayers, why should we do as the critics recommend when it clearly goes against Jesus Christ's teachings in the New Testament and especially in the Book of Mormon? We would be ignoring the specific instructions the Lord has given us by modern revelation. It is this modern revelation that distinguishes us from Christians that rely solely on the Bible. The scriptures indicate that "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam. 15:22). This same principle could apply to misguided prayers to Jesus.

Additionally, praying directly to Jesus would seem to be unnecessary as he has taught us that he is our mediator and advocate with the Father (see {{s|1|John|2|1}}; {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}; {{s||DC|29|5}}; {{s||DC|32|3}}; {{s||DC|45|3}}; {{s||DC|110|4}}) and as such hears our prayer.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that:
<blockquote>
Jesus is our Advocate with the Father... The word advocate comes from Latin roots meaning a “voice for” or “one who pleads for another.” Other related terms are used in scripture, such as mediator (see {{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}, {{s|2|Nephi|2|28}}; {s||DC|76|69}}). From the Book of Mormon we learn that this responsibility to mediate, or make intercession, was foreseen before His birth: Jesus “shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved” ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9}}). {{ref|nelson}}
</blockquote>

===Statements made by early Christians===
Finally, we might cite many early Christians such as Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ] who wrote that "only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." (see Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Christian Classics, n.d.; 1st Holland 1950) 2.67, citing Origen, On Prayer 16.1 [translation in Ancient Christian Writers, volume 19, 1953]). And also “the Father alone is ho theos; the Son is simply theos…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.” {{ref|jots}}

Athanasius (ca. A.D. 300-373) stated that we do not pray to the Great Unoriginate in the name of the Originated One, but rather to the Father, in the name of the Son. He wrote: “’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ And he did not call us to baptize ‘in the name of the Unoriginate and the Originate…’ but ‘in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit….’ Those who name God ‘Unoriginate’ name him only from his external works…, but those who name God ‘Father’ immediately signify in him also the Son…, naming him from the intimate issue of his own being.’” {{ref|jenson}}

The Council of Carthage, North Africa, held in 397 wrote:
<blockquote>
“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.” {{ref|lacugna}}
</blockquote>

LaCugna also records that the 393 Council of Hippo stated:
<blockquote>
“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,” Ibid., 126. Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck refers to the same Council and makes the same point: “The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father—a practice proposed as normative at the Council of Hippo in 393,” {{ref|beeck}}
</blockquote>

==Conclusion==
Despite the fact that some may have prayed directly to Jesus Christ in the past, Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's prayer as a divine pattern which was reinforced and clarified in modern scripture. We trust the Lord's word as revealed in both ancient and modern times and will continue to pray to our Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer directed.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|mcconkie.79}}Bruce R. McConkie, ''Doctrinal New Testament Commentary'', 2:79)
#{{note|nelson}}Russell M. Nelson, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ea426a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Jesus the Christ: Our Master and More,”] ''Ensign'', Apr 2000, 4.
#{{note|jots}}citing Comm. John 2.2; and contra Celsum 5.4; first published Journal of Theological Studies 13, 1962, 339-347. Maurice Wiles, “In Defence of Arius,” in Wiles, Working Papers in Doctrine [London 1976]: 28-37, p. 31
#{{note|jenson}}See Robert W. Jenson, The Triune Identity. God According to the Gospel (Philadelphia 1982): 18, citing Epistle on Decrees of Nicaea 31; contra Arianos 1.34; Epistle to Serapion 4-6. Also in R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London 1953): 111.
#{{note|lacugna}}Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us. The Trinity and Christian Life (Harper Collins 1993): 141, note 88, quoting J. Mansi, ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum (Paris 1901), III: 347-409.
#{{note|beeck}}van Beeck, God Encountered, Volume I [1989]: 228-9; see also Josef A. Jungmann, S.J., The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great [University of Notre Dame 1959]: 201.

Question: Why do Latter-day Saints not pray directly to Jesus Christ?

2010-04-15T22:44:10Z

TedJones:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
Latter-day Saints are criticized for not praying directly to Jesus Christ.

Source of Criticism:

1. A Youtube video posted by an anti-Mormon organization called the Institute for Religious Research (IRR) at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z400sx6RQyQ

2. An IRR web site article at: http://www.irr.org/mit/GP-BSG-8-Praying-to-God.html

The web site article provides additional Old and New Testament cases beyond the video, where it appears individuals are praying directly to Jesus Christ.

==Response==
Some of IRR's Youtube video criticism seems to be based a brief article by Beth Spackman in the "I Have a Question" section of the June 1988 Ensign found at:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20june%201988.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

Beth Spackman's short article responded to the following query:
"In 3 Nephi 19, we read that some Nephites prayed to Jesus. Is it proper to pray to him?"

IRR challenges this response by citing other Old and New Testament cases where people prayed to the Lord. They mock her opinion that ". . . on that occasion [Christ's visit in 3 Nephi 19:16-30], while he was in their presence, praying to him was acceptable." Beth is expressing her own opinion as a seminary teacher but this should not to be taken as LDS Church doctrine. Though her article responds to the specific case of prayer to Jesus Christ in 3rd Nephi, it isn't an adequate response to IRR's recent video or web article and was never meant to be. The article does reference scriptures that answer IRR's criticism but her reply doesn't go into the all-important content of those scriptures.

The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in Lord's Prayer found in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "our Father which art in heaven." The Book of Mormon teaches us specifically to pray to our Heavenly Father in Jesus Christ's name. (See 3 Nephi 20:30-31; 3 Ne. 27:2, 28-29) Latter-day Saints prefer to follow the instructions Jesus Christ gave to the Jews and the Nephites regarding how to pray. Christians who follow IRRs misinformed guidance do not. See also http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4db68d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The IRR Youtube video completely ignores the scriptures cited above. We would ask those who criticise our prayers, why would we do as they recommend when it goes against Jesus Christ's clear teachings in the New Testament and especially in the Book of Mormon? We would be ignoring the specific instructions the Lord has given us by modern revelation. It is this modern revelation that distinguishes us from Christians that rely solely on the Bible. The scriptures indicate that "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam. 15:22). This same principle applies to misguided prayers to Jesus.

Additionally, praying directly to Jesus would seem to be unnecessary as he has taught us that he is our mediator and advocate with the Father (see 1 Jn. 2:1; 1 Timothy 2:5; D&C 29:5; D&C 32:3; D&C 45:3; D&C 110:4) and as such hears our prayer.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that:

Jesus is our Advocate with the Father... The word advocate comes from Latin roots meaning a “voice for” or “one who pleads for another.” Other related terms are used in scripture, such as mediator (see 1 Tim. 2:5, 2 Ne. 2:28; D&C 76:69). From the Book of Mormon we learn that this responsibility to mediate, or make intercession, was foreseen before His birth: Jesus “shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved” (2 Ne. 2:9).

See http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ea426a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Finally, we would ask IRR if they intend to pray as the Catholics do to Mary and other venerated saints? Latter-day Saints accept the Lord's prayer as a divine pattern which we intend to follow. We trust the Lord's word as revealed in ancient and modern times and will continue to pray to our Heavenly Father as Jesus Christ our savior and redeemer instructed us knowing that salvation comes through his atonement.

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Association with the Methodists

2009-05-19T02:48:29Z

TedJones:

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that while Joseph "almost certainly never formally joined the Methodist church, he did associate himself with the Methodists eight years after he said he had been instructed by God not to join any established denomination."
*It is claimed that the Methodists did not acquire property on Vienna Road near Palmyra until July 1821, and that is therefore "likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Wikipedia:First Vision}}
*{{CriticalWork:Matzko:Young Joseph Smith|pages=78}}

==Response==
===The Methodists' acquisition of property on Vienna Road in July 1821===
Critics wish to discount the story of the First Vision by asserting that Joseph's claim that the "unusual excitement" about religion "commenced with the Methodists" could not have occurred. Specifically, it is claimed that Methodist camp meetings would not have occurred until after July 1821, since the Methodists did not acquire property in the area until that time.

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contains the unsupported assertion in a footnote:
<blockquote>
Bushman, 69-70. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.
</blockquote>

The Bushman reference (''Rough Stone Rolling'') states nothing about the Methodists' acquisition of property, nor does it claim that Joseph's "first dabble" with Methodism occurred during the 1824 revival. The statement has simply been asserted by the author of the wiki article.

Dr. Matzko makes the same assertion, however, he backs up it with a citation. According to Matzko:
<blockquote>
Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost
certainly held after that date. Wesley Walters, "A Reply to Dr. Bushman," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 4, no. 1 (Spring 1969): 99.
</blockquote>

===The Methodist "camp meeting" in June 1820===
In contrast to the Wikipedia article, however, Matzko does provide a balancing reference to the 1820 Methodist camp meeting:
<blockquote>
D. Michael Quinn argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of 1820 can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land. {{ref|quinn1}}
</blockquote>

One need not refer to Quinn, however, to demonstrate that at least one Methodist camp meeting took play near Palymra in 1820. The ''Palymra Register'' notes the occurrence of a Methodist camp meeting in the area in June 1820. From the ''Palmyra Register'' June 28, 1820:
<blockquote>
''Effects of Drunkenness.''—DIED at the house of Mr. Robert M'Collum, in this town, on the 26th inst. ''James Couser'', aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. M'Collum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed all night—called for breakfast next morning—when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, whom he flung with the greatest ease,—he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,—was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expires.—It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of the community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities. {{ref|palmyra.register.june.28.1820}}
</blockquote>

We find in the subsequent issue that the Methodist's objected to the paper's implication of what happened at their camp meeting, and the ''Register'' published something of a retraction. From the ''Palmyra Register'' July 5, 1820:
<blockquote>
"'''Plain Truth'''" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying the Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of ''them'', but at the grog-shops that were established at, or ''near'' if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate ''them'' by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."—And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning. {{ref|palmyra.register.july.5.1820}}
</blockquote>

Although the ''Palmyra Register'' does not specify the location of this camp meeting, we do have evidence that meetings were indeed occuring on Vienna Road. Dr. Matzko cites Orsamus Turner,
<blockquote>
At some point between 1821 and 1829, Smith served as “a very passable exhorter” at Methodist camp meetings “away down in the woods, on the Vienna Road.” {{ref|matzko1}}
</blockquote>

It should be noted that Matzko's assertion that this occurred "between 1821 and 1829" is not supported by the source, since Turner never specifies the timeframe during which Joseph acted as an "exhorter." Despite the fact that Turner is a hostile source , the full quote does contain some important additional information,
<blockquote>
But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings. {{ref|turner1}}
</blockquote>

This quote presents critics with a dilemma (as can be seen in the Wikipedia article "First Vision"). Critics wish to demonstrate the Joseph was associated with the Methodists after being instructed during the First Vision not to join any church. They attempt to do this by minimizing the mention of a "debate club" and instead imply that Joseph was a formal "exhorter" in Methodist meetings. It is noteworthy, however, that even critic Dan Vogel states that Joseph "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite." {{ref|vogel1}}

==Conclusion==
*The ''Palmya Register'' clearly records that the Methodist's were holding a camp meeting in June 1820. This contradicts the assertion that "Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
*Note that the newspaper did not report on this meeting directly—the camp meeting only became notable when a complaint was made by the Methodists regarding the association of the meeting with the death of a drunken man. This contradicts the critics' assertion that the [[No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications?|absence of mention of a camp meeting or "revival" in the local newspaper means that one never occurred]].
*The fact that one Methodist camp meeting was not mentioned directly in the newspaper leaves wide open the possibility that other camp meetings were held which were also not mentioned.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|quinn1}}D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist "Camp Meeting" in 1820,” Dialogue Paperless, E-Paper#3, expanded version (“definitive”), December 20, 2006, http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/e4.pdf (accessed March 6, 2007).
#{{note|palmyra.register.june.28.1820}}''Palmyra Register'' June 28, 1820, p. 2.
#{{note|palmyra.register.july.5.1820}}''Palmyra Register'' July 5, 1820, p. 2.
#{{note|matzko1}} John Matzko, "The Encounter of the Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 40, no. 3 (Fall 2007), p. 78 note 2, citing Orsamus Turner, ''History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris' Reserve'' (Rochester, N.Y.: William Alling, 1851), 214, in ''Early Mormon Documents,'' 3:50.
#{{note|vogel1}} Vogel, "Early Mormon Documents," 3:50, n. 15.
#{{note|turner1}} Orsamus Turner (1801-1855) "Origin of the Mormon Imposture" Littell's Living Age Vol. XXX, No. 380, August 1851, p. 429.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Brigham Young and Adam-God theory

2009-03-17T13:26:25Z

TedJones:

{{CreationPortal}}
==Criticism==
Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=220-221}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}
* {{50Questions}}

==Response==

===Origins===
Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the ''Journal of Discourses'', the ''Deseret Evening News'', and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy.

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

:Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.{{ref|by1}}

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

*Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
*Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
*Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
*Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.{{ref|buerger1}}

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.{{ref|ag-js}} While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.{{ref|bergera}})

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

===Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church===

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.{{ref|penrose1}}

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

:We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.{{ref|kimball1}}

===Apologetic approaches===
There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.

====Adam as the patriarch of the human family====
The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widstoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh ([http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/16#16 Exodus 4:16]; [http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/7/1#1 7:1]). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

:President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the ''Doctrine and Covenants'' and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/78/15-16#15 D&C 78:15–16]].{{ref|jfs1}}

It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.

====Scribal error====
A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.

===="Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."====
LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume ''Brigham Young Addresses'', believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way [[Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple|"Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner"]] and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.{{ref|watson1}} Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate [[Elohim and Jehovah|Elohim/Jehovah/Michael]] with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

====Brigham was wrong====
Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.{{ref|hale1}} Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:

:Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.{{ref|mcconkie1}}

====We don't know====
A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

:Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.{{ref|robinson1}}

==Conclusion==
Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|by1}}{{JoD1|author=Brigham Young|title=Discourse|date=9 April 1852|start=50|end=51}} (Emphasis in the original.)
#{{note|buerger1}}{{Dialogue1|author=David John Buerger|article=The Adam-God Doctrine|vol=15|num=1|date=Spring 1982|start=45}} {{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,19946}}
#{{note|ag-js}}See, for example, ''Deseret News'', 18 June 1873, p. 308{{link|url=http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/deseretnews3,143025}}: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."
#{{note|bergera}}{{Dialogue | author=Gary James Bergera | article=The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 | vol=13 | num=2 | date=Summer 1980 | start=7 |end=49 }}{{link|url=http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,2878}}
#{{note|penrose1}}{{IE1|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|date=September 1902|start=873}} reprinted in {{MS|author=Charles W. Penrose|article=Our Father Adam|64. 50 |date=11 December 1902|start=785|end=790}} (this paragraph from p. 789).
#{{note|kimball1}}{{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Our Own Liahona|date=November 1976|start=77}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1976.htm/ensign%20november%201976.htm/our%20own%20liahona%20.htm}}
#{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS|vol=1|start=98|end=99}}
#{{note|watson1}}Elden Watson, "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God" {{link|url=http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm}}
#{{note|hale1}}Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?," Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3 (n.p., 1982).{{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm}}
#{{note|mcconkie1}}Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.
#{{note|robinson1}}{{aremormonschristians|start=18|end=21}} {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser2.htm}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=263969}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{AdamWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{AdamFAIR}}

===External links===
{{AdamLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{AdamPrint}}

Book of Mormon/B.H. Roberts' testimony

2009-02-01T19:37:44Z

TedJones:

==Criticism==
Critics charge that the 'problems' with the Book of Mormon made Brigham H. Roberts (an early LDS apologist and member of the First Quorum of Seventy) lose his faith in the its historicity. The primary source upon which this criticism is based originates with Roberts' manuscripts detailing his critical study of the Book of Mormon, which was published under the title [[B.H. Roberts and "Studies of the Book of Mormon"|''Studies of the Book of Mormon'']] years after his death.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=76, 368 n.143}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=75}}
*{{CriticalWork:Ankerberg Weldon:Everything|pages=280, 301–3}}
*John R. Farkas and David A. Reed, ''Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions, and Errors'' (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1995), 222.
*Joel B. Groat, "B. H. Roberts' Doubts," ''Heart and Mind: The Newsletter of Gospel Truths Ministries'' (January-March 1995): 5-6
*Brigham D. Madsen, ed., ''B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon'' (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
*{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=40–42}}
*George D. Smith, "'Is There Any Way to Escape These Difficulties?' The Book of Mormon Studies of B. H. Roberts," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 17:2 (Summer 1984): 94-111.
*James R. Spencer, ''The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon'' (Boise, Idaho: Through the Maze, 1991).
*{{CriticalWork:Tanner:Changing World|pages=126–8}}
*{{CriticalWork:White:Letters|pages=140–142}}

==Response==

It should be pointed out that even if Roberts ''had'' lost his testimony, this would represent nothing more than a personal tragedy for him. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

Roberts was an able scholar, and he was not afraid to play 'devil's advocate' to strengthen the Church's defenses against its enemies. In a presentation on some potential Book of Mormon 'problems' prepared for the General Authorities, Roberts wrote a caution that subsequent critics have seen fit to ignore:

:Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.{{ref|fn1}}

Roberts felt that faith in the Book of Mormon was a given, and so did not consider any 'negative' points to be of ultimate concern, though he did seek for better answers than he then had. The critics have often published his list of of [[Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews|"parallels" between the ''Book of Mormon'' and Ethan Smith's ''View of the Hebrews'']], without informing modern readers that Roberts did not consider the problems insoluable, or a true threat to faith in the Book of Mormon. They also do not generally cite the numerous other statements in which, to the end of his life, he declared the Book of Mormon to be a divine record.

Roberts' studies also made him willing to modify previous conceptions, such as when he concluded that the Book of Mormon was not a history of the only immigrants to the New World.

In 1930, he enthused about the Book of Mormon a century after the Church's organization:

:Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for God hath spoken. ... The Record of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim, the Book of Mormon, has been revealed and translated by the power of God, and supplies the world with a new witness for the Christ, and the truth and the fulness of the Gospel.{{ref|fn2}}

===Other witness of truth of the Church and the Gospel===

The book ''Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy'', compiled by Ben R. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948) contains the last seven discourses delivered by Elder Roberts: four in Salt Lake City, one in San Francisco (on the radio), and the last two at the World Fellowship of Faith in Chicago, in August-September 1933. He died three weeks after the last discourse. Roberts had returned from a lengthy illness, which made him realize how precious life is. He determined to leave his testimony, especially for the youth of the church.

From the first of these addresses:{{ref|roberts.first}}

:It has always been a matter of pride with me, in my more than fifty years of ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that it was no trivial thing which called this Church of the New Dispensation into existence. It was not founded upon the idea that men differed in relation to how baptism should be administered, whether by sprinkling or pouring, or immersion; or whether it was for the remission of sins, or because sins had been forgiven. I always rejoice that it had a broader foundation than whether the form of church government and administration should be Episcopal or Congregational, or the Presbyterian form of government; or any other minor [23] difference of theologians. It went to the heart of things, and astonished the world, and at the same time, of course, aroused its opposition.

:When the Prophet of the New Dispensation asked God for wisdom, and which of the many churches about him he should join, he was told to join none of them, for they were all wrong; their creeds were false; they drew near to the Lord with their lips, but their hearts were far removed from him; they had a form of godliness but denied the power thereof; that the Christian world, especially, had, in fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy, transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, and had broken the everlasting covenant (Isaiah 44), of which the blood of the Christ was the blood of that everlasting covenant. He promised the incoming of a New Dispensation of the Gospel of Christ, which would link together and unite all former dispensations, from Adam down to the present time, the great stream of events speeding on towards an immense ocean of truth in which it would be united with all truth. It was a world movement. To lay the foundations of a greater faith, it brought forth the American volume of scripture, the Book of Mormon. In time the authority of God, the holy priesthood was restored, the minor phase of it, through John the Baptist; and later Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the kingdom of heaven, bestowed upon them by the Christ, appeared to the Prophet Joseph and Oliver Cowdery, and the divine and supreme authority from God was conferred upon them. By this authority and under the power of it they organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, outlined its doctrines, and established it firmly in the earth.

:That is how the New Dispensation began—not whether baptism should be by immersion, or for the forgiveness of sins. The rubbish of accumulated ages was swept aside, the rocks made bare, and the foundations relaid” (22-23).

Roberts then refers to a statement in David Whitmer, ''To All Believers in Christ'', about the translation of the Book of Mormon being interrupted due to some problems between Joseph and Emma:

:He [Joseph] took up the divine instrument, the Urim and Thummim, tried to translated but utterly failed. Things remained dark to his vision. David Whitmer tells how Joseph left the translating room and [26] went to the woodslot on the Whitmer farm, and there corrected himself, brought himself into a state of humiliation and of exaltation at the same time. He went back to the house, became reconciled to Emma, his wife, came up to the translating room, and again the visions were given and the translation went on. But he could translate only as he was in a state of exaltation of mind and in accord with the Spirit of God, which leads to the source of hidden treasures of knowledge” (25-6).

Roberts then refers to the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, which was revealed shortly after the Church was organized, in June 1830:

:It goes further than we have come, this knowledge by faith. After the Prophet had translated the Book of Mormon he began to receive the revelations which today make up the Book of Moses, the translation of [27] which began to be published about six months after the Book of Mormon had been translated” (26-7).

:I admire the achievements of the men of science and hold them in honor…. But what am I to think of the Prophet of God, who speaking a hundred years before him, and speaking by the knowledge that comes by faith, revealed the same truth—viz., that as one earth shall pass away, so shall another come, and there is no end to God’s work? This gives to the Church of the New Dispensation the right to voice her protest against a dying universe—its death blows to the immortality of man.

:Oh, ye Elders of Israel, this is our mission, to withstand this theory of a dying universe and this destruction of the idea of the immortality and eternal life of man. We have this knowledge revealed of God, and it is for us to maintain the perpetuity of the universe and the immortal life of man. Such was the mission of the Christ, such is ours” (29).

:I am one of the special witnesses of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, made so by the office I hold, and I want to begin a return to my ministry in this pulpit by exercising my duty as a special witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here it is: Jesus Christ is the very Son of God, the incarnation of all that is divine, the revelation of God to man, the Redeemer of the world; for as in Adam all die, so shall they in Christ be brought forth alive. Also Jesus is the Savior of individual man, through him and him alone comes repentance and [30] forgiveness of sins, through which the possibility of unity with God comes. As his witness I stand before you on this occasion to proclaim these truths concerning the Christ, not from scientific knowledge or book learning, but from the knowledge that comes by faith” (29-30)

It is difficult to see these as the words of one who has lost his faith in the Church, the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith.

==Conclusion==

An excellent argument against the claim that B.H. Roberts abandoned the Book of Mormon can be found in his last book, which he considered his masterwork. [B. H. Roberts, ''The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology'', edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994).] Given Roberts' clear respect for the Book of Mormon in this volume, there can be little doubt that he continued to believe in and treasure it.

Ironically for the critics, many of the issues which drew Elder Roberts' attention have now been solved as more information about the ancient world has become available. He expressed faith that this would be the case, and has been vindicated:

:We who accept [the Book of Mormon] as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph.{{ref|fn3}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923.
#{{note|fn2}}{{CR1|author=Brigham H. Roberts|date=April 1930|start=47}}
#{{note|roberts.first}} B. H. Roberts, “Protest Against the Science-Thought of a ‘Dying Universe’ and no Immortality for Man: The Mission of the Church of the New Dispensation,” delivered SLC Tabernacle, Sunday, 23 January 1932; reproduced in ''Discourses of B.H. Roberts of the First Council of the Seventy'', compiled by Ben E. Roberts (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company 1948), 11–30.
#{{note|fn3}}{{IE|author=B. H. Roberts|article=The Translation of the Book of Mormon|num=9|date=April 1906|start=435|end=436}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[BH Roberts | Brigham H. (BH) Roberts]]
*[[Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews]]

===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai281.html|topic=Brigham H. Roberts / B.H. Roberts}}

===External links===
*{{JBMS-8-2-8}} 
* {{BYUS|author=Truman G. Madsen|article=B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon|vol=19|num=4|date=Summer 1979|start=427|end=445}}{{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=1634}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Truman G. Madsen|article=B. H. Roberts after Fifty Years: Still Witnessing for the Book of Mormon|date=December 1983|start=11}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c30805481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{FR-9-1-13}}
*{{Ensign1|author=John W. Welch|article=B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth|date=March 1986|start=56,Q&A on “Study of the Book of Mormon” and other points}}{{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=102aef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

===Printed material===
*Anonymous, ''A Sure Foundation: Answers to Difficult Gospel Questions'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988), 60-74.
*{{newlight| author=Truman G. Madsen|article=B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon|start=7|end=31}}
*Truman G. Madsen, ed., "B. H. Roberts: His Final Decade: Statements About the Book of Mormon (1924-1933)" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, n. d.).
*Truman G. Madsen and John W. Welch, "Did B. H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985).
*John W. Welch, "Finding Answers to B. H. Roberts's Questions," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985).
*{{Reexploring |author=John W. Welch|article=No Sir, That's Not History|start=88 | end=90}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=296816}}

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married

2009-01-29T18:03:42Z

TedJones:

{{JesusChristPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ was married?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 2}}
*{{QuestionsMormonsShouldAsk}}

==Answer==

The easy answer is that no, Mormons don't officially believe that Jesus was married. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue. Individual members are free to believe as they wish concerning this matter. (Some believe that He was married; others believe He wasn't. Most members are open to believe either way.)

===Early LDS views===
Several early LDS leaders believed Jesus was married, and said so from the pulpit on occasion. Here is one example from Apostle Orson Hyde:

:Now there was actually a marriage [at Cana ([http://scriptures.lds.org/john/2/1-11#1 John 2:1–11])]; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed ([http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/53/10#10 Isaiah 53:10]), before he was crucified. "Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?" No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Savior's in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered. I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me.{{ref|hyde}}

===Later views===

Joseph Fielding Smith apparently believed that Jesus had been married, and that He had children. In a 1963 letter to Elder Smith (then President of the Quorum of the Twelve), J. Ricks Smith asked for clarification on a question he had concerning the marital and paternal status of Jesus:

Burbank, California
March 17, 1963

President Joseph Fielding Smith
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City 11, Utah

Dear President Smith:

In a discussion recently, the question arose, "Was Christ married?" The
quote of Isaiah 53:10 was given, which reads,

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put Him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul and offering for sin, he shall see
His seed, he shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper in his hand.

What is meant by "he shall see his seed"? Does this mean that Christ had
children?

In the Temple ceremony we are told that only through Temple marriage can
we receive the highest degree of exaltation and dwell in the presence of
our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Christ came here to set us the
example and, therefore, we believe that he must have been married. Are we
right?

Sincerely,

J. Ricks Smith
1736 N. Ontario Street
Burbank, California

In a written response (on the same letter), Elder Smith indicated his feelings on the matter—both in the positive. Placing an asterisk next to the words "His seed" in the letter, at the bottom of the letter Elder Smith wrote:

*Mosiah 15:10-12 '''Please''' Read Your Book of Mormon!

Placing two asterisks next to the words "he must have been married," at the bottom of the letter Elder Smith wrote:

**Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!

Apparently Elder Smith believed that the married state of Jesus was true, but that it should not be preached to others.

===Official doctrine?===
Even though several leaders have expressed positive opinions on the subject, there has never been any revelation or official statement on the subject on behalf of the Church.

Dale Bills, a spokesman for the Church, said in a statement released Tuesday, 16 May 2006:
:The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine.{{ref|bills}}

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
The Bible is silent on the issue of Jesus' marital state, and there has been no modern revelation stating he was or was not married. This leaves the issue an open question. Some Latter-day Saints believe he was married, but the Church has no position on the subject.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|hyde}}Address given at General Conference, Salt Lake City, 6 October 1854; [http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_02/refJDvol2-19.html ''Journal of Discourses'' 2:82]. Elder Hyde's interpretation of Isaiah 53:10 is at variance with the one given in the Book of Mormon. Abinadi taught that the prophets and those who believe the words of the prophets are Jesus' seed ({{s||Mosiah|15|10-13}}).
#{{note|bills}}"LDS do not endorse claims in 'Da Vinci'," ''Deseret News,'' 17 May 2006; ([http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635208214,00.html Link]). See also "Book's premise not so shocking to LDS," ''The Salt Lake Tribune,'' 19 May 2006; ([http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_3844431 Link]).

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{JesusWiki}}

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

===External links===
{{JesusLinks}}

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

Joseph Smith's prophecy of the Civil War

2009-01-19T14:41:56Z

TedJones:

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
==Criticism==
Joseph Smith made an 1832 prophecy of the Civil War. Critics scramble to dismiss this prophetic "hit" by various tactics, including:
# claiming a rebellion was already going on in South Carolina in 1832
# claiming the Church did not publicize the prophecy until after the Civil War started
# claiming a civil war was "inevitable," and "anyone" could have predicted it
# claiming "war was not brought to all nations" by the Civil War and/or claiming there is "no link" between the Civil War and later conflicts
# claiming slaves did not rise up against their masters in the Civil War

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=267-276}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=124}}
* Marvin Cowan, ''Mormon Claims Answered'' {{nc}}
*{{CriticalWork:Decker Hunt:The God Makers|pages=244}}
*John Farkas, "False Prophecies Of Joseph Smith." {{nc}}
*{{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 9}}

==Response==

The prophecy given 25 December 1832 reads:

:1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
:2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
:3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
:4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
:5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
:6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
:7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
:8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. ({{s||DC|87|1-8}})

==Rebellion on-going in South Carolina?==

Ed Decker and Dave Hunt claim that Mormons "cover up the fact that the 'prophecy' was made in the midst of an earlier rebellion in December 1832. That rebellion ended quietly a few months later."{{ref|decker.1}}

This claim, however, is false. As Gil Scharffs noted:

:The authors are correct when they say Joseph Smith announced the Civil War prophecy when rebellion in South Carolina was threatening. A large 1832 rebellion never materialized and the threat ended a few months later.{{ref|scharffs.1}}

Does this mean that the Church quietly shelved the prophecy for several years?

==Spreading the prophecy==

Joseph Smith reiterated the prophecy in 1842, and added more detail:

:12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.
:13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832. ({{s||DC|130|12-13}})

Orson Pratt testified that he began preaching the prophecy soon after it was given. In 1870, he said:

:I went forth before my beard was gray, before my hair began to turn white, '''when I was a youth of nineteen''', now I am fifty-eight, and from that time on I published these tidings among the inhabitants of the earth. '''I carried forth the written revelation, foretelling this great contest, some twenty-eight years before the war commenced. This prophecy has been printed and circulated extensively in this and other nations and languages.''' It pointed out the place where it should commence in South Carolina. That which I declared over the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and many other parts in the East, when but a boy, came to pass twenty-eight years after the revelation was given.

:When they were talking about a war commencing down here in Kansas, I told them that was not the place; I also told them that the revelation had designated South Carolina, "and," said I, "you have no need to think that the Kansas war is going to be the war that is to be so terribly destructive in its character and nature. No, it must commence at the place the Lord has designated by revelation."

:What did they have to say to me? They thought it was a Mormon humbug, and laughed me to scorn, and they looked upon that revelation as they do upon all others that God has given in these latter days—as without divine authority. But behold and lo! in process of time it came to pass, again establishing the divinity of this work, and giving another proof that God is in this work, and is performing that which He spoke by the mouths of the ancient prophets, as recorded in the Book of Mormon before any Church of Latter-day Saints was in existence.{{ref|pratt.1870}}

Thus, Orson Pratt indicates that not only did he preach regarding Joseph's prophesy in 1832, but that he was ridiculed for it. He would also remember:

::Now I am aware that it is almost impossible for even some of the Latter-day Saints to get that confidence and that strong faith in the events which God intends to accomplish on this land in the future to believe in such a thing, to say nothing about outsiders, that do not believe a word of it. Outsiders do not believe it any more than they believed me when I was a boy and took that revelation which was given in 1832, and carried it forth among many towns and cities and told them there was to be a great and terrible war between the North and the South, and read to them the revelation. Did they believe it? Would they consider that there was any truth in it? Not in the least, "that is a Mormon humbug" they would say. "What! this great and powerful nation of ours to be divided one part against the other and many hundreds of thousands of souls to be destroyed by civil wars!" Not a word of it would they believe. They do not believe what is still in the future. (Orson Pratt, December 27, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12:344)

The Church also printed the prophecy in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in 1851, and continued to publicize it until the Civil War. Clearly, they did not keep it "under wraps" until the Civil War became inevitable.{{ref|eom.1}}

Orson Pratt also included the full prophecy from December 1832 on the front page of his publication ''The Seer'' in April 1854, with interpretation and editorial comment for 6 pages.{{ref|seer.1}} There are also many extant manuscript copies of the prophecy, in the handwriting of men who left the church before Joseph Smith died, and some who didn't (WW Phelps, Thomas Bullock, Willard Richards [who died before the Civil War], Edward Partridge, Algernon Sidney Gilbert, Frederick G. Williams).{{ref|woodford.1}}

Robert Woodford's Ph.D. thesis also located a an article in a Philadelphia paper quoting the revelation from 1851, with comments, from May 1861; it was reprinted in England a month later:

:Philadelphia Sunday Mercury, Sunday May 5, 1861

:A MORMON PROPHECY

:We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851, containing a selection from the ‘revelations, translations and narratives’ of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. The following prophecy is here said to have been made by Smith, on the 25th of December, 1832. In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfilment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not:

:‘A REVELATION AND PROPHECY BY THE PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR, JOSEPH SMITH. Verily thus saith the Lord…. Amen [complete text quoted]’

:The war began in South Carolina. Insurrections of slaves are already dreaded. Famine will certainly afflict some Southern communities. The interference of Great Britain, on account of the want of cotton, is not improbable, if the war is protracted. In the meantime, a general war in Europe appears to be imminent. Have we not had a prophet among us?{{ref|philadelphia.1}}

Clearly, members of the Church did not hide the prophecy, and spread it far and wide among themselves and among others from the 1830s until its fulfillment in the 1860s.

==Anyone could have predicted it?==

So, was the prophecy "so obvious" that anyone could have predicted it? The critics must prove this contention.

Where is the evidence that most Americans were predicting a Civil War between 1832-1851? Why was Orson Pratt ridiculed if this was obvious to everyone? This seems a desperate attempt by the critics to dismiss a "hit" by Joseph. Everything can look obvious in retrospect if one doesn't know history.

There is, in fact, good contemporary evidence that this prophecy was mocked by prominent authors only 4 years before the Civil War began. A newspaper article from 1857 reported a garbled version of the prophecy, but the author's scorn is clear:

:New beauties are being revealed in the Mormon faith almost every day, and new prophecies of Joe Smith fulfilled. When any event of state occurs, or any remarkable circumstance happens, some of the Mormon apostles find a prophecy of Joseph’s (probably dated twenty-five years ago), which has just been fulfilled by the occurrence. These prophecies are never spoken of until after the occurrence. The fact is, the leaders frame the prophecy themselves after its fulfillment. Joe Smith did at one time prophecy that before the year 1860, '''the Union would be divided, the havoc of war spread over our glorious Republic, battles be fought whose equal was never before known, father would be arrayed against son, and brother against brother, and that our glorious Republic would be stained with human blood from North to South''', the Constitution be trampled upon, and the Government fall to the ground; and then would the little band of Mormons rear the standard of their creed aloft, and proclaim to the world that the millennial year had been ushered in, and the reign of Christ begun. {{ea}}

:But methinks the Mormons can entertain but '''little hope of the fulfillment of that prophecy''', as the Union has stood the strongest test and did not even shake. But when I shall see the above prophecy come to pass, I shall probably then change my mind about the truth of the revelation. At present, I see no chance of its verification within the time specified.{{ref|golden.era}}

==War was not brought to all nations==

World history since 1861 demonstrates that armed conflict widened and persisted since the American Civil War. There is nothing in the prophecy that claims that the Civil War must be the direct ''cause'' of on-going war, merely that on-going war will occur. And, it will happen after "Great Britain" "shall...call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves":

:2 And ''the time will come'' that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
:3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and ''then war shall be poured out upon all nations.'' ({{s||DC|87|2-3}})

This is an excellent description of WW I and II, during which war ''was'' "poured out" into global battles. And, since WW II war and strife has not ceased.

==Slaves did not rebel==

Nearly 200,000 blacks fought for the North, and most of these were former slaves.{{ref|slaves}} However, the prophecy does not tie slave rebellions directly to the Civil War. After discussing the call on other nations for assistance, the prophecy reads:

:4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.({{s||DC|87|4}})

The phrase "it came to pass," and related forms generally indicates a transition in subject or time. The prophecy is clear that the revolt of slaves will come "after many days," which in scriptural language (which sees Jesus' second coming as "near," and "even at the door") generally suggests a fairly long period of time.

==Other accounts of the prophecy from LDS leaders==

The contemporary evidence is complemented by accounts given later by LDS leaders.

*I copied a revelation more than twenty-five years ago, in which it is stated that war should be in the south and in the north, and that nation after nation would become embroiled in the tumult and excitement, until war should be poured out upon the whole earth, and that this war would commence at the rebellion of South Carolina, and that times should be such that every man who did not flee to Zion would have to take up the sword against his neighbor or against his brother. These things are beginning to be made manifest, but the end is not yet; but it will come, and that too much sooner than the world of mankind anticipate, and all those things spoken by the mouths of his Prophets will be fulfilled. (Wilford Woodruff, July 27, 1862. Journal of Discourses 10:13)

*The Lord has led this people out of bondage with a high hand and an outstretched arm. No man acquainted with the history of this people is ignorant of the almighty power of God that has been manifested in the organization, growth and present condition of the Church, though they may be unable naturally to account for it. And the more we grow and prosper, the more our enemies are angry with us. They are angry with us because we told them, thirty years ago, that calamity would come upon this nation. Their anger still increases, while they are drinking of the bitter cup; and at the same time the Saints are increasing in numbers, in faith, in hope, in wealth and in power. I have talked with men who professed to be gentlemen and dispensers of life and salvation to the people, who, Pharaoh-like, declared that they would rather be damned than believe that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God. I promised them they should have their choice. (Brigham Young, September 28, 1862. Journal of Discourses 10:4)

* We are under no necessity of sending forth the Elders of Israel in the condition that we have hitherto had to do; in fact, it would not be safe for a man to shoulder his valise and tramp through the States as the Elders used to do. Bloodshed, robbery, murder, jay-hawking (a polite name for robbery,) stalks abroad throughout the land, and the only chance for safety is for every man to pass along about his business and be silent; this is the case in many parts of the country. The fact that Joseph Smith predicted the present trouble and state of affairs—prophesied the result of mobbing the Saints in Missouri and elsewhere, enrages them; instead of the fulfillment of that prophecy making the people of the country friendly to us, it makes them bloodthirsty, more filled with hell, more eager to waste and destroy and crush out the last remaining particle of truth that may exist on the face of the land. (George A. Smith, April 6, 1863. Journal of Discourses 10:144)

* These things ought to be a warning to us. We comfort our souls sometimes on the fulfillment of the prophecies of God. We say "Mormonism" must be true because Joseph Smith prophesied thus and so concerning a division of this nation, and that the calamities which are now causing it to mourn should commence in South Carolina. That is true, he did prophecy that, and did foretell the events that have since transpired, and did tell where the commencement of those difficulties should originate. Well, if this is true, are not other things true? If it is true that the Lord has revealed a certain amount of truth in relation to these matters, is it not as true that He has revealed other truths in which we are as individuals interested; and if it is true that God has commenced to deal with other nations as He is doing with this until war and desolation shall spread through the earth, it is just as true that we ought to be very careful what we are doing to secure the favor of God and to fulfill our destiny upon the earth in a manner which will meet his designs. (John Taylor, October 25, 1863. Journal of Discourses 10:278)

''For further discussion on the Saints' attitude to the Civil War, both before and after its outbreak, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy|Attitude of Saints to Civil War prophecy]].

==Conclusion==

The critics' desperate scramble to explain away this prophecy fails on multiple grounds. It is no surprise that nineteenth-century members of the Church
consistently saw the Civil War as a fulfillment of prophecy, and evidence of Joseph Smith's prophetic gifts.
==Endnotes==
#{{note|decker.1}} ''The God Makers'', 224, lines 21-24; cited by {{TruthGodmakers1|start=Chapter 15}} {{link1|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
#{{note|scharffs.1}} {{TruthGodmakers1|start=Chapter 15}} {{link1|url=http://www.fairlds.org/The_God_Makers/tagm31.html}}
#{{note|pratt.1870}} {{JoD13_1|author=Orson Pratt|article=The Latter-day Kingdom of God, etc.start=135|date= 10 April 1870}}
#{{note|eom.1}} {{EoM1|author=Paul H. Peterson|article=Civil War Prophecy|vol=1|start=288}} {{link1|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3509}}
#{{note|seer.1}} Editor [Orson Pratt], "A Revelation and Prophecy by the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph Smith," ''The Seer'' 2/4 (April 1854): 241–247.
#{{note|woodford.1}} Robert Woodford, The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants, Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1974, 1104–1124.
#{{note|philadelphia.1}} Woodford, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 1110, 1111 (figures 12 and 13) [figures contain photocopy of the masthead of each newspaper, and the article itself].
#{{note|golden.era}} "O.P.M.," "Mormonism and its Origin, Number 4," ''The Golden Era'' San Francisco (18 October 1857). [Thanks to Ted Jones for this reference.]
#{{note|slaves}} "American Civil War: Slavery during the war," ''wikipedia.org'' (accessed 15 Jan 2009) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery_during_the_war}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ProphecyWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
{{ProphecyFAIR}}
===External links===
{{ProphecyLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{ProphecyPrint}}

Utah/Statistical claims/Suicide rate among Mormons

2007-08-31T02:19:03Z

TedJones: spelling

==Criticism==

Critics charge that the suicide rate in Utah is higher than the national average, and that this demonstrates that being a Latter-day Saint is psychologically unhealthy.

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

* "MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of...teenage suicide..." - MacGregor Ministries: A Christian Outreach to those trapped in cult groups, "Facts: Mormons Wont Tell You When They Call at Your Door. Part 1," (last accessed 30 August 2007), capitalization and punctuation as in original.
* Life After Ministries: Leading Mormons to the ''REAL'' Jesus, "Utah's Dark Reality," (accessed 30 August 2007). 

==Response==
[[Image:Suicide rate 2004 US state map 50dpi.png|frame|right|Note that the intermountain and western US has consistently higher suicide rates than most other states. The "suicide belt" shown here has been noted, however, since at least the 1980s (see Seiden, "Death in the West," (1984) cited below in endnotes). Source of data:McIntosh (2004), cited below. Map by Mike Parker for FAIR, (c) 2007.]]

As is often the case, critics do not tell the whole story.

The data underlying this attack come from U.S. death data. Studies of cause of death (using ICD-10 codes X60-X84, Y87.0) have been extracted by state. In 2002, Utah ranked #11 (tied with Oregon) in the nation for number of suicides per 100,000 people in the population.{{ref|suiciderates1}}

===Geographic differences===
It has long been recognized that the intermountain United States — Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico — has a higher suicide rate than the rest of the country, in what has been labeled the "suicide belt."{{ref|belt1}} The reasons for this are not entirely clear, though numerous theories have been advanced.{{ref|suicidecauses1}}

The critics also do not tell us that of these high-risk states, Utah has one of the ''lowest'' suicide rates:

{| valign="top" border="1"
!State!!Rank (1 is worst)<br>2002 data!!Suicide rate per 100,000<br>2002 Data!!Rank (1 is worst)<br>2004 data!!Suicide rate per 100,000<br>2004 Data
|-
| valign="top"| Wyoming||<center>1</center>||<div align="center">21.1</div>||<center>5</center>||<div align="center">17.4
|-
| valign="top"| Montana||<center>3</center>||<div align="center">20.2</div>||<center>2</center>||<div align="center">18.9</div>
|-
| valign="top"| Nevada||<center>4</center>||<div align="center">19.5</div>||<center>3</center>||<div align="center">18.9</div>
|-
| valign="top"| New Mexico||<center>5</center>||<div align="center">18.8</div>||<center>4</center>||<div align="center">18.7</div>
|-
| valign="top"| Arizona||<center>6</center>||<div align="center">16.2</div>||<center>11</center>||<div align="center">15.3</div>
|-
| valign="top"| Colorado||<center>7</center>||<div align="center">16.1</div>||<center>6</center>||<div align="center">17.3</div>
|-
| valign="top"| Idaho||<center>9</center>||<div align="center">15.2</div>||<center>7</center>||<div align="center">16.9</div>
|-
| valign="top"| <font color="red">Utah</font>||<center><font color="red">11</font></center>||<div align="center" color="red">14.7</div>||<center><font color="red">9</font></center>||<div align="center" color="red">15.6</div>
|-
|}

(Note that relatively small numbers can make rankings fluctuate from year to year, and that aggregate data from several years is the most reliable measure of suicide rates.){{ref|suicide2004data}}

===The role of religion===

Critics hope that by condemning Utah, readers will condemn the LDS Church, which is associated with Utah, and the most numerous religion.

However, government studies on suicide rate do not cite religion or spiritual beliefs. One cannot extrapolate from these data and presume that the LDS population is the "reason" for the higher suicide rates. Since the suicide rates are lower than the surrounding north western states, one could just as easily conclude that the LDS Church ''protects'' against suicide!

Critics also ignore that religion is generally a ''protective factor'' against suicide; religions provide both social support for people who are struggling, and religious beliefs which condemn suicide can be a disincentive to acting on suicidal thoughts.{{ref|suicideprotect1}} Studies of "high religious groups" (including LDS) have shown benefits for emotional maturity, self-esteem, and lower depression rates.{{ref|lds3}}

Some studies of LDS patients and non-LDS patients have shown no differences in the rate of suicidality based on being homemakers and working outside of the home.{{ref|lds1}} Suicide rates in LDS patients went down as their religious involvement went up.{{ref|lds2}} Inactive LDS males experience a suicide rate roughly four times that of active LDS males. Non-LDS males experience a suicide rate roughly six times that of active LDS males.{{ref|lds4}} This same research shows that U.S. white males (aged 20-34) had suicide rates two and one-half to seven times that of active LDS males of equal age. Active LDS males, aged 15–19, have an equal suicide rate to that of national rates.{{ref|lds5}}

===Evangelical Christians and suicide===

Since many of the critics who attack the Church on this issue are conservative Evangelical protestants, it is perhaps fair to ask how well Evangelicals fare on measures of mental health when the same shoddy methodology is applied to them.

If we play the same game as the evangelical critics, we could choose the states with high concentrations of conservative Protestants. There are thirteen states in which the Southern Baptist Convention has more congregations than any other denomination.{{ref|sbc1}} The suicide rates for these states are tabulated below:{{ref|sbc2}}

{| valign="top" border="1"
!State!!Rank (1 is worst)<br>2004 data!!Suicide rate per 100,000<br>2004 Data
|-
| valign="top"| <font color="blue">US National average</font>||<font color="Blue"> > 36 </font>||<font color="blue">11.1</font>
|-
| valign="top"| Alabama||24||12.1
|-
| valign="top"| Arkansas||20||13.1
|-
| valign="top"| Florida||15||13.7
|-
| valign="top"| Georgia||36||10.9
|-
| valign="top"| Kentucky||16 (tie)||13.5
|-
| valign="top"| Louisiana||27||11.9
|-
| valign="top"| Mississippi||23||12.1
|-
| valign="top"| Missouri||22||12.4
|-
| valign="top"| North Carolina||14||12.0
|-
| valign="top"| Oklahoma||14||14.4
|-
| valign="top"| South Carolina||19||11.5
|-
| valign="top"| Tennessee||18 (tie)||13.4
|-
| valign="top"| Texas||39||10.2
|-
| valign="top"| <font color="red">Utah</font>||<font color="red">9</font>||<font color="red">15.6</font>
|-
|}

All but three of these states are in the top half of suicides, and all but two (Georgia at 10.9 and Texas at 10.2/100,000) are above the national average.

===Differences are small===

A closer look at the numbers shows that supposedly "Mormon" Utah is not that different from the "conservative Protestant Bible belt."

The relatively low numbers of suicides, when compared to the whole population, can mislead us. Utah ranks #9, and Texas fares best at #39. Utah's 2006 population was estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau at 2,550,063.{{ref|utah2006}} We can thus calculate:

'''The difference between the rates is:'''
15.6 - 10.2/100,000 = <font color = red>5.4/100,000.</font><br><br>
'''Number of "units" of 100,000 people:'''
2,550,063 / 100,000 = <font color = blue>25.5</font><br><br>
'''Number of "additional" suicides compared to Texas:'''
<font color = blue>25.5</font> units of /100,000 x <font color = red>5.4</font>/100,000 = 138 suicides

Thus, Utah's higher suicide rate results in 138 more suicides than it would if it had the rate of Texas. Each suicide is a tragedy, but these relatively small figures demonstrate how cautious we must be creating "single cause" models of a complex phenomenon like suicide, since small shifts in numbers (Utah had only 377 suicides in 2004, versus 2300 for Texas) can markedly impact rates.

It is far more likely, that (as with Utah) the higher-than-average suicide rates of the thirteen states examined above are due to factors which they share with the intermountain west, such as lower population densities, a more rural lifestyle, etc. And, just as active membership in the LDS faith is protective against suicide, so too membership in conservative Christian denominations likely has similar psychological benefits.

==Conclusion==

On a geographical basis, Utah performs well on rates of suicide. This may be correlated to the willingness of Utah's population to seek treatment, as evidenced by rates of anti-depressant medication prescription. (''See [[LDS_use_of_antidepressants|LDS antidepressant use]]''.) Religion is generally protective against suicide, and studies on Latter-day Saints bear this out.

It is unfortunate that critics wish to trivialize a serious problem such as suicide—a leading cause of death in the United States—by using it as a club to beat a specific religion. They do this without any data implicating the Church, and much data which argues against the patients' religion as a causitive factor.

Religion is generally a patient's ally in mental health. Cheap slogans and finger pointing do nothing to help address the real problems faced by the mentally ill who are at risk of depression, schizophrenia, and other risk factors for suicide. While Utah does well in comparison to its neighbors, there is clearly much to be done to understand the western United States' higher suicide rates, and to help lower the rates of suicide and attempted suicide nationally and internationally.

Critics should avoid concluding that Utah data = Mormon data. This is often not true, and in this case the Mormon influence may be lowering Utah's suicide rates below those of its neighboring states.

If we follow the flawed logic of the critics, one is better of as an American by ''not'' being a Southern Baptist, since states in which they are the most common religion almost always have worse suicide rates than the nation as a whole. Clearly this logic is specious and ought to be rejected.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|suiciderates1}} K.D. Kochanek, S.L. Murphy, R.N. Anderson, C. Scott "Deaths: Final data for 2002. National Vital Statistics Reports," 53/5 (2004), Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2005-1120. (p. 92, Table 29) [data are by place of residence]. {{pdflink|url=http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05.pdf}}
#{{note|belt1}} Matt Wray, "Suicide Trends and Prevention in Nevada," Dept of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas from Justice & Democracy Forum, 5 November 2004. (Accessed 30 August 2007). {{link|url=http://www.unlv.edu/centers/cdclv/healthnv/suicide.html}}
#{{note|suicidecauses1}} Some suggested reasons have included: lower population density, greater proportion of males, larger Hispanic and American-Indian populations, heavier alcohol consumption: See Richard H. Seiden, "Death in the West — A Regional Analysis of the Youthful Suicide Rate," ''West J Med'' 140/6 (June 1984): 969–973. {{link|url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1011159}} Risk is also thought to increase with weak social institutions, low social capital, areas of rapid population growth, gun ownership and a "frontier culture" of individualism and self-reliance: see Wray, cited above.
#{{note|suicde2004data}} John L. McIntosh, "Rate, Number, and Ranking of Suicide for Each U.S.A. State*, 2004," American Association of Suicidology (accessed 30 August 2007). {{pdflink|url=http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004statedatapgv1.pdf}}
#{{note|suicideprotect1}} See, for example, "Suicide Prevention: Scientific Information: Risk and Protective Factors," National Institute of Mental Health {{link|url=http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Suicide/Suicide-risk-p-factors.htm}}; AM Schapman, HM Inderbitzen-Nolan, "The role of religious behaviour in adolescent depressive and anxious symptomatology," ''J Adolesc'' 25 (2002): 631-643; S Cotton, E Larkin, A. Hoopes, et al, "The impact of adolescent spirituality on depressive symptoms and health risk behaviors," ''J Adolesc Health'' 36 (2005): 529e7–529.e14; DB Larson & HG Koenig, "Is God good for your health? The role of spirituality in medical care," ''Cleve Clin J Med'' 67/2 (2000): 83–84; DBSJ Larson & ME McCullough, ''Scientifc research on spirituality and health: a consensus report'' (Rockville, MD: National Institute of Healthcare Research, 1997).
#{{note|lds3}}LC Jensen, J Jensen, T Wiederhold, "Religiosity, denomination, and mental health among young men and women," ''Psychological Reports'' 72 (3 Pt 2) on (1 June 1993) 1157–1158.
#{{note|lds1}} DC Spendlove, DW West, WM Stanish, "Risk factors and the prevalence of depression in Mormon women," ''Soc Sci Med'' 18/6 (1984):491–495.
#{{note|lds2}} SC Hilton, GW Fellingham, JL Lyon, "Suicide rates and religious commitment in young adult males in Utah," ''American Journal of Epidemiology'' 155/5 (1 March 2002): 413–419.
#{{note|lds4}} {{BYUS1|author=Gilbert W. Fellingham, Kyle McBride, H. Dennis Tolley, and Joseph L. Lyon|article=Statistics on Suicide and LDS Church Involvement in Males Age 15-34|date=2000|vol=39|num=2|start=177}}{{link|url=http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=86}}
#{{note|lds5}} Fellingham et al., 179.
#{{note|sbc1}} Largest Religious Groups in the United States: Religious Bodies which have the Most Congregations of any Denomination in One or More States, 1990," ''adherents.com'' (Accessed 30 August 2007). {{link|url=http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html}}
#{{note|sbc2}} John L. McIntosh, "Rate, Number, and Ranking of Suicide for Each U.S.A. State*, 2004," American Association of Suicidology (accessed 30 August 2007). {{pdflink|url=http://www.suicidology.org/associations/1045/files/2004statedatapgv1.pdf}}
#{{note|utah2006}} U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Population Estimate (Utah). (Accessed 30 August 2007). {{link|url=http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US49&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{StatsWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{StatsFAIR}}
===External links===
{{StatsLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{StatsPrint}}

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2007-08-24T21:05:22Z

TedJones: spelling

{{GermanWiki|http://www.de.fairmormon.org/index.php/Mountain_Meadows_Massaker}}

==Criticism==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved or even ordered the killing.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*Richard Abanes, ''One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church''.
*Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''.
*David L. Bigler, ''Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896'' (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1998).
*Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows''.
*Jon Krakauer, ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''.

==Response==
One of the most tragic and disturbing events in Mormon history took place on 11 September 1857, when approximately 120 men, women and children, travelling through Utah to California were massacred by a force consisting of Mormon militia members and Southern Paiute Indians. The Mountain Meadow Massacre, as it is known, has remained a topic of interest and controversy as Mormons and historians struggle to understand this event, and the Church's detractors seek to exploit it for polemical purposes.

===Setting the stage===
Shortly before July 24th, 1847, the first party of Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. These Saints were the first vanguard of Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, by angry mobs. At the time of its first settlement, the area that came to be known as Utah still belonged to Mexico, but was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the end of the Mexican-American War in early 1848. (The treaty ceded all of what would become California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of modern-day Texas, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.)

Over the next two years the bulk of the Church members who had been driven from Nauvoo reached the valley. Great Salt Lake City was built, and under Brigham Young's direction satellite settlements were established north, south, and west of the city. The sites for these settlements were often chosen because of proximity to an important natural resource; one such resource was the iron ore deposits found in what became known as Iron County in Southern Utah.

The continuation of successful missionary work in the Eastern United States and Europe brought a steady influx of Mormon converts to the Mormon communities; the population continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico.

====The Utah War====
In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices that existed within the territory. While there were no doubt many honest public servants among them, a number of the federal appointees to both territorial and federal positions, including some judges, turned out to be both morally venal and abusive of the prerogatives of their offices. Scandals arose over the behavior of some of these men, who left the territory in disgrace. Rather than accept responsibility for their own failures, a group of them, upon returning to the East, published claims that they had been forcibly expelled, and that the Mormons were rebelling against federal authority.

These claims caused quite an uproar in Washington, where the nascent Republican Party demanded that something be done about the Mormons. Acting without benefit of an investigation, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Alfred Cumming as territorial governor and, on June 29, 1857, ordered federal troops to escort Cumming to Utah. In addition, Buchanan ordered the cessation of all mail service to Utah in an effort to provide the advantage of surprise for the advancing troops.

Despite the efforts of Buchanan to keep the advance of the army secret, Mormon mail runners notified Brigham Young, the incumbent territorial governor, the very next month that the troops were on their way to Utah. He had not been officially notified that he was to be replaced, so he viewed the news—combined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troops—as an act of war by the United States government against the Mormons. Brigham instructed all missionaries to return to Utah, ordered Church missions closed, and the abandonment of the more isolated Mormon colonies. He prepared to defend the territory against the approaching army by adopting a "scorched earth" policy. He sent small parties to harass the approaching troops with the intent of slowing their progress while he prepared the Saints for the very real possibility of imminent battles.

The news of the approaching army spread quickly through the body of the Saints as preparations were made. Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined. This conflict, known as the Utah War, was ultimately resolved peacefully; but it was into this tense atmosphere that the Baker-Fancher train entered in August of 1857.

====The Baker-Fancher Train====
[[Image:Mountain meadows map1-Utah1857.jpg|right|frame|Map showing the area around Mountain Meadows, highlighting the Spanish Trail]]
The Baker-Fancher train consisted of California-bound emigrants who started their journey in Arkansas and Missouri. The exact number of people in the train is estimated at 120, but some reports have put it as high as 140. This number consisted of men, women, and children. Led by John T. Baker and Alexander Fancher, the train was reported to have been well-stocked, with plenty of cattle, horses, and mules.

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857 and camped west and a little south of the city, on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not apparently raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they started to follow this advice. They got as far as the Bear River, and then decided to take the southern route. This caused them to again pass through Salt Lake City, and then further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

There were no reports of problems related to the Baker-Fancher party until they reached Fillmore (about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City). Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements.

It was also common knowledge that the train originated in Arkansas, where earlier in the year beloved apostle Parley P. Pratt had been murdered near the town of Van Buren. Rumor had it that some of the members of the train were among those who had participated in Pratt's murder, or that they bragged about his killing. There are also reports that some of the emigrants told a few Latter-day Saints that when they had transported their families to California they were going to return, join the army, and help subdue the Mormons.

If there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear that the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed, as had been the case in northern Utah. The presence of the train did nothing to alleviate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

====Overland Travel Conditions====
Commencing with the opening of Oregon Territory, and accelerated by the discovery of gold in California, large numbers of emigrants crossed the interior of the continent to the West Coast. Before the completion of the trans-continental railroad in 1869, overland travel was both difficult and dangerous. Native Americans, alarmed by the ever-increasing numbers of white settlers crossing their land, frequently attacked emigrant groups. The weather could also be dangerous, with winter coming early to the high country and sudden storms occurring during all seasons of the year. For protection against all of these hazards, emigrants typically banded together in large parties called "wagon trains," as covered wagons of the "pairie schooner" type were the most typical vehicles used. The climate made overland travel a seasonal affair, as emigrant parties would try to complete their crossings during the warm months. To be caught on the high plains or the mountain passes when winter came was often a deadly mistake.

[[Image:MMMMap2.JPG|frame|left|Mountain Meadows site on modern map.
{{link|url=http://www.entradautah.com/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre_Site}}]]
The Mormon settlements of Utah provided important rest and reprovisioning points for overland travelers. One of the most widely used wagon trails to California branched off the Oregon trail in Northern Utah, and ran almost due South through Salt Lake City to eventually join the Old Spanish Trail. Emigrants could purchase foodstuffs and other supplies from businesses in Salt Lake City and other towns, while their animals—both beasts of burden and any livestock—could find excellent grazing at a spot near near the west end of the Pine Valley Mountains, about 30 miles west of Cedar City and 28 miles north of St. George, known as ''las Vegas de Santa Clara'' or the Mountain Meadows. It was common for emigrant parties to camp there for several days or even weeks while their animals gained condition for the gruelling desert crossings still to come.

===The Main Participants===
There were many, many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are those considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as a bishop in the Mormon Church at that time. He did not participate personally in the massacre, but was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was born May 27, 1813, at Windham, New York. He was the commander of the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia with the rank of lieutenant colonel, and Colonel Dame's second-in-command. His ecclesiastical position was stake president. Haight's role in the massacre was a complex one; he was involved in its planning, but also made some efforts to stop or at least delay the actions against the emigrants. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major in the Iron County militia, and served under Isaac C. Haight. He is, by all reports, the person who ordered the massacre to begin. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight.

'''Philip Klingensmith''' was a bishop in Cedar City and an officer in the Iron County militia. In this latter role, he carried orders and other messages between various militia officers. He was present at the massacre and subsequently turned states' evidence, but his testimony was of no real help to the authorities.

'''John Doyle Lee''' was born September 12, 1812, at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and baptised on June 17, 1838. He served numerous missions for the Church and eventually moved to southern Utah in 1850 or 1851. At the time of the massacre he was a major in the Iron County militia, and commander of its Fourth Battalion. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

===The Massacre===
As the Baker-Fancher train camped at Mountain Meadows, some of the residents of Cedar City and the surrounding areas determined that some action needed to be taken against the emigrants. The heightened anxiety brought on by rumors swirling about the train, the advancing federal troops, the drought that many had suffered through for the year, and the memories of violence in Missouri and Illinois all combined in an explosive atmosphere, yet the residents were unclear on what action they should take.

This excellent summary of events in the days immediately preceding the massacre is provided by Robert H. Briggs:

:On or about 2 September 1857, some encounters between individuals in the Fancher train and others in the Mormon iron mining settlement of Cedar City sparked an angry reaction among the Mormon settlers. By Friday, 4 September, however, militia leaders in Cedar City had decided against direct Mormon interference with the train. Thus, Major (also stake president) Isaac Haight dispatched couriers to Pinto, a new settlement near the California Road directly west of Cedar City. The couriers, Joel White and Philip Klingensmith, carried orders for settlers there to not interfere with the approaching emigrant train. Meanwhile, however, a pivotal meeting occurred that same evening in Cedar City between Major Isaac Haight of the Second Battalion and Major John D. Lee of the Fourth. What emerged was a plan to incite local Paiute Indians to gather at Mountain Meadows with Lee as their leader. Lee departed in the early hours of Saturday, 5 September. Evidently, Lee had no further contact with militia leaders at Cedar for the better part of the next four days.

:Lee returned home to Fort Harmony and laid over on Saturday and part of Sunday, making preparations. He departed for the Meadows on Sunday and arrived there later that afternoon or evening. Other couriers carried word to outlying settlements, each relaying that Indians were to be assembled. There was some confusion about exactly where this rendezvous was to occur. Many Paiutes from the region of Cedar and Fort Harmony were sent to Mountain Meadows. Other bands along the Santa Clara River were urged to gather at Santa Clara Canyon (west of present Veyo).

:Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

:All of this was unknown to John D. Lee. At that moment, Lee was en route to the Mountain Meadows, his adopted Indian son in tow to act as interpreter. They met up with Paiute bands at Mountain Meadows that afternoon or evening. One line of evidence suggests that Santa Clara Canyon, roughly a dozen miles south of Mountain Meadows, was where the planned attack would occur. Yet early Monday morning, 7 September, Lee’s Paiute auxiliary force attacked the emigrant encampment at the southern tip of Mountain Meadows. We will probably never know for certain whether Lee attacked according to a preconceived plan or, driven by some personal desire or impulse, attacked on his own initiative. In any case, as things stood at the Meadows, the attack was on.

:Activity erupted throughout Southern Utah. In Cedar City, Major Haight dispatched the youthful Englishman James Haslam to Great Salt Lake City for orders from President Young. Haight also sent an express via Joseph Clews to Amos Thornton at Pinto which Thornton was to relay. In it, Haight ordered Lee to "keep the Indians off the emigrants and protect them from harm until further orders." Thornton rode to the Meadows but searched in vain for Lee. Unbeknownst to Thornton, Lee had gone south, spending the night near Santa Clara Canyon with Mormon militiamen and the Paiute allies he encountered there. This group arrived at the Meadows on Tuesday afternoon, 8 September. That is the earliest Lee could have received an express that the planned attack had been postponed.

:There were additional expresses between Tuesday, 8 September and Thursday, 10 September. The most significant of these was one from militia headquarters in Parowan which conveyed the ambiguous order to save emigrants lives yet not to precipitate a war with the Indians under any circumstances.{{ref|briggs1}}

In a meeting at Cedar City on the afternoon of September 6, 1857, local leaders received word that the wagon train, at Mountain Meadows, had been surrounded by Paiute Indians who were determined to attack the emigrants. (Some historians are undecided as to whether Paiute Indians were actually involved in the massacre at all; some assert that it was white men disguised as Indians.) The leaders decided that they needed to ask Brigham Young what to do, so they dispatched a fast rider to Salt Lake City with a message to that effect. James H. Haslam, the messenger, left on Monday, September 7, and made the 300-mile journey in just a little more than three days. Within an hour he had an answer from Brigham and began the journey back to Cedar City. Brigham's message said, in part, "In regard to the emigration trains passing through our settlements, we must not interfere with them until they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them." Unfortunately, the messenger arrived back in Cedar City two days after the massacre, on September 13, 1857.

As Haslam was leaving for Salt Lake City on September 7, the Indians' attack commenced. Several of the emigrants were killed, as were several of the Indians, producing a stalemate situation. The emigrants circled their wagons and dug into a rifle pit, and the Indians sent a call to the surrounding country for reinforcements. They also sent for John D. Lee, an area farmer on friendly terms with the Indians. According to Lee's later court testimony, the Indians asked him to help with the attack. Lee instead sent word to Cedar City on September 10, asking what should be done.

It is at this point that the exact nature of the events becomes sketchy; most are provided by Lee, and the veracity of his testimony is naturally suspect. He indicated that in short order there were quite a few other Indians and white settlers who had joined the group outside of the siege. The night of September 10 and the following morning the whites debated what to do. It appears that one incident which factored into their eventual murderous decision was the killing, the night before, of one of the emigrants by white men. It appears that two men from the Baker-Fancher party left the camp, evaded those surrounding their camp, and started toward Cedar City to request help. Within a few miles the two met three white men, whom they asked for help, but then they were attacked by the white men. One of the two was killed, and the other was able to make his way back to the Baker-Fancher party.

How could such news factor into the decision to massacre the emigrants? There is no doubt the news that both Indians and white men—Mormons—were attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormons—already quite high—would be incited and there would be greater likelihood that a military force would moving upon the southern settlements from the west. Facing down an army from the east might be bearable, but facing one from both the east and the west was unbearable.

Such reasoning does not excuse, of course, the decision that the white men in the area then made; it is only offered as a way to understand some of the excitement and the hysteria that enveloped those in the area. The decision was apparently made on the morning of September 11 to destroy those in the Baker-Fancher party who were over the age of seven. To effect the massacre with a minimum of loss among the white men, it was decided to lure the emigrants out of their circled wagons and into the open. In the words of B.H. Roberts,

:The conception was diabolical; the execution of it horrible; and the responsibility for both must rest upon those men who conceived and executed it; for whatever of initiative may or may not have been taken by the Indians in the first assault upon these emigrants, responsibility for this deliberately planned massacre rests not with them.{{ref|bhr1}}

Thus it was that on September 11, a flag of truce was carried to the Baker-Fancher party by William Bateman. He was met outside the camp by one of the emigrants, a Mr. Hamilton, and an arrangement was made for John D. Lee to speak to the emigrants. Lee described to them a plan to get them through the hostile Indians. The plan involved the emigrants giving up their arms, loading the wounded into wagons, and then being followed by the women and the older children, with the men bring up the rear of the company in a single-file order. In return for compliance with these terms, the white men would give the emigrants safe conduct back to Cedar City where they would be protected until they could continue their journey to California.

The emigrants agreed, the wagons were brought forward and loaded with the wounded and the weapons, and the procession started toward Cedar City. Within a short distance, one armed white man was positioned near each of the Baker-Fancher party adults, ostensibly for protection. When all was in place, a pre-determined signal was given and each of the armed white men turned, shot, and killed each of the unarmed Baker-Fancher party members. Within three to five minutes the entire massacre of men, women, and older children was completed. The only members of the original party remaining were those children judged to be under eight years old, numbering about 17 persons.

===The Aftermath===
After the massacre, local leaders attempted to portray the killings as solely the act of Indians. This effort began almost immediately, with John D. Lee's report to Brigham Young. It wasn't long, however, before charges started to surface that Indians were not the only participants, but that there were whites involved. Responding to the charges that whites were involved, Brigham Young urged Governor Cumming to investigate the matter fully. However, the governor maintained that if whites were involved, they would be pardoned under the general amnesty granted by the governor to the Mormons in June 1858. This amnesty was issued at the behest of U.S. President James Buchanan, and covered all hostile acts against the United States by any persons in the course of the Utah War.

Most scholars recognize that there was a local cover-up of the massacre. What there is disagreement on is how involved higher Church leaders were in any cover-up. Some have concluded that Brigham Young, himself, was involved in a cover-up, but others argue that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. It is known that Brigham was not privy to the full details at first; he was told that only Indians were involved. In April 1894 Wilford Woodruff stated the following concerning the massacre and Brigham Young's supposed involvement:

:One instance I will name here: A man went around Nauvoo asking every man he could, saying, "You come and be adopted to me, and I shall stand at the head of the kingdom, and you will be there with me." Now, what is the truth about this? Those who were adopted to that man, if they go with him, will have to go where he is. He was a participator in that horrible scene--the Mountain Meadow massacre. Men have tried to lay that to President Young. I was with President Young when the massacre was first reported to him. President Young was perfectly horrified at the recital of it, and wept over it. He asked: "Was there any white man had anything to do with that?" The reply was No; and by the representations then made to him he was misinformed concerning the whole transaction. I will say here, and call heaven and earth to witness, that President Young, during his whole life, never was the author of the shedding of the blood of any of the human family; and when the books are opened in the day of judgment these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.{{ref|ww1}}

Most historians have followed Juanita Brooks, who concluded that Brigham did not know about the massacre before-hand, and was horrified to learn of it.{{ref|brooks2}}

Of course, it wasn't just Indians who were involved. The best available evidence supports two levels of cover-up: (1) concerted denials of guilt by massacre participants, including attempts to shift the blame to their erstwhile Indian allies, and (2) attempts by Mormons not involved in the massacre to shield accused persons from capture or prosecution. The latter actions did not normally arise out of any approval for the massacre, and indeed were usually undertaken without knowledge of the guilt of the persons being shielded; rather they reflected a feeling of community solidarity versus the coercive power of an often-hostile government, and a pervasive mistrust of U.S. authorities and their willingness or ability to ensure that Mormon defendants would receive a fair trial. Accusations of any more substantial cover-up, either by the Mormon Church as an institution, or by its highest leaders, are not supported by the available evidence.

[[Image:LeeGrave.jpg|frame|Marker at grave site of John D. Lee, in Panguitch, Utah]]
Eventually, as more information came to light, some of the principal participants were excommunicated from the Church. One participant, John D. Lee, was found guilty of murder in federal court after twenty years and two trials. The first trial occurred in 1875, before the anti-Mormon judge Jacob Boreman. The prosecutor was an even more notorious anti-Mormon named R. N. Baskin. This official failed to properly try the case against Lee, leading very little evidence against him, and instead focused upon an attempt to prove Brigham Young's complicity in the massacre. This trial ended with a hung jury.

Lee's second trial occurred the following year; the prosecutor was U.S. District Attorney Sumner Howard, and Boreman was again the presiding judge. This time around, the case was properly tried; the jury heard overwhelming evidence against Lee, who was duly convicted and sentenced to be executed for his crime. On March 23, 1877, Lee was executed at Mountain Meadows and buried in Panguitch, Utah. Though other Mormons were certainly as culpable as Lee (he did not act alone), he was the only one executed.

The long hiatus between the massacre and Lee's trial is one of the factors which some feel supports the accusations of an institutional cover-up. However, the true reasons for this delay are quite different. As mentioned earlier, Governor Alfred Cumming believed that the massacre was covered by the Utah Amnesty, thus making any investigation pointless. This belief was shared by a number of eminent legal authorities, including some charged with law enforcement in Utah. The attempts by some politically minded judges, such as John Cradlebaugh, to direct the investigation and prosecution of crime in Utah and conduct "crusades" against the Mormon Church actually hindered rather than helped prosecutorial and investigative efforts.

An additional claim sometimes put forward is that Lee was a "scapegoat" and that some kind of corrupt agreement existed between Church leaders and territorial authorities to not pursue anyone else. However, the record does not back this up. After Lee's execution, territorial authorities wanted to continue the investigations with a view to bringing more of the guilty parties to justice. The official correspondence shows that a reward was offered for the capture of Isaac C. Haight, William Stewart and John Higbee, all suspects in the planning and/or execution of the massacre, and that this reward remained on offer for at least seven years. Lee was not tried as a "scapegoat" but as an actual participant--evidently the leading participant--in the massacre, who had done more than any other person to bring it about, and who had actually killed five people.

===Polemical Accounts===
Almost as soon as news of the massacre reached the eastern United States, enemies of the Church began exploiting it for polemical purposes. The '''content''' of the various polemical accounts of the massacre varies considerably, but the '''intent''' of them is always and everywhere the same: to explain the massacre as a consequence of the doctrine, beliefs, practices or culture of the Mormon Church, and thus destructive of its truth claims.

When writing about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in his ''Comprehensive History of the Church,'' B.H. Roberts stated that he

:recognizes it as the most difficult of all the many subjects with which he has to deal in this ''History.'' Difficult because it is well-nigh impossible to sift out the absolute truth of the matter from the mass of conflicting statements made by witnesses and near witnesses of the affair; and equally difficult to reconcile the differences of contending partisans. Anti-"Mormon" writers have been determined to fasten the crime upon the Church of the Latter-day Saints, or at least upon her leaders; and also, as a rule, holding that in some way "Mormon" doctrine and "Mormon" church polity was responsible for the crime. On the other hand, church people who in all good conscience, and justly, resent this imputation against their church and its leaders, have been naturally slow to admit all the facts that history may insist upon as inevitable.{{ref|bhr2}}

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit that we don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and we probably never will have all of them. That hasn't stopped some people, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 1857.

There have been many accounts of the events that occurred in relation to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a small library could be filled with pertinent materials. Perhaps the best-known of the recent polemical accounts are:

# Will Bagley, ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows''. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party. Bagley relies upon a strained interpretation of some new evidence, including minutes of a meeting that took place between Dimick Huntington and some Southern Utah Indian chiefs on September 1, 1857, ten days before the massacre. The very brief minutes (actually a diary entry made after the fact) indicate that the purpose of the meeting, as with similar meetings held in the previous few days, was to enlist the Indians as allies against the approaching army, and not against the Fancher party. Although the particular item of evidence is new, the thesis which it is pressed into service to support actually dates to the 19th century; for example, in her book ''Wife No. 19,'' Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning accused Brigham Young of ordering the massacre so that he could appropriate the property of the victims.
# Sally Denton, ''American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857.'' This book attempts to show that no Indians had anything to do with the massacre, but that every part of it was carried out exclusively by white men. This also repeats a nineteenth-century theme; Mark Twain in ''Roughing It'' implied that the Indian participants in the massacre were really white men "tricked out" as Indians.

Certain themes continue to re-emerge in polemical accounts of the massacre. The claim that it was the worst massacre in American history is a common one; accusations of direct complicity on the part of Brigham Young, of subsequent institutional cover-up or of the "scapegoating" of John D. Lee, are common. Perhaps the following comments relative to Brigham Young's involvement may be instructive:

:As a lad I worked in the Main Street Store of the United Order Building and Manufacturing Company in Logan, Utah, commonly known as the U.O. The Logan Branch of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, familiarly known as the Z.C.M.I., was on the corner, one half block down the street. It was one of my duties to take our egg and butter accumulation, commodities of exchange in those days, to the egg and butter house of Z.C.M.I. It was a small building a little to the rear of the large Z.C.M.I. store building. The worker in charge there was a man who to my boyish eyes was old, perhaps in his sixties. His name was James Holton Haslam. He and I became good friends. Eager for knowledge, I discovered that he was the courier who traveled the road between Salt Lake City to Parowan and back to help President Young establish friendly feelings among the emigrant company, the settlers, and the Indians. The Indians were giving chief concern. He described minutely the trip from Cedar City to Salt Lake City riding three hundred miles in three days, to warn President Young that trouble for the traveling company was brewing in the south. Brigham Young was greatly troubled. Within a few hours after his arrival Brother Haslam was again in the saddle to instruct the people at Parowan and neighboring communities to do everything in their power to protect the emigrants. When he reached Parowan, the massacre had already occurred. He had come too late!

:He described to me in detail his meeting with President Young. As he recounted the events of the massacre as far as he learned them, and he had every opportunity of knowing them intimately, President Young wept. The President did everything in his power to prevent any tragedy. He knew that if he failed his people, trained to live in peace and to give love for hate, they would be charged with the commission of the crime. He had suffered persecution with his people for many years. Moreover, he understood the horror of taking life.

:The Latter-day Saints had been persecuted and driven from place to place since the beginning of the Church. He and the people prayed for peace to continue their work of redeeming the stubborn desert for human use. This terrible massacre would only intensify the hatred against the Latter-day Saints.

:In righteous anger Brother Haslam defended to me as he had done in the courts and elsewhere Brigham Young against the charge of being an accessory to the criminal act of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He was very convincing to me; and a boy is not easily fooled.

:When later I read Brother Haslam's testimony in the question and answer method, as published in the ''The Journal,'' Logan, Utah, December 4, 1874, I became more than ever convinced that he told the whole and absolute truth, and that Brigham Young was wholly innocent of any complicity with those who committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Note an extract from the long testimony covering two newspaper pages. Apparently he arrived in Salt Lake City in the forenoon and found President Young in his office holding a council meeting with his brethren. Brigham Young asked him after reading the message, from Cedar City or Parowan, if he could take the trip back, if so, to take a little rest, and start back during noontime. "He (President Young) said that the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all costs if it took all of Iron County to protect them." He felt the matter strongly. His eyes filled with tears, said Brother Haslam.

:It would have been difficult to fool Brother Haslam. I believed him, and the many other supporting evidences, in preference to others who faraway in time are setting up their own theories of explanation. Brigham Young was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.{{ref|jaw1}}

===Historical Healing===
The events that transpired during the Mountain Meadows Massacre have lived (as they should) in infamy; there is no explanation that will justify the murders of those five days in September, and we cannot fully understand them. In the words of one scholar, "the complete—the absolute—truth of the affair can probably never be evaluated by any human being; attempts to understand the forces which culminated in it and those which were set into motion by it are all very inadequate at best."{{ref|brooks1}}

In spite of the tragedy, efforts have been made to heal the wounds that were gouged into the collective American psyche 150 years ago. In the 1980s descendants of the victims and the perpetrators met together to start bridging the divide and make peace with the past. In a series of meetings, the seeds of trust were planted and a hopeful sense of accord started to bloom. On September 15, 1990, many of these descendants gathered together at Mountain Meadows to dedicate a memorial and marker to those who died there. The new memorial was a rendition of the original rock cairn constructed at the site by a military expedition under the direction of Major James H. Carleton about two years after the massacre.


==Endnotes==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD1|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.

==Further reading==

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

===FAIR web site===
{{MMMFAIR}}
===External links===
{{MMMLinks}}

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

Question: How is Genesis 3:5 used by critics to attempt to show that the Mormon doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan?

2007-08-22T23:00:37Z

TedJones:

{{ScriptureHeader}}
==King James Version==
:For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
{{s||Genesis|3|5}}

==Other translation(s)==
:For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (NASB)

:God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does. (CEV)

:For God sees that on the day when you take of its fruit, your eyes will be open, and you will be as gods, having knowledge of good and evil. (BBE)

==Use or misuse by Church critics==
This verse is used by critics to attempt to show that the LDS doctrine of deification is a teaching of Satan.

==Commentary==
The critics seriously misunderstand and misinterpret this passage of scripture.

Note that the serpent makes two claims:

(1) "ye shall not surely die" and

(2) "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

But if you look forward to {{s||Genesis|3|22}} you will read:

:"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:"

So the use of Genesis 3 to counter the doctrine of deification/theosis has two problems associated with it. The first is that Satan never claimed that Adam and Eve would be gods, just that they would be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

The second and bigger problem is that Satan was, in fact, telling the truth on this point. We know he was because after the event the Lord God confirms that Adam and Eve did indeed become as gods, knowing good and evil. As usual, Satan mixes lies and truth. In this case he said that Adam and Eve wouldn't die (a lie) but he also said that their eating would make them "as gods, knowing good and evil" (a truth).

So the lie of Satan in the Garden of Eden was that transgressing God's law would not bring death. This chapter isn't even relevant to beliefs about deification, and the text shows that the comment that WAS made wasn't a lie at all.

Satan didn't promise that Adam and Eve would become gods, and what Satan did say about becoming as gods was true.

==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
[[Deification of man|Deification of man]]

===FAIR website===
{{Tg|topic=Deification|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai011.html}}

===On-line articles===

===Print works===

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Personages that appeared referred to by Church leaders as "angels"

2007-07-30T23:45:55Z

TedJones: spelling

{{FirstVisionPortal}}

==Criticism==

As late as the end of the nineteenth century there was uncertainty among LDS Church officials about the identity of Joseph Smith's First Vision visitants. This is evident in a history article printed in 1888 by assistant Church historian Andrew Jenson, wherein he twice referred to one of the visitors as an "angel".{{ref|fn1}} Two years later Church leaders revised Jenson's text to clear up the discrepancy but did not provide any notation about the change. This action constitutes a cover-up among the highest ranks of Mormonism.

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

*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Case Against Mormonism'', (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., 1967), 1:125.
*Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st Century Mormonism'' (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), 31, 337 nt. 57.

==Response==

The publication that anti-Mormon critics are referring to was called ''The Historical Record'' and it was printed in Salt Lake City, Utah. Volume 7 of this collection contains the reference that critics utilize to try and cast doubt upon the veracity of the First Vision account.

Andrew Jenson was not a Church historian ('assistant' or otherwise) in 1888 when he wrote the text in question. A book produced by Jenson himself indicates that “his services were engaged by the First Presidency, and he was blessed and set apart by Apostle Franklin D. Richards [on] April 16, 1891, as ‘an historian’ in the Church.”{{ref|fn2}} Jenson was not sustained as the Assistant Church Historian until 10 April 1898. (See ''Autobiography'', 192, 193, 391). Since Andrew held no position of authority in the LDS Church when he made his "angel" comments, they cannot be looked upon as having any kind of evidentiary value in regard to what Church leaders believed at the time.

Church critics neglect to tell their readership that Andrew Jenson is plainly listed as the editor and the publisher of both the initial 1888 text and the revision which they allege was printed in 1890. Furthermore, they fail to make note of the fact that when volumes 5-8 of ''The Historical Record'' were advertised for sale in a Utah newspaper in 1889 it was noted that this was a "work which Brother Jenson offers" to the public (''Deseret Weekly'', vol. 39, no. 15, 5 October 1889, 460). There is, therefore, no justification whatever in claiming that the LDS Church was somehow responsible for the content of Andrew Jenson's original 1888 article or the revised text that was issued later.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE TWO PERSONAGES

Critics also conveniently forget to tell their audience about the context of the remarks in question. Andrew Jenson is quoting - at length - from the offical 1838 Church history account of the First Vision (first published in 1842). Jenson made an important modification to the quoted material that needs to be noted. When Jenson reached the part where the Prophet's two heavenly visitors identified themselves he capitalized the entire phrase, "'''THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM'''". It is the "Son" who is, just a few paragraphs later, twice identified as "the angel". Thus, Jenson does not in any way confuse facts and state that an angel (in the sense of a heavenly being who is subordinante to Deity) appeared during the First Vision. Rather, Andrew Jenson was applying the title of "angel" to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The chronological timeline below demonstrates, with ample documentation, that both before and shortly after Brother Jenson produced his disputed text he understood that Joseph Smith's First Vision consisted of seeing the Father and the Son.

'''4 July 1877'''
:On 4 April 1877 Andrew Jenson publicly announced that with the approbation of the First Presidency of the LDS Church, and under the direct supervision of Apostle Erastus Snow, he and another LDS convert would publish Joseph Smith's history in the Danish-Norwegian language (''Deseret News'', vol. 26, no. 12, 25 April 1877, 178). The first pamphlet in this series was printed on 4 July 1877 (see ''Autobiography'', 102-103). In the First Vision section of this pamphlet one of two personages - who are both suspended in the air - points to the other one and says, "Denne er min elskelige Son, hor ham" (Danish trans. - "That is my loveable Son, listen to him").

'''1879'''
:All of the pamphlets in Jenson's series on the history of the Prophet were combined in book form and entitled ''Joseph Smiths Levnetslob.'' The First Vision account is found near the front of the book (Andrew Jenson and Johan A. Bruun, ''Joseph Smiths Levnetslob'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Office, 1879), 2-4).

'''17 April 1883'''
:Elder Erastus Snow wrote to Andrew Jenson and informed him that he would be allowed to publish his translation of the ''Pearl of Great Price'' in his Danish periodical called ''Morgenstjernen'' ("''Morning Star''") (see ''Autobiography'', 132). Jenson read proofs for this project on 18 November 1883 (see ''Autobiography'', 134) and the text was published in ''Morgenstjernen'', vol. 2, 1883, pp. 81-107 and 161-78. This text identified the Prophet's visitors in the Sacred Grove as the Father and the Son.

'''January 1886'''
:In ''The Historical Record'', vol. 5, no. 1, January 1886, page 1 Andrew Jenson quoted a Church history text that was written by Elder George A. Smith in 1855 (see ''Deseret News'', vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2). Jenson's quote includes the portion of Elder Smith's history that speaks of the "two glorious Beings" who appeared to the Prophet. Elder Smith's capitalization of the word "Beings" makes it clear that these individuals were Deity.

'''5 April 1888'''
:In a General Conference address - only about three months after issuing his January 1888 "angel" text - Andrew Jenson said,

:"We claim in regard to the Latter-day Saints that it is necessary for them today . . . to know whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God or not, and whether or not he did receive the manifestations and power of God; to know if he did see the Father and the Son when he went to the woods to pray . . . . When [Joseph Smith] made the declaration that all were going astray that none of the sects of the day were right and that the Lord acknowledged none of them, he only repeated what was told him. It was very presumptuous for a boy of his standing in society to make such sweeping declarations as these, especially when that boy lived in the wilderness of New York . . . withal unlearned in the things of this world, a mere youth, and yet he made the declaration that all the Christian world had gone astray, that none of the sects were right, and that he had heard the voice of Jehovah" (''Millennial Star'', vol. 50, no. 18, 30 April 1888, 276-77).

'''1890 Revision'''
:One thing that critics have not acknowledged in their published comments about Andrew Jenson's text is that near the top of the page of Jenson's revised article he provided an important note about his source material. There he clearly stated that his record was “Compiled in part from the history of Joseph Smith, published in the ''Millennial Star'', and from Geo[rge] Q. Cannon’s writings about Joseph, the Prophet, as published in the ''Juvenile Instructor''.” This is very significant information since a consultation of Brother Cannon’s writings reveals that precisely twenty-two years earlier he was teaching in the ''Juvenile Instructor'' that Joseph Smith “had the glorious privilege of beholding the Father and the Son.”{{ref|fn3}} And, of course, the story of the First Vision that Jenson was drawing details from in the ''Millennial Star'' was the 1838 official Church history account, where the Father and Son are clearly identified.

'''16 January 1891'''
:In a public discourse Andrew Jenson spoke of the Prophet attending revivals, entering the woods to pray for wisdom in accordance with James 1:5, being attacked by the power of darkness, a light descending from the sky, and "then a vision of two glorious personages standing above him in the air, one of whom speaking to him, while pointing to the other, said: 'This is my beloved [S]on, hear him.' Here, then, was Jesus Christ being introduced by His Father to Joseph Smith, the praying boy, who next was informed by the Great Redeemer Himself, that all the sects of the day were wrong" (Brian H. Stuy, ed., ''Collected Discourses'' [Burbank, CA: B.H.S. Publishing, 1988], 2:[16 January 1891]).

WHY USE THE WORD "ANGEL"?

The one question about this whole episode that cannot be answered with certainty is—Why did Andrew Jenson decide to attach the title of "angel" to Jesus Christ in his January 1888 text? One possible explanation is that he made an innocent copyist's mistake. At the precise point where he employs the term "angel" he stops quoting the official Church history at length and begins closely paraphrasing and mixing together a small amount of material from the 1838 history and the Wentworth Letter. And then he goes right back to quoting the 1838 history at length. This section of the document reads, in the exact order, as follows:

:'''[1838 quotation]''' "I was answered that I must join none of them . . . . [The personage said,] 'they teach for doctrine the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"
:'''[paraphrased mixture / modified]''' The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches [1838], and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time [Wentworth]. Joseph continues:
:'''[1838 quotation / modified]''' "Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time."

It may be that when Brother Jenson was creating his document he had both of Joseph Smith's accounts sitting before him (1838 History and 1842 Wentworth). After stopping his direct quote of the 1838 text perhaps he glanced over at the Wentworth Letter's First Vision recital and saw the word "angel" very near to the phrase which he had decided to glean from (located only two sentences away) and when he returned to writing his new document he erroneously incorporated that term.

A second possibility is that Andrew Jenson understood that calling the Savior an "angel" was a perfectly acceptable convention for his time, and he saw nothing inappropriate about utilizing it in his writings. Noah Webster's standard nineteenth century English dictionary lists "Christ" under the entry for "Angel"{{ref|fn4}} and some theological texts of the day called Jesus Christ the "Angel of the Lord" (William Smith, ''Dictionary of the Bible'', vol. 1: s.v. “Angel of the Lord”).

A third possibility is that Andrew Jenson may have been uncritically drawing information from the previously published Joseph Smith journal entry for 14 November 1835 which reads: "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14 years old."{{ref|fn5}} If Jenson did not compare this entry with the 9 November 1835 entry (which had been published two weeks earlier){{ref|fn6}} he may have drawn the faulty conclusion that Joseph Smith had referred to both the Father and the Son as "Angels", instead of the correct conclusion that the Prophet actually "saw many angels" during the First Vision—along with the Father and the Son.

==Conclusion==

When the light of historical scholarship shines upon this particular charge of the critics, it quickly becomes apparent that this is really a non-issue. By the time that Andrew Jenson had published his anomalous First Vision account in 1888 the ''Pearl of Great Price'' rendition of the same story had already been canonized by the Church for eight years. Latter-day Saints had long been familiar with the official version of events that took place in the Sacred Grove and the precise identities of Joseph Smith's celestial visitors.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|fn1}}{{HR|vol=7|num=1|start=355|end=356}} (January 1888)
#{{note|fn2}}{{LDSBioEncy1|vol=1|start=261}}
# {{note|fn3}}{{JInstructor1|vol=1|num=1|date=January 1866|start=1|author=George Q. Cannon|article=Joseph Smith, the Prophet}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{Webster1828|article=“Angel,” definition #4, entry #4}}
#{{note|fn5}} {{DN1|date=29 May 1852}}
#{{note|fn6}} {{DN1|date=15 May 1852}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Joseph Smith's First Vision/John Taylor

2007-07-22T12:52:50Z

TedJones:

{{FirstVisionPortal}}
==Criticism==
In an effort to cast doubt on the First Vision, critics appeal to the writing of John Taylor to demonstrate that early members were "confused" about the First Vision, and only adopted the "official" version much later. They seek to demonstrate that the earliest followers taught that an angel, rather than the Father and the Son, appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820.

Richard Abanes refers to “…the discrepancy between today’s official First Vision and the versions of it told by early Mormons, who taught that the First Vision involved an angel (or angels).” In a footnote to this comment he cites several church leaders, including John Taylor. The only citation Abanes gives for President Taylor is for March 2, 1879, but is incorrectly documented.{{ref|fn1}}

Critic Isaiah Bennett has written:

:Complications arise when one considers the statements of Smith’s successors as Mormon prophets [including John Taylor]. According to them, Smith had been visited by an angel, from whom he asked advice as to which church to join.{{ref|fn2}}

Bennett cites the same March 2, 1879 sermon, and one other.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner have also cited Taylor’s comments of March 2, 1879.{{ref|fn3}} They later write that “Many other confusing statements about the first vision were made by Mormon leaders after Joseph Smith’s death.” {{ref|fn4}} Elsewhere the Tanners have stated that “Before the death of Brigham Young in 1877 the first vision was seldom mentioned in Mormon publications. When Mormon leaders did mention it they usually gave confusing accounts.” {{ref|fn5}}

This warped perspective has unfortunately spilled over into less overtly anti-Mormon reference works. An online wikipedia article on the First Vision states that “The First Vision was not emphasized in sermons by [subsequent leaders such as] John Taylor. This implies that Smith did not stress it strongly during his life, and that many early church leaders had little understanding of its prominence.”{{ref|fn6}}

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'' (Harvest House Publishers: 2005).
* Isaiah Bennett, ''Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe'' (Catholic Answers: 1999).
* Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002).
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Case Against Mormonism'', 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128.
*Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: 1980), 164.
* 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.
==Response==

These claims are simply false, with reference to the oft-misused [[John Taylor's understanding of the First Vision|John Taylor]].{{ref|morefalse1}} Consider the following evidence, from sermons, letters, and writings, which demonstrate Taylor’s complete awareness of that event, many well before the death of Brigham in 1877.

John Taylor became one of the editors of the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois on 3 February 1842 (Brigham H. Roberts, ''Life of John Taylor'', 102). He was serving in this capacity when the Wentworth Letter version of the First Vision was printed on 1 March 1842 and also when the ''History of the Church'' version of the First Vision was printed on 1 April 1842. John Taylor became chief editor of the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper on 15 November 1842. There can be no doubt that Elder Taylor knew about the First Vision story as early as 1842.

In 1850, John Taylor was assigned to open France for the missionary activities of the Church. Upon arrival he wrote a letter, which was published in the French and English language paper. In that letter he wrote, in part:

:The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first organized in the Town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, U.S.A., 6th April 1830. Previous to this an holy angel appeared unto a young man about fifteen years of age, a farmer's son, named Joseph Smith, and communicated unto him many things pertaining to the situation of the religious world, the necessity of a correct church organization, and unfolded many events that should transpire in the last days, as spoken of by the Prophets. As near as possible I will give the words as he related them to me. He said that "in the neighborhood in which he resided there was a religious revival, (a thing very common in that country) in which several different denominations were united; that many professed to be converted; among the number, two or three of his father's family. When the revival was over, there was a contention as to which of these various societies the person who was converted should belong. One of his father's family joined one society, and another a different one. His mind was troubled, he saw contention instead of peace, and division instead of union; and when he reflected upon the multifarious creeds and professions there were in existence, he thought it impossible for all to be right, and if God taught one, He did not teach the others, "for God is not the author of confusion." In reading his bible, he was remarkably struck with the passage in James, 1st chapter, 5th verse. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and ''called upon the Lord to give him wisdom'' in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and ''two glorious personages presented themselves before him'', who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind. He was given [236] to understand that the churches were all of them in error in regard to many things; and he was commanded not to go after them; and he received a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be unfolded unto him; after which the vision withdrew leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace.{{ref|taylor1}}

Elder Taylor continued with his narration, indicating that “some time later” as Joseph prayed another ‘being’ appeared surrounded by light who “declared himself to be an angel of God, sent forth by commandment, to communicate to him that his sins were forgiven…[and] that the great preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence.” The angel also told him about the plates, and the restoration about to begin. In October of that same year Elder Taylor published a pamphlet containing an expanded version of this letter, translated into French.{{ref|taylor2}} The pamphlet was reprinted again in 1852.

On 13 August 1857 John Taylor and several members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price (containing the First Vision story) inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Brigham Young Journal).

On 7 October 1859 John Taylor recited portions of the First Vision story in the Salt Lake City tabernacle. Among the details mentioned was the fact that Joseph Smith believed in the promise found in James 1:5 and went in secret to seek wisdom from God (''Journal of Discourses'', 7:322).

In 1876 Elder Taylor spoke at a funeral service, and he stated:

:Again, there are other things associated with these matters, all bearing more or less upon the same points. When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation [326] of the fullness of times, ''the Father and the Son appeared to him'', arrayed in glory, and the Father, addressing himself to Joseph, at the same time pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." As there were great and important events to be introduced into the world associated with the interests of humanity, not only with the people that now are, but with all people that have ever lived upon the face of the earth, and as what is termed the dispensation of the fullness of times was about to be ushered in, Moroni, who held the keys of the unfolding of the Book of Mormon, which is a record of the people who lived upon this American continent, came to Joseph Smith and revealed to him certain things pertaining to the peoples who had lived here and the dealings of God with them, and also in regard to events that are to transpire on this continent.{{ref|taylor3}}

Later in the same sermon he stated that Joseph had also been visited by Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John. Isaiah Bennett makes reference to this sermon, but only to page 329: and the only plausible explanation for that reference is that Taylor makes reference to the angel which appeared to John the Revelator, on the island of Patmos. Otherwise that page tells of the visitation of Moroni and the others. Earlier in the sermon, however, Taylor made clear reference to the Father and the Son appearing, as contained in the above paragraph. Bennet and those who follow his tactics deceive their readers by omitting material which disproves their case.

In General Conference October 1877, President Taylor stated:

:The work we are engaged in emanated from God, and what did Joseph Smith know about it until God revealed it? Nothing. What did President Young, or the Twelve, or anybody else, know about it before the heavenly messengers, even ''God himself, came to break the long, long silence of ages, revealing through his Son, Jesus Christ'', and the holy angels, the everlasting Gospel? Nothing at all. We were all alike ignorant until heaven revealed it.{{ref|taylor4}}

The following month President Taylor stated:

:[W]e are told that no man knows the [152] things of God but by the Spirit of God. And if they cannot obtain a knowledge of God only by the Spirit of God, unless they receive that Spirit they must remain ignorant of these principles. And it matters not what the learning, what the intelligence, what the research, the philosophy, or religion of man may be, the things of God cannot be comprehended, except through and by the Spirit and revelations of God. And this can only be obtained through obedience to the principles which God has and shall ordain, sanction and acknowledge. And hence, in these last times, he first communicated a knowledge of himself to Joseph Smith, long ago, when he was quite young. Who in that day knew anything about God? Who had had any revelations from Him, or who knew anything in relation to the principles of life and salvation? If there were any persons I never heard of them, nor read of them, nor never met them. ''But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived''; and he was not dependent upon anybody else for that knowledge. He saw him and heard his voice, and he knew for himself that there was a God, and of this he testified, sealing his testimony with his blood.{{ref|taylor5}}

President Taylor also defended the First Vision in letters: In 1879 he wrote to a friend

:We of all others on the earth ought to be the last to oppress the Lamanites. Through the development of their record, by the ministrations of one of their old prophets, we are indebted for the introduction of the Everlasting Gospel; and of so great importance was this action considered that ''God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph''.{{ref|taylor6}}

It was mentioned above that several of the critics point to a sermon given by John Taylor in Kaysville, Utah, in the afternoon of March 2, 1879, to ‘prove’ that Taylor did not have a clear understanding of the First Vision. However, they fail to notice that President Taylor said earlier the same day, just a few miles away, in Ogden, Utah:

:When the ''Father and the Son'' and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations.{{ref|taylor7}}

Clearly President Taylor was not confused regarding what happened early in Joseph Smith’s life.

Six months later he again testified to the visitation of the Father and the Son:

:The Lord has taken a great deal of pains to bring us where we are and to give us the information we have. He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith. He didn't send anybody but came himself, and introducing his Son, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’ And he permitted the ancient prophets, apostles and men of God that existed in different ages to come and confer the keys of their several dispensations upon the prophet of the Lord, in order that he should be endowed and imbued with the power and Spirit of God, with the light of revelation and the eternal principles of the everlasting Gospel.{{ref|taylor8}}

Ten days later he again testified to that transcendent event:

:Now, we will come to other events, of later date; events with which we are associated—I refer now to the time that Joseph Smith came among men. What was his position? and how was he situated? I can tell you what he told me about it. He said that he was very ignorant of the ways, designs and purposes of God, and knew nothing about them; he was a youth unacquainted with religious matters or the systems and theories of the day. He went to the Lord, having read James' statement, that "If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." [James 1.5] He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’ He then asked in regard to the various religions with which he was surrounded.{{ref|taylor9}}

Again, just a few weeks later he stated that

:as a commencement ''the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.’'' Here, then, was a communication from the heavens made known unto man on the earth, and he at that time came into possession of a fact that no man knew in the world but he, and that is that God lived, for he had seen him, and that his Son Jesus Christ lived, for he also had seen him. What next? Now says the Father, "This is my beloved Son, hear him." The manner, the mode, the why, and the wherefore, he designed to introduce through him were not explained; but he, the Son of God, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer of man, he was the one pointed out to be the guide, the director, the instructor, and the leader in the development of the great principles of that kingdom and that government which he then commenced to institute.{{ref|taylor10}}

Later, in Hooperville, Utah, he stated:

:Hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the gospel, and when the holy priesthood was restored and the Church and kingdom of God established upon the earth, there were the greatest blessings bestowed upon this generation which it was possible for man to receive.”{{ref|taylor11}}

Two months later he again spoke of it:

:Finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, ''the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith'' to introduce the great work of the latter days. He who presides over this earth and he who is said to be the maker of all things, ''the Father, pointing to his well-beloved Son, says, this is my beloved Son, hear him. He did not come himself to regulate and put in order all things, but he presented his Only Begotten Son,'' the personage who should be, as he is termed in the Scriptures, the Apostle and great High Priest of our profession, who should take the lead in the management and regulation of all matters pertaining to the great dispensation that was about to be ushered in.{{ref|taylor12}}

Two months later he was in Idaho speaking:

:In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, ‘This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him!’ As much as to say, ‘I have not come to teach and instruct you; but I refer you to my Only Begotten, who is the Mediator of the New Covenant, the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world; I refer you to him as your Redeemer, your High Priest and Teacher. Hear him.’” Continuing, he pointed out that Joseph was also visited by Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John.{{ref|taylor13}}

In 1882 President John Taylor wrote a book on the subject of the mediation and atonement of the Savior, and its role in the life of the Restored Gospel. He included this statement:

:…when ''the Father and the Son appeared together'' to the Prophet Joseph Smith they were exactly alike in form, in appearance, in glory; and the Father said, pointing to His Son, ‘This is my beloved Son; hear Him.’{{ref|taylor14}}

That same year the President said in a sermon:

:we declare that God himself took part in it, and that Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, accompanied him, ''both of whom appeared to Joseph Smith'', upon which occasion the Father, pointing to the Son said, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’…. …..[32] After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him….” He later refers to the visitation of Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John.{{ref|taylor15}}

During the October 1882 General Conference three of the General Authorities referred to the appearance of the Father and the Son. President Taylor stated that

:A message was announced to us by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, as a revelation from God, wherein he stated that holy angels had appeared to him and revealed the everlasting Gospel as it existed in former ages; and ''God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him''; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.{{ref|taylor16}}

Later that same year he said:

:In the first place He has Himself spoken to us from the heavens, as also has His Son Jesus Christ…. [323] Now, it is the rule of God which is desired to be introduced upon the earth, and this is the reason why the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith….It is ''true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did…''

President Taylor then went on to testify that Joseph Smith claimed that John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, and Moses had also appeared to him. {{ref|taylor17}}

At the dedication of the Logan Temple in 1884 President Taylor said:

:I have heard some remarks in the Temple pertaining to these matters, and also here, and it has been thought, as has been expressed by some, that we ought to look for some peculiar manifestations. The question is, What do we want to see? Some peculiar power, some remarkable manifestations? All these things are very proper in their place; all these things we have a right to look for; but we must only look for such manifestations as are requisite for our circumstances, and as God shall see fit to impart them. Certain manifestations have already occurred. ''When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him'', (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear Him.’” Later in the sermon he mentions the appearance of John the Baptist, and Peter, James and John; and Moroni.{{ref|taylor18}}

In 1886, shortly before he died, President Taylor wrote a letter to his family, part of which reads:

:We are engaged in a great work, and laying the foundation thereof—a work that has been spoken of by all the holy prophets since the word was; namely, the dispensation of the fullness of times, wherein God will gather together all things in one, whether they be things in the earth, or things in the heaven; and for this purpose ''God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ'', unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’{{ref|taylor19}}

As evidence that President Taylor had been telling the Saints about the First Vision throughout his life a comment made at his funeral would be pertinent; it was said there that

:Brother Taylor took the testimony that Joseph gave him, that Jesus delivered unto Joseph, that God bade Joseph to listen to from the lips of His beloved Son, as he bore those tidings to foreign lands…{{ref|taylor20}}

==Conclusion==
John Taylor was remarkably consistent in his accounts of the First Vision. Critics ignore all other accounts, including a discussion given on the same day as their 'pet' quotation, to paint a picture of confusion instead of unity.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'' (Harvest House Publishers: 2005), 34–35, with footnote 76, page 339–340.
#{{note|fn2}} Isaiah Bennett, ''Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe'' (Catholic Answers: 1999), 4.
#{{note|fn3}} Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''Changing World of Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: 1980), 164.
#{{note|fn4}} ''Ibid.'', 166.
#{{note|fn5}} Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ''The Case Against Mormonism'', 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120.
#{{note|fn6}} "First Vision," ''wikipedia.org'' (last accessed 6 October 2006). {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision}}
#{{note|morefalse1}} Further examples of the Tanners' wilfull distortion of the textual record by omitting key passages discussing the first vision can be seen at: D. Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson, "Did early LDS leaders really misunderstand the First Vision?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Early_LDS_Leaders_Misunderstand_the_First_Vision.html}}
#{{note|taylor1}} John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the ''Interpreter Anglais et Français'', Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850). (emphasis added) Reprinted in {{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=12|num=15|date=1 August 1850|start=235|end=236}}
#{{note|taylor2}} John Taylor, ''Aux amis de la vérité réligieuse. Récit abregé du commencement, des progres, de l’éstablissement, des persecutions, de la foi et de la doctrine de l’Église de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours'' (Paris 1850). [Translation: To friends of religious truth. An abridged account of the beginning, progress, establishment, persecutions, the faith, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]
#{{note|taylor3}} {{JoD18|author=John Taylor|title=A Funeral Sermon...over the remains of Ann Tenora, etc.|date=31 December 1876|start=325|end=6; 329, 330.}}(emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor4}} {{JoD19_1|author=John Taylor|title=The Trusteeship, etc.|date=7 October 1877|start=123}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor5}}{{JoD19|author=John Taylor|title=Gathering The Result Of Revelation, etc.|date=14 November 1877|start=151|end=152}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor6}} John Taylor letter to A. K. Thurber at Richfield, Utah (25 February 1879). (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor7}}{{JoD20_1|author=John Taylor|title=The Interest Of Humanity Should Be Observed|date=2 March 1879|start=257}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor8}}{{JoD21|author=John Taylor|title=Eternal Nature Of The Gospel, etc.|date=28 November 1879|start=116|end=117}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor9}} {{JoD21_1|author=John Taylor|title=Restoration Of The Gospel Through Joseph Smith, etc.|date=7 December 1879|start=161}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor10}} {{JoD21_1|author=John Taylor|title=The Revelation Of The Father And Son To Joseph Smith, And The Bestowal Upon Him Of The Priesthood, etc.|date=4 January 1880|start=65}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor11}}{{JoD22_1|author=John Taylor|title=The Privileges Of The Saints, etc.|date=27 June 1881|start=218}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor12}}{{JoD22|author=John Taylor|title=Duties Of The Saints — The Atonement, etc.|date=28 August 1881|start=298|end=299}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor13}} {{JoD26|author=John Taylor|title=Manifestation Of The Father And Son To The Prophet Joseph |date=20 October 1881|start=106|end=107}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor14}} John Taylor, ''Mediation and Atonement'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882; Photo lithographic reprint, Salt Lake City, 1964), 138.
#{{note|taylor15}} {{JoD23|author=John Taylor|title=Restoration Of The Gospel|date=5 March 1882|start=29|end=32}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor16}} {{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=44|num=22|date=29 May 1882|start=337|end=338}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor17}}{{JoD23|author=John Taylor|title=Man's Natural Spirit And The Spirit Of God, etc.|date=23 November 1882|start=322|end=323}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor18}} {{JoD25|author=John Taylor|title=Manifestations To Be Looked For, etc.|date=18 May 1884|start=177|end=178, see also 179 for the other visitors}} (emphasis added)
#{{note|taylor19}} John Taylor, cited in B. H. Roberts, ''Life of John Taylor'' (1989; 1st published 1892), 394.
#{{note|taylor20}} {{MS1|author=?|article=Laid to Rest. The Remains of President John Taylor Consigned to The Grave|vol=49|num=36|date= 5 September 1887|start=564}}
==Further Reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FirstVisionWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{FirstVisionFAIR}}

===External links===
{{FirstVisionLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{FirstVisionPrint}}

Apostasy/Patristic evidence of

2007-07-15T03:28:31Z

TedJones:

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
{{Question}}

==Question==
Is there any evidence of the apostasy from materials from early Christian history besides the Bible? Do the Church Fathers throw any light on the matter?

==Response==
The Early Christian Fathers did probably not see themselves as part of an apostate Christianity or group. However, as we watch Christian debate, practice, belief, and doctrine alter as the years pass, it is difficult not to conclude that serious and substantial changes were at work once the apostles were gone.

===Summaries from scholars===
{{ApostasyScholars}}

===Quotations from the Early Fathers===

It is clear from the Fathers themselves that something quite disturbing was underway soon after the apostles' death.

====Clement of Rome====
Clement of Rome, who died ca. 90 A.D., wrote to the Corinthians of

:"that shameful and detestable sedition" by which the: “worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts.”{{ref|clement1}}

In the same epistle, he declared, "It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation." {{ref|clement2}} The term "emulation" suggests that these false leaders taught an imitation form of Christianity.

Clement further wrote that “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate [bishopric] . . . We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties . . . But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”{{ref|clement3}}

====Hegesippus====
Hegesippus, a historian of the period immediately following apostolic times (110-180 A.D.), is quoted by Eusebius in his ''Ecclesiastical History'' as saying:

:the church continued until then as a pure virgin and uncorrupt virgin: whilst if there were any at all attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combination of impious errors arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth.{{ref|fn1}}

====Ignatius====
Ignatius (30-107 A.D) a student of St. John the Apostle, said in his epistle to the Ephesians, that he was “the last of the faithful that are there (Antioch)."{{ref|ignatius1}} It must be remembered that Antioch had one of the highest population of Christians at that time. If he was the “last” faithful member in a largely Christian city, what about the rest of the world, that also didn’t have apostles and prophets to correct and lead them?

Ignatius mentioned "the false prophets and the false apostles" who had already come before his time.{{ref|ignatius2}} He goes on to say that “the last times are come upon us.”{{ref|ignatius3}}

====Irenaeus====

Irenaeus agrees when he says “But now, since the last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men.”{{ref|irenaeus1}}

====Tertullian====
Because of the infiltration of philosophy into the Christian Church, Tertullian said:

:“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the "porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.”{{ref|tertullian1}}

:“When churches were advanced in the faith much less would the apostles have withheld from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to only a specific few.” {{ref|tertullian2}}

====Cyprian====
"We also have the testimony of Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, North Africa, who served from A.D. 248-258. Cyprian paints a stark and disturbing picture of apostasy among the Christians of his day. Bishops, he said, had lost their own devotion to God’s service (some even abandoning their congregations) and the clergy had lost their integrity. The Saints had become insatiably greedy, had lost their compassion for the needy, had become proud, and behaved in undisciplined ways. Christians were marrying pagans, practicing perjury, commmitting fraud, displaying contempt for authority, and even betraying their faith. Cyprian argued that since the Saints had sunk to such low levels of depravity they rightly deserved the harsh judgments of God."{{ref|brown1}}

====Cyril of Jerusalem====
Cyril, who served as the bishop of Jerusalem between 349 and 387 A.D. said, after quoting {{s|2|Thessalonians|2|3-10}},

:thus wrote Paul, and now is the falling away. For men have fallen from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father, and others dare to say that Christ was brought into being out of nothing. And formerly the heretics were manifest openly; but now the church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears...most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This, therefore, is the falling away.”{{ref|fn2}}

==Conclusion==

As scholars have long realized, the testimony of the Fathers does not incline us to see a united group of Christian disciples faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Rather, with the death of the apostles, the congregations of Christians were riven by schism, disagreement, doctrinal innovation, and a lack of the clarity that can only come from divinely-commissioned prophets and apostles.

==Endnotes==
{{ApostasyScholarsRefs}}
#{{note|clement1}} {{Anf1| author=Clement|article=Against Heresiess|vol=1|citation=None|start=462}} CHECK!!
#{{note|clement2}} {{Anf| author=Clement|article=1 Clement|vol=1|citation=1,3|start=5|end=6}}
#{{note|clement3}} {{Anf1| author=Clement|article=1 Clement|vol=1|citation=44|start=17}}
#{{note|fn1}} {{EcclHistory1|start=volume 3, chapter 32}}
#{{note|ignatius1}} {{Anf1|vol=1|start=58|article=To the Ephesians|author=Ignatius|citation=}}
#{{note|ignatius2}} {{Anf1|author=Ignatious|article=Epistle to the Philadelphians|citation=5|vol=1|start=56}}
#{{note|ignatius3}} {{Anf1|author=Ignatious|article=Epistle to the Ephesians|citation=11|vol=1|start=54}}
#{{note|irenaeus1}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|vol=1|start=462|citation=}}
#{{note|tertullian1}} {{Anf1|author=Tertullian|article=?|citation=|vol=3|start=246}}
#{{note|tertullian2}} {{Anf1|author=Tertullian|article=?|citation=|vol=3|start=255}} See {{s||Revelation|2-3||}} for the churches' status.
#{{note|brown1}} ''Ancient Christian Writers: St. Cyprian'', 16-19, as cited in {{AllThingsRestored1| article=?|start=??}} {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{NPNF2|author=Cyril|vol=7|start=106|end=107}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}
{{PriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ApostasyPrint}}

Apostasy/Patristic evidence of

2007-07-15T03:27:19Z

TedJones: spelling corrections

{{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
{{Question}}

==Question==
Is there any evidence of the apostasy from materials from early Christian history besides the Bible? Do the Church Fathers throw any light on the matter?

==Response==
The Early Christian Fathers did probably not see themselves as part of an apostate Christianity or group. However, as we watch Christian debate, practice, belief, and doctrine alter as the years pass, it is difficult not to conclude that serious and substantial changes were at work once the apostles were gone.

===Summaries from scholars===
{{ApostasyScholars}}

===Quotations from the Early Fathers===

It is clear from the Fathers themselves that something quite disturbing was underway soon after the apostles' death.

====Clement of Rome====
Clement of Rome, who died ca. 90 A.D., wrote to the Corinthians of

:"that shameful and detestable sedition" by which the: “worthless rose up against the honoured, those of no reputation against such as were renowned, the foolish against the wise, the young against those advanced in years. For this reason righteousness and peace are now far departed from you, inasmuch as every one abandons the fear of God, and is become blind in his faith, neither walks in the ordinances of his appointment, nor acts a part becoming a Christian, but walks after his own wicked lusts.”{{ref|clement1}}

In the same epistle, he declared, "It is right and holy therefore, men and brethren, rather to obey God than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation." {{ref|clement2}} The term "emulation" suggests that these false leaders taught an imitation form of Christianity.

Clement further wrote that “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate [bishopric] . . . We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties . . . But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”{{ref|clement3}}

====Hegesippus====
Hegesippus, a historian of the period immediately following apostolic times (110-180 A.D.), is quoted by Eusebius in his ''Ecclesiastical History'' as saying:

:the church continued until then as a pure virgin and uncorrupt virgin: whilst if there were any at all attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combination of impious errors arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth.{{ref|fn1}}

====Ignatius====
Ignatius (30-107 A.D) a student of St. John the Apostle, said in his epistle to the Ephesians, that he was “the last of the faithful that are there (Antioch)."{{ref|ignatius1}} It must be remembered that Antioch had one of the highest population of Christians at that time. If he was the “last” faithful member in a largely Christian city, what about the rest of the world, that also didn’t have apostles and prophets to correct and lead them?

Ignatius mentioned "the false prophets and the false apostles" who had already come before his time.{{ref|ignatius2}} He goes on to say that “the last times are come upon us.”{{ref|ignatius3}}

====Irenaeus====

Irenaeus agrees when he says “But now, since the last times are [come upon us], evil is spread abroad among men.”{{ref|irenaeus1}}

====Tertullian====
Because of the infiltration of philosophy into the Christian Church, Tertullian said:

:“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the "porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.”{{ref|tertullian1}}

:“When churches were advanced in the faith much less would the apostles have withheld from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to only a specific few.” {{ref|tertullian2}}

====Cyprian====
"We also have the testimony of Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, North Africa, who served from A.D. 248-258. Cyprian paints a stark and disturbing picture of apostasy among the Christians of his day. Bishops, he said, had lost their own devotion to God’s service (some even abandoning their congregations) and the clergy had lost their integrity. The Saints had become insatiably greedy, had lost their compassion for the needy, had become proud, and behaved in undisciplined ways. Christians were marrying pagans, practicing perjury, commmitting fraud, displaying contempt for authority, and even betraying their faith. Cyperian argued that since the Saints had sunk to such low levels of depravity they rightly deserved the harsh judgments of God."{{ref|brown1}}

====Cyril of Jerusalem====
Cyril, who served as the bishop of Jerusalem between 349 and 387 A.D. said, after quoting {{s|2|Thessalonians|2|3-10}},

:thus wrote Paul, and now is the falling away. For men have fallen from the right faith; and some preach the identity of the Son with the Father, and others dare to say that Christ was brought into being out of nothing. And formerly the heretics were manifest openly; but now the church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and have itching ears...most have departed from right words, and rather choose the evil, than desire the good. This, therefore, is the falling away.”{{ref|fn2}}

==Conclusion==

As scholars have long realized, the testimony of the Fathers does not incline us to see a united group of Christian disciples faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Rather, with the death of the apostles, the congregations of Christians were riven by schism, disagreement, doctrinal innovation, and a lack of the clarity that can only come from divinely-commissioned prophets and apostles.

==Endnotes==
{{ApostasyScholarsRefs}}
#{{note|clement1}} {{Anf1| author=Clement|article=Against Heresiess|vol=1|citation=None|start=462}} CHECK!!
#{{note|clement2}} {{Anf| author=Clement|article=1 Clement|vol=1|citation=1,3|start=5|end=6}}
#{{note|clement3}} {{Anf1| author=Clement|article=1 Clement|vol=1|citation=44|start=17}}
#{{note|fn1}} {{EcclHistory1|start=volume 3, chapter 32}}
#{{note|ignatius1}} {{Anf1|vol=1|start=58|article=To the Ephesians|author=Ignatius|citation=}}
#{{note|ignatius2}} {{Anf1|author=Ignatious|article=Epistle to the Philadelphians|citation=5|vol=1|start=56}}
#{{note|ignatius3}} {{Anf1|author=Ignatious|article=Epistle to the Ephesians|citation=11|vol=1|start=54}}
#{{note|irenaeus1}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|vol=1|start=462|citation=}}
#{{note|tertullian1}} {{Anf1|author=Tertullian|article=?|citation=|vol=3|start=246}}
#{{note|tertullian2}} {{Anf1|author=Tertullian|article=?|citation=|vol=3|start=255}} See {{s||Revelation|2-3||}} for the churches' status.
#{{note|brown1}} ''Ancient Christian Writers: St. Cyprian'', 16-19, as cited in {{AllThingsRestored1| article=?|start=??}} {{NeedCite}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{NPNF2|author=Cyril|vol=7|start=106|end=107}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{ApostasyWiki}}
{{PriesthoodWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{ApostasyFAIR}}

===External links===
{{ApostasyLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{ApostasyPrint}}

Infinite regress of Gods?

2007-06-11T13:50:19Z

TedJones:

{{GodPortal}}
{{draft}}<br>
{{question}}
==Question==

Is it true that LDS doctrine teaches a "genealogy of gods," in which God the Father had/has a God, and this God had a God, and so forth?

If so, how does LDS doctrine deal with the problem of an "infinite regress" of "great-great-grandfather Gods"?


==Introduction==

This is a difficult question to address, partly because so very little is known about this issue in LDS scripture and doctrine.

The basis of this idea rests in the ideas which Lorenzo Snow encapsulated in his famous "couplet":

:[A] As man now is, God once was, and
:[B] as God now is, man may become. {{ref|fn1}}

The implications of part [B] are clear, and relatively well laid out in LDS doctrine. This is the doctrine of human deification, or ''theosis.'' It formed a key part of early Christian belief, and is discussed elsewhere in the FAIRwiki. (''See:'' [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis''/Human deification]] .)

However, the meaning and implication of [A] are much less clear. President Gordon B. Hinckley rightly indicated in a ''TIME'' magazine interview that while we accept the first part of President Snow's couplet, we do not understand or preach much about it. (''See:'' [[Downplaying the King Follett discourse|Downplaying the King Follett Discourse?]].)

===Stance #1: God the Father had a divine Father===

This position is likely the dominant one in LDS thought. This line of thinking concludes that because God the Father had a mortal experience, He too was at one point the spirit child of another deity. This deity allowed the Father to progress through mortal life and obedience to moral law, and the Father thereby was eventually divinized. Implicit in this idea is the suggestion that the "Heavenly Grandfather" would likewise have needed to undergo a mortal experience under the patronage of yet another divine Father, and so on.

These ideas are partly based on later 19th century doctrinal extension by Joseph Smith's sucessors following his death. The two key addresses given by Joseph Smith shortly before his death, the King Follet discourse (7 April 1844) and the "Sermon in the Grove" (16 June 1844) were the key source material for these later ideas. Joseph was killed soon after presenting these ideas publicly, and so did not have the opportunity to fully expand, clarify, or explain them.

===Stance #2: God the Father did ''not'' have a divine Father===

Joseph's remarks were not published until after his death, and no word-for-word transcription of his remarks exists. The version of these addresses with which most members of the Church are familiar, and upon which proponents of stance #1 have often mostly relied, were those published in the ''Times and Seasons'', ''History of the Church'', and Joseph Fielding Smith's compilation of ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith''. Some Church members have argued, as a result, that the conclusions drawn from the commonly-available versions of Joseph's talks are mistaken, and that Joseph actually meant to teach primarily that God the Father underwent a mortal experience.

Therefore, in this view, Jesus' mortal experience is a better model for the Father's experience, instead of that had by other mortals. These are compared and contrasted in the table below:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Jesus' Mortal Experience!!All Others' Mortal Experience
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Jesus was divine prior to being born ({{s||John|1|1-3}}.)||
We were spirit children of God the Father, but were not divine beings.
|-
|Jesus' body was conceived by the action of the Holy Ghost on a mortal woman. ({{s||Luke|1|35}}.) God was the Father of His physical body. This allowed Jesus to choose when and whether to die.({{s||John|10|18}}.)||
We had physical bodies conceived by two mortals; death was inevitable, and not under our own control.
|-
|Jesus lived a sinless life through proper choices and the moral excellent inherent in his divine status.({{s||Hebrews|4|15}}.) ||
Not being divine, all other mortals sin.({{s||Romans|3|23}}.)
|-
|Christ atoned for the sins of all humanity. ({{s|1|Timothy|4|10}}, {{s|1|Nephi|10|6}}.)||
Humanity was unable to atone for their own sins, and would have been separated from God's presence forever without Christ's intercession ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}}.)
|-
|Following His death, Christ was able to resurrect Himself.({{s||John|10|18}}.) ||
We could not be resurrected without the power of Christ's atonement.({{s|1|Corinthians|15|22}}.)
|-
|Following His resurrection, Christ resumed His full divine status by right.({{s||John|17|5}}.)||
Humans achieve ''theosis'' or divine status only through the grace of Christ.({{s||Revelation|3|21}}.)
|-
|}

Proponents of the second view argue that God was once as man is now, but in the sense that ''Christ'' was once as man is now. That is, they read Joseph Smith as asserting that the Father took on a mortal body and suffered the privations and trials of a mortal life, just as Christ did. However, as with Jesus, this does not imply that the Father was not divine prior to receiving a mortal body, nor that the Father required someone else to atone for or redeem Him:

:It seems fairly clear to me that Joseph Smith had [the Father being born as a mortal] in mind and not [the Father being spiritually begotten by another Father above him]. First, immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, he states: "I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He [Jesus] laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before." Thus, Joseph returns to the same explanatory principle that he had in the King Follett discourse. The Son as a mortal does "precisely" what the Father did before him.{{ref|fn5}}

Many proponents of this view argue that the Father may well have played a role in providing salvation to other mortals, in the same way that Jesus did:

:God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...What did Jesus say?...The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.{{ref|fn6}}

Thus, since Jesus laid down His life as part of an atoning act, some have seen the Father in a similar role. Such ideas are perhaps plausible and consistent with the Prophet's teachings, but necessarily remain speculative.

Stance #2 has the advantage of accounting for another common theme in Joseph Smith's teaching (as well as LDS scripture) which emphasizes that there is a Most High God over all other beings called "gods," and this is identified as the Father. (See, for example, {{s||DC|121|32}}. {{s||Abraham|3|19}}). This accords well with Joseph's remarks in the Sermon in the Grove about the Sons of God giving glory to the Most High God:

:I believe in these Gods that God [i.e., the Father] reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords...{{ref|fn5b}}

Advocates of Stance #1, in reply, point out that references to a Most High God might instead apply only from our perspective, and not to the greater "multiverse" envisioned by Stance #1.

==Teachings after Joseph Smith==

Brigham Young seemed to believe in a backward chain of divine beings. This teaching was linked to the so-called "Adam-God" theories advanced by Brigham. Given that the meaning of these ideas is not clear, and have never been adopted into LDS thought or accepted as doctrine, proponents of stance #2 have argued that Brigham's speculations on this point ought likewise to be disregarded.{{ref|fn4}} (''See:''[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]].)

==Would multiple deities threaten the sovereignty of God?==

If stance #2 is adopted, then all divine beings are subject to the Godhead of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost, and this is a non-issue.

If stance #1 is adopted, some Christians have feared that this perspective threatens the sovereignty of God, since some other divine being could attempt to over-rule God the Father, or even seek to usurp His power. In LDS thought, this possibility is of no concern, because a divine being, by definition, is engaged a unity of love and holiness with other divine beings. The Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost retain their individuality as persons, but are totally united in love, will, and their goals. For one member of the Godhead to threaten this unity is unthinkable. Believers who receive divinization through divine grace are likewise invited into this same unity and love (see {{s||John|17||}}.)

Likewise, any other divine beings with whom the Father has a relationship would likewise be utterly united in love, justice, mercy, and Their goal to maximize the blessings and progress of God's children. In LDS thought, a 'conflict' between divine beings is almost a contradiction in terms, since divine beings are united by choice and nature with all other divine beings.

==Infininite regress?==

Thus, the idea of "infinite regression" of divine figures is not necessarily an issue for all members of the Church. However, even if one accepts stance #1 above, this does not necessarily cause problems for Latter-day Saint thinkers.

Those who attack the Saints on these grounds often make the mistake of confusing various ideas about infinity. They may take principles that apply to finite things, and improperly extrapolate them to infinite things. Trans-finite mathematics and some aspects of the calculus deal with infinities, and show that such concepts are not irrational, nor do they share all our intuitive ideas of what infinities must involve. (The issue of infinities is an ancient one in western philosophy, going at least as far back as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradox Zeno's paradox].

An excellent reply to those who use a variation of the "infinite regression" argument can be found in {{FR-8-2-9}}

It should be noted too that the problem of an infinite past is also an issue for any believer in God. Anyone who believes that God has existed forever, and created the universe ''ex nihilo'' out of nothing must also confront similar difficulties about infinite past, infinite regression, and the like. An improper or unsophisticated approach to infinities could also make the idea of a God that existed "forever" seem illogical. Critics are often quick to see their own stance as "reasonable," while believing that the Latter-day Saint view is incoherent.

==Conclusion==

Not all Latter-day Saints accept the ideas which suggest a regression of divine beings. LDS doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative. It does not play much of a role, one way or the other, in LDS worship or thought.

Objections based on the infinite regression problem usually rely on a misunderstanding of the properties of infinities, and require that the critic improperly apply finite properties to infinities. These problems are not unique to LDS theism, but must be confronted in some form by all believers in the existence of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} {{TLS1|start=2}} The letters in square brackets have been added for clarity in the discussion that follows.
#{{note|fn4}} See {{ExploringMormonThought2_1|start=451, footnote 28}}
#{{note|fn5}} {{ExploringMormonThought2|start=444|end=445}} Citation is from {{TPJS1|start=343}}
#{{note|fn5b}} Bullock report of Sermon in the Grove, 16 June 1844. {{link|url=http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/joseph-smiths-sermon-in-the-grove/}} Available in {{wordsjs|start=378|end=381}}
#{{note|fn6}}{{TPJS|start=345|end=346}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=203952}} {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/follett_discourse.html}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Godwiki}}

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

===External links===

{{GodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Infinite regress of Gods?

2007-06-11T13:46:20Z

TedJones: spelling and typo corrections

{{GodPortal}}
{{draft}}<br>
{{question}}
==Question==

Is it true that LDS doctrine teaches a "genealogy of gods," in which God the Father had/has a God, and this God had a God, and so forth?

If so, how does LDS doctrine deal with the problem of an "infinite regress" of "great-great-grandfather Gods"?


==Introduction==

This is a difficult question to address, partly because so very little is known about this issue in LDS scripture and doctrine.

The basis of this idea rests in the ideas which Lorenzo Snow encapsulated in his famous "couplet":

:[A] As man now is, God once was, and
:[B] as God now is, man may become. {{ref|fn1}}

The implications of part [B] are clear, and relatively well laid out in LDS doctrine. This is the doctrine of human deification, or ''theosis.'' It formed a key part of early Christian belief, and is discussed elsewhere in the FAIRwiki. (''See:'' [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis''/Human deification]] .)

However, the meaning and implication of [A] are much less clear. President Gordon B. Hinckley rightly indicated in a ''TIME'' magazine interview that while we accept the first part of President Snow's couplet, we do not understand or preach much about it. (''See:'' [[Downplaying the King Follett discourse|Downplaying the King Follett Discourse?]].)

===Stance #1: God the Father had a divine Father===

This position is likely the dominant one in LDS thought. This line of thinking concludes that because God the Father had a mortal experience, He too was at one point the spirit child of another deity. This deity allowed the Father to progress through mortal life and obedience to moral law, and the Father thereby was eventually divinized. Implicit in this idea is the suggestion that the "Heavenly Grandfather" would likewise have needed to undergo a mortal experience under the patronage of yet another divine Father, and so on.

These ideas are partly based on later 19th century doctrinal extension by Joseph Smith's sucessors following his death. The two key addresses given by Joseph Smith shortly before his death, the King Follet discourse (7 April 1844) and the "Sermon in the Grove" (16 June 1844) were the key source material for these later ideas. Joseph was killed soon after presenting these ideas publicly, and so did not have the opportunity to fully expand, clarify, or explain them.

===Stance #2: God the Father did ''not'' have a divine Father===

Joseph's remarks were not published until after his death, and no word-for-word transcription of his remarks exists. The version of these addresses with which most members of the Church are familiar, and upon which proponents of stance #1 have often mostly relied, were those published in the ''Times and Seasons'', ''History of the Church'', and Joseph Fielding Smith's compilation of ''Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith''. Some Church members have argued, as a result, that the conclusions drawn from the commonly-available versions of Joseph's talks are mistaken, and that Joseph actually meant to teach primarily that God the Father underwent a mortal experience.

Therefore, in this view, Jesus' mortal experience is a better model for the Father's experience, instead of that had by other mortals. These are compared and contrasted in the table below:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Jesus' Mortal Experience!!All Others' Mortal Experience
|-
| style="width:50%" valign="top"| Jesus was divine prior to being born ({{s||John|1|1-3}}.)||
We were spirit children of God the Father, but were not divine beings.
|-
|Jesus' body was conceived by the action of the Holy Ghost on a mortal woman. ({{s||Luke|1|35}}.) God was the Father of His physical body. This allowed Jesus to choose when and whether to die.({{s||John|10|18}}.)||
We had physical bodies conceived by two mortals; death was inevitable, and not under our own control.
|-
|Jesus lived a sinless life through proper choices and the moral excellent inherent in his divine status.({{s||Hebrews|4|15}}.) ||
Not being divine, all other mortals sin.({{s||Romans|3|23}}.)
|-
|Christ atoned for the sins of all humanity. ({{s|1|Timothy|4|10}}, {{s|1|Nephi|10|6}}.)||
Humanity was unable to atone for their own sins, and would have been separated from God's presence forever without Christ's intercession ({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}}.)
|-
|Following His death, Christ was able to resurrect Himself.({{s||John|10|18}}.) ||
We could not be resurrected without the power of Christ's atonement.({{s|1|Corinthians|15|22}}.)
|-
|Following His resurrection, Christ resumed His full divine status by right.({{s||John|17|5}}.)||
Humans achieve ''theosis'' or divine status only through the grace of Christ.({{s||Revelation|3|21}}.)
|-
|}

Proponents of the second view argue that God was once as man is now, but in the sense that ''Christ'' was once as man is now. That is, they read Joseph Smith as asserting that the Father took on a mortal body and suffered the privations and trials of a mortal life, just as Christ did. However, as with Jesus, this does not imply that the Father was not divine prior to receiving a mortal body, nor that the Father required someone else to atone for or redeem Him:

:It seems fairly clear to me that Joseph Smith had [the Father being born as a mortal] in mind and not [the Father being spiritually begotten by another Father above him]. First, immediately after discussing the fact that generation of a son necessarily requires a father, he states: "I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He [Jesus] laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before." Thus, Joseph returns to the same explanatory principle that he had in the King Follett discourse. The Son as a mortal does "precisely" what the Father did before him.{{ref|fn5}}

Many proponents of this view argue that the Father may well have played a role in providing salvation to other mortals, in the same way that Jesus did:

:God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...What did Jesus say?...The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.{{ref|fn6}}

Thus, since Jesus laid down His life as part of an atoning act, some have seen the Father in a similar role. Such ideas are perhaps plausible and consistent with the Prophet's teachings, but necessarily remain speculative.

Stance #2 has the advantage of accounting for another common theme in Joseph Smith's teaching (as well as LDS scripture) which emphasizes that there is a Most High God over all other beings called "gods," and this is identified as the Father. (See, for example, {{s||DC|121|32}}. {{s||Abraham|3|19}}). This accords well with Joseph's remarks in the Sermon in the Grove about the Sons of God giving glory to the Most High God:

:I believe in these Gods that God [i.e., the Father] reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father–Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from before the foundation of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for– John said he was a King. Jesus Christ who hath by his own blood made us Kings & Priest to God. Oh thou God who are Kings of Kings & Lord of Lords...{{ref|fn5b}}

Advocates of Stance #1, in reply, point out that references to a Most High God might instead apply only from our perspective, and not to the greater "multiverse" envisioned by Stance #1.

==Teachings after Joseph Smith==

Brigham Young seemed to believe in a backward chain of divine beings. This teaching was linked to the so-called "Adam-God" theories advanced by Brigham. Given that the meaning of these ideas is not clear, and have never been adopted into LDS thought or accepted as doctrine, proponents of stance #2 have argued that Brigham's speculations on this point ought likewise to be disregarded.{{ref|fn4}} (''See:''[[Adam-God|Adam-God theory]].)

==Would multiple deities threaten the sovereignty of God?==

If stance #2 is adopted, then all divine beings are subject to the Godhead of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Ghost, and this is a non-issue.

If stance #1 is adopted, some Christians have feared that this perspective threatens the sovereignty of God, since some other divine being could attempt to over-rule God the Father, or even seek to usurp His power. In LDS thought, this possibility is of no concern, because a divine being, by definition, is engaged a unity of love and holiness with other divine beings. The Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost retain their individuality as persons, but are totally united in love, will, and their goals. For one member of the Godhead to threaten this unity is unthinkable. Believers who receive divinization through divine grace are likewise invited into this same unity and love (see {{s||John|17||}}.)

Likewise, any other divine beings with whom the Father has a relationship would likewise be utterly united in love, justice, mercy, and Their goal to maximize the blessings and progress of God's children. In LDS thought, a 'conflict' between divine beings is almost a contradiction in terms, since divine beings are united by choice and nature with all other divine beings.

==Infininite regress?==

Thus, the idea of "infinite regression" of divine figures is not necessarily an issue for all members of the Church. However, even if one accepts stance #1 above, this does not necessarily cause problems for Latter-day Saint thinkers.

Those who attack the Saints on these grounds often make the mistake of confusing various ideas about infinity. They may take principles that apply to finite things, and improperly extrapolate them to infinite things. Trans-finite mathematics and some aspects of the calculus deal with infinities, and show that such concepts are not irrational, nor do they share all our intuitive ideas of what infinities must involve. (The issue of infinities is an ancient one in western philosophy, going at least as far back as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradox Zeno's paradox].

An excellent reply to those who use a variation of the "infinite regression" argument can be found in {{FR-8-2-9}}

It should be noted too that the problem of an infinite past is also an issue for any believer in God. Anyone who believes that God has existed forever, and created the universe ''ex nihilo'' out of nothing must also confront similar difficulties about infinite past, infinite regression, and the like. An improper or unsophisticated approach to infinities could also make the idea of a God that existed "forever" seem illogical. Critics are often quick to see their own stance as "reasonable," while believing that the Latter-day Saint view is incoherent.

==Conclusion==

Not all Latter-day Saints accept the ideas which suggest a regression of divine beings. LDS doctrine on this point is not clear, and mostly speculative. It does not play much of a role, one way or the other, in LDS worship or thought.

Objections based on the infinite regression problem usually rely on a misunderstanding of the properties of infinities, and require that the critic improperly apply finite properties to infinities. These problems are not unique to LDS theism, but must be confronted in some for by all believers in the existence of God.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} {{TLS1|start=2}} The letters in square brackets have been added for clarity in the discussion that follows.
#{{note|fn4}} See {{ExploringMormonThought2_1|start=451, footnote 28}}
#{{note|fn5}} {{ExploringMormonThought2|start=444|end=445}} Citation is from {{TPJS1|start=343}}
#{{note|fn5b}} Bullock report of Sermon in the Grove, 16 June 1844. {{link|url=http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/joseph-smiths-sermon-in-the-grove/}} Available in {{wordsjs|start=378|end=381}}
#{{note|fn6}}{{TPJS|start=345|end=346}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=203952}} {{link|url=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/follett_discourse.html}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{Godwiki}}

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

===External links===

{{GodLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{GodPrint}}

Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Boasting

2007-05-23T16:57:49Z

TedJones: spelling corrections

{{JosephSmithPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==

Joseph Smith is reported as saying:

:“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” ({{HC|vol=6|start=408|end=409}}

This attitude strikes some as boastful, and unbecoming a prophet.

==Answer==

The quote in which Joseph Smith seems to boast is an interesting one. Even in the ''History of the Church'' (where it occurs at 6:408-409), it is described as resting upon a "synopsis" by Thomas Bullock. Is it, therefore, a primary source? Arguably not.{{ref|dcp1}}

But there are further questions. The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844. A month later, the Prophet was dead. Did he supervise this entry? No. The last '''years''' of his entries in the ''History of the Church'' were actually made by others after his death in an attempt, consistent with historiographical practices of the day, to complete the narrative.

===Entries made by scribes===

This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the ''History of the Church'' may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of ''The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'' specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that enters into Joseph's later statements as edited by well-meaning others, which, is quite foreign to the man himself.)

The impression which one gets of Joseph Smith from reading his authenticated personal statements is that of a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it. However, even if a note of proud defiance had crept into Joseph's tone during a speech in Nauvoo, at a time when both city and Church were under threat and pressure from gangs of unprincipled bigots, such a moment of weakness would be understandable.

===Is the History of the Church unreliable, then?===

It worth saying that in the general reliability of the ''History of the Church'', in view of the way it was put together, it is not the overall thrust or narrative that is likely to be inaccurate, but the nuances, the tone, the details. This is precisely the opposite problem from that which anti-Mormon critics would have us see in it: they think the overall story of the ''History'' incorrect (e.g. divine intervention, revelation, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, etc.), but they want us to accept the details of tone and mood that it furnishes—or at least they do when those details seem to put the Prophet in a bad light.

It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the ''History of the Church'' as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.

For those who want a better handle on Joseph Smith's true character, an excellent resource is Mark McConkie's recent ''Remembering Joseph: Personal Recollections of Those Who Knew the Prophet Joseph Smith''.{{ref|remember1}}

==Boasting?==

The critics' second error is to take Joseph's quote out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking it as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the critics dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.{{ref|js1}}

Then Joseph makes the statements that the critics attack, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the critics do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the critics are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not?

Such double standards are the stock-in-trade of sectarian anti-Mormonism.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|dcp1}} This wiki article was originally based on a personal message from Daniel C. Peterson. It has since been subject to editing and additions because of the nature of a wiki project.
#{{note|remember1}} {{RememberingJoseph0}}
#{{note|js1}} {{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}
==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JosephSmithWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JosephSmithFAIR}}

===External links===
{{JosephSmithLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{JosephSmithPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes

2007-05-13T19:46:01Z

TedJones:

==Criticism==
Joseph Smith made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''Tanners''

==Response==

===How do the LDS understand prophetic revelation?===
It is important to realize that the LDS Church does not believe in a doctrine of [[Fallibility_of_prophets|prophetic inerrancy]]. Prophets are not fax machines; they do not simply "download" messages from God. Rather, God inspires prophets through a variety of means: the prophet may be given precise words to speak or simply receive information which he is to communicate in any way which suits his listeners. Many critics come from conservative Protestant backgrounds and religious traditions which endorse doctrines of [[Biblical inerrancy]]. (Some members of the Church may also have absorbed some 'fundamentalist' ideas about scripture and prophets.) Both groups of people will be troubled by this doctrine because it does not match their preconceptions, but Joseph Smith cannot be faulted for not following a prophetic model which he never endorsed and which the Church does not teach.

Furthermore, revelation is not always an instantaneous event—it may often be a process of studying a matter out, and applying reason and effort to achieve greater clarity and understanding.{{ref|fn1}}

The Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that:

:Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, ''after the manner of their language'', that they might come to understanding.{{s||DC|1|24}}

Thus, the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledges the weakness of the prophets through which they came, and insists that the wording is in the manner of ''their'' language, not direct, word-for-word divine sound bites.

Brigham Young (who authored one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants—{{s||DC|136||}} described the process in similar terms:

:I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities...

:The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive...{{ref|by1}}

And, there were even times when others besides Joseph were assigned to collaborate in writing the revelations—clear evidence that there was not "only one true" version of the revelation. (See {{s||DC|124|12-16}}

===Who made the changes?===

Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote:

:First Presidency members were assigned to compile "the items of the doctrine" of the Church from the standard works, including "the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date or shall be, until such arrangement is made" (''Kirtland High Council Minute Book'', 24 September 1834; also cited in {{HC1|vol=2|start=165}}). This resolution might suggest the correction of former wording through revelation. [The revised D&C was] issued in August 1835 with a 17 February 1835 preface signed by the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, the revision committee.{{ref|anderson1}}

Thus, the First Presidency of the time supervised the revisions.

===Unhidden===
Critics attempt to trouble Latter-day Saints who have not considered the fact one aspect of the prophet's mission includes the editing and modification of revelation prior to publication. The critics often act as if these changes are a type of "dirty secret" which the Church is "hiding" from its members.

Unfortunately for the critics, there is plenty of evidence that the Church has done nothing to hide the fact that changes were made.

The official Church magazine, the ''Ensign'' has published several discussions of the editing process:

:*{{Ensign1|author=Robert J. Woodford|article=The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants|date=December 1984|start=32}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20december%201984%20.htm/the%20story%20of%20the%20doctrine%20and%20covenants.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=$nc=8554}}
:*{{Ensign1|author=Robert J. Woodford|article=How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled|date=January 1985|start=27}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20january%201985%20.htm/how%20the%20revelations%20in%20the%20doctrine%20and%20covenants%20were%20received%20and%20compiled.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
:*{{Ensign1|author=Melvin J. Petersen|article=Preparing Early Revelations for Publication|date=February 1985|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20february%201985.htm/preparing%20early%20revelations%20for%20publication.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

Elder Boyd K. Packer also discussed the changes to the revelations in general conference:

:Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them.

:Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books.

:The Prophet Joseph Smith was an unschooled farm boy. To read some of his early letters in the original shows him to be somewhat unpolished in spelling and grammar and in expression.

:That the revelations came through him in any form of literary refinement is nothing short of a miracle. That some perfecting should continue strengthens my respect for them.

:Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.

:Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true.

:After compiling some of the revelations, the ancient prophet Moroni said, “… if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.” ({{s||Mormon|8|17}}) “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. …” ({{s||Mormon|8|12}}){{ref|packer1}}

It is difficult to understand how detailing changes and discussing them in general conference constitutes "hiding the truth." Church members pay comparatively little attention to such matters, however, because the mechanism by which revelations are produced are of far less importance than the ''content'' of the revelations, and whether the reveltions are ''true.''

And, this information has been available since the first publication of the revelations which later became the Doctrine and Covenants. The Saints of Joseph Smith's day had read the revelations in their initial form, many having been published in Church newspapers. Oliver Cowdery wrote, upon the publication of the revised revelations:

:On the revelations we merely say, that we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original. We had given them a careful comparison, assisted by individuals whose known integrity and ability is uncensurable. Thus saying we cast no reflections upon those who were entrusted with the responsibility of publishing them in Missouri, as our own labors were included in that important service to the church, and it was our unceasing endeavor to have them correspond with the copy furnished us. We believe they are now correct. If not in every word, at least in principle. For the special good of the church we have also added a few items from other revelations. {{ref|cowdery1}}

Oliver clearly understood that some changes were corrections, and some were additions ''given by revelation'' which were made prior to publication.

Orson Pratt said similarly:

:Joseph, the Prophet, in selecting the revelations from the Manuscripts, and arranging them for publication, did not arrange them according to the order of the date in which they were given, neither did he think it necessary to publish them all in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but left them to be published more fully in his History. Hence, paragraphs taken from revelations of a latter date, are, in a few instances, incorporated with those of an earlier date. Indeed, at the time of compilation, the prophet was inspired in several instances to write additional sentences and paragraphs to the earlier revelations. In this manner the Lord did truly give 'line upon line, here a little and there a little,' the same as He did to a revelation that Jeremiah received, which, after being burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed over again with great numbers of additional words.{{ref|pratt1}}

And, B.H. Roberts later wrote of the publication of the revelations in 1833 that they

:were revised by the Prophet himself in the way of correcting errors made by the scribes and publishers; and some additional clauses were inserted to throw increased light upon the subjects treated in the revelations, and paragraphs added, to make the principles for instructions apply to officers not in the Church at the time some of the earlier revelations were given. The addition of verses 65, 66, and 67 in sec. XX of the Doctrine and Covenants is an example.{{ref|roberts1}}

The claim that the changes have been hidden simply cannot be sustained.

===What changes were made?===
====Grammar and spelling changes====
* Many changes involved matters of grammer, spelling, and the like. (''These examples all taken from one article in the ''Ensign''. Those interested in further examples can see the Further Reading section below.''{{ref|eg1}})

:We have found the following errors in the commandments, as printed: fortieth chapter, tenth verse, third line, instead of ‘corruptible,’ put ‘corrupted.’ Fourteenth verse of the same chapter, fifth line, instead of ‘respector to persons,’ put ‘respector of persons.’ Twenty-first verse, second line of the same chapter, instead of ‘respector to,’ put ‘respector of.’ Fourty-four chapter, twelfth verse, last line, instead of ‘hands’ put ‘heads.’{{ref|jh1}}

====Added material or expansions====
* Some other changes added material which had been gleaned from advancements in Church organization or later revelaions, or expanded upon ideas within the original text:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 53:41—Wherefore I am in your midst; and I am the good Shepherd.||D&C 50:44—Wherefore, I am in your midst, and I am the good shepherd, and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall. (1835 edition, 18:8.)
|-
|65:30—Behold now it is called today, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people.||D&C 64:23—Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people. (1835 edition, 21:5.)
|-
|24:35—The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost.||D&C 20:45—The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God. (1835 edition, 2:9.)
|-
|24:32— … to administer the flesh and blood of Christ according to the scriptures.||D&C 20:40–41—And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—
And to confirm those who are baptized into the Church, by the laying on of the hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures. (1835 edition, 2:8.)
|-
|24:14—And that he gave unto the children of men commandments, that they should love and serve him the only being whom they should worship.||D&C 20:19—And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. (1835 edition, 2:4.)
|-
|3:2—Remember temperance, patience, humility, diligence, ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you: Amen.||D&C 4:6–7—Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence. Ask and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen. (1835 edition, 31:2.)
|-
|4:4— … and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation.||D&C 5:14—And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners. (1835 edition, 32:3.)
|-
|6:1—And the Lord said unto me, John, my beloved, what desirest thou?||D&C 7:1—And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. (1835 edition, 33:1.)
|-
|Chapter 44:26— … and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.||D&C 42:31— … and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose. (1835 edition, 13:8.)
|-
|44:29—And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse to administer to the poor and needy, as shall be appointed by the elders of the church and the bishop.||D&C 42:34—Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council. (1835 edition, 13:10.)
|-
|51:6— … as is appointed to him by the bishop and elders of the church, according to the laws and commandments.||D&C 48:6— … as is appointed to him by the presidency and the bishop of the church, according to the laws and commandments. (1835 edition, 64:2.)
|-
|}
====Text removed or reworked====
* A few revelations removed text, or altered the expression of an idea with a new phrasing or approach:
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 4:5–6—And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priest-crafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old. And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan, for he reigneth and hath much power at this time, for he hath got great hold upon the hearts of the people of this generation: and not far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah, do they come at this time: and behold the sword of justice hangeth over their heads, and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that it must fall upon them.||D&C 5:19—For a desolating scourge shall go forth among the inhabitants of the earth, and shall continue to be poured out from time to time, if they repent not, until the earth is empty, and the inhabitants thereof are consumed away and utterly destroyed by the brightness of my coming. (1835 edition, 32:3.)
|-
|4:8— … but if he will go out and bow down before me …||
D&C 5:24— … but if he will bow down before me … (1835 edition, 32:5.)
|-
|16:13—Wherefore, I command you by my name, and by my Almighty power, that you repent.||D&C 19:15—Therefore I command you to repent. (1835 edition, 44:2.)
|-
|16:22—And I command you, that you preach nought but repentance; and show not these things, neither speak these things unto the world.||D&C 19:21—And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. (1835 edition, 44:2.)
|-
|24:11—Which book was given by inspiration and is called the book of Mormon, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels.||D&C 20:10—which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels … (1835 edition, 2:2.)
|-
|44:55–57—Thou shalt contract no debts with the world, except thou art commanded. And again, the elders and bishop, shall counsel together, and they shall do by the direction of the Spirit as it must needs be necessary. There shall be as many appointed as must needs be necessary to assist the bishop in obtaining places for the brethren from New York, that they may be together as much as can be, and as they are directed by the Holy Spirit; and every family shall have a place, that they may live by themselves.—And every church shall be organized in as close bodies as they can be; and this for a wise purpose;—even so. Amen.||These verses were omitted. (1835 edition, 13.)
|-
|}

====Expression altered====

See discussion of this change [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult#Working with the rod|here]].

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God.||D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.)
|-
|}

==Conclusion==
The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.

If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} See {{s||DC|8|1-3}} and {{s||DC|9|7-10}}.
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD2_1|author=Brigham Young|vol=1|title=The Kingdom Of God|date=8 July 1855|start=314}}
#{{note|anderson1}} {{MatureJS}}
#{{note|packer1}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|date=May 1974|start=93}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1974.htm/ensign%20may%201974.htm/we%20believe%20all%20that%20god%20has%20revealed%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}; also in {{CR1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=April 1974|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|start=137}}
#{{note|cowdery1}}{{EMS1|author=Oliver Cowdery|article=No title?|date=January 1835; ''Kirtland, Ohio reprint 1''|start=16}}{{link|url=http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v1ch22.htm Direct}}
#{{note|pratt1}} {{MS1|author=Orson Pratt|article=Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchisedek Priesthoods|vol=19. 17|date=25 April 1857|start=260}}
#{{note|roberts1}} {{HoC1|vol=1|start=173, note}}
#{{note|jh1}} Joseph Smith, “Journal History 1830–1833,” Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
#{{note|eg1}} All examples from {{Ensign1|author=Melvin J. Petersen|article=Preparing Early Revelations for Publication|date=February 1985|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20february%201985.htm/preparing%20early%20revelations%20for%20publication.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai082.html|topic=Infallibility}}
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai258.html|topic=Personal beliefs of prophets}}
{{DCFAIR}}
===External links===

{{DCLinks}}

===Printed works===

{{DCPrint}}

Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes

2007-05-13T19:44:20Z

TedJones:

==Criticism==
Joseph Smith made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
*''Tanners''

==Response==

===How do the LDS understand prophetic revelation?===
It is important to realize that the LDS Church does not believe in a doctrine of [[Fallibility_of_prophets|prophetic inerrancy]]. Prophets are not fax machines; they do not simply "download" messages from God. Rather, God inspires prophets through a variety of means: the prophet may be given precise words to speak or simply receive information which he is to communicate in any way which suits his listeners. Many critics come from conservative Protestant backgrounds and religious traditions which endorse doctrines of [[Biblical inerrancy]]. (Some members of the Church may also have absorbed some 'fundamentalist' ideas about scripture and prophets.) Both groups of people will be troubled by this doctrine because it does not match their preconceptions, but Joseph Smith cannot be faulted for not following a prophetic model which he never endorsed and which the Church does not teach.

Furthermore, revelation is not always an instantaneous event—it may often be a process of studying a matter out, and applying reason and effort to achieve greater clarity and understanding.{{ref|fn1}}

The Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that:

:Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, ''after the manner of their language'', that they might come to understanding.{{s||DC|1|24}}

Thus, the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledges the weakness of the prophets through which they came, and insists that the wording is in the manner of ''their'' language, not direct, word-for-word divine sound bites.

Brigham Young (who authored one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants—{{s||DC|136||}} described the process in similar terms:

:I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities...

:The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive...{{ref|by1}}

And, there were even times when others besides Joseph were assigned to collaborate in writing the revelations—clear evidence that there was not "only one true" version of the revelation. (See {{s||DC|124|12-16}}

===Who made the changes?===

Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote:

:First Presidency members were assigned to compile "the items of the doctrine" of the Church from the standard works, including "the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date or shall be, until such arrangement is made" (''Kirtland High Council Minute Book'', 24 September 1834; also cited in {{HC1|vol=2|start=165}}). This resolution might suggest the correction of former wording through revelation. [The revised D&C was] issued in August 1835 with a 17 February 1835 preface signed by the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, the revision committee.{{ref|anderson1}}

Thus, the First Presidency of the time supervised the revisions.

===Unhidden===
Critics attempt to trouble Latter-day Saints who have not considered the fact one aspect of the prophet's mission includes the editing and modification of revelation prior to publication. The critics often act as if these changes are a type of "dirty secret" which the Church is "hiding" from its members.

Unfortunately for the critics, there is plenty of evidence that the Church has done nothing to hide the fact that changes were made.

The official Church magazine, the ''Ensign'' has published several discussions of the editing process:

:*{{Ensign1|author=Robert J. Woodford|article=The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants|date=December 1984|start=32}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20december%201984%20.htm/the%20story%20of%20the%20doctrine%20and%20covenants.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=$nc=8554}}
:*{{Ensign1|author=Robert J. Woodford|article=How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled|date=January 1985|start=27}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20january%201985%20.htm/how%20the%20revelations%20in%20the%20doctrine%20and%20covenants%20were%20received%20and%20compiled.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}
:*{{Ensign1|author=Melvin J. Petersen|article=Preparing Early Revelations for Publication|date=February 1985|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20february%201985.htm/preparing%20early%20revelations%20for%20publication.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

Elder Boyd K. Packer also discussed the changes to the revelations in general conference:

:Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them.

:Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books.

:The Prophet Joseph Smith was an unschooled farm boy. To read some of his early letters in the original shows him to be somewhat unpolished in spelling and grammar and in expression.

:That the revelations came through him in any form of literary refinement is nothing short of a miracle. That some perfecting should continue strengthens my respect for them.

:Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.

:Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true.

:After compiling some of the revelations, the ancient prophet Moroni said, “… if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.” ({{s||Mormon|8|17}}) “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. …” ({{s||Mormon|8|12}}){{ref|packer1}}

It is difficult to understand how detailing changes and discussing them in general conference constitutes "hiding the truth." Church members pay comparatively little attention to such matters, however, because the mechanism by which revelations are produced are of far less importance than the ''content'' of the revelations, and whether the reveltions are ''true.''

And, this information has been available since the first publication of the revelations which later became the Doctrine and Covenants. The Saints of Joseph Smith's day had read the revelations in their initial form, many having been published in Church newspapers. Oliver Cowdery wrote, upon the publication of the revised revelations:

:On the revelations we merely say, that we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original. We had given them a careful comparison, assisted by individuals whose known integrity and ability is uncensurable. Thus saying we cast no reflections upon those who were entrusted with the responsibility of publishing them in Missouri, as our own labors were included in that important service to the church, and it was our unceasing endeavor to have them correspond with the copy furnished us. We believe they are now correct. If not in every word, at least in principle. For the special good of the church we have also added a few items from other revelations. {{ref|cowdery1}}

Oliver clearly understood that some changes were corrections, and some were additions ''given by revelation'' which were made prior to publication.

Orson Pratt said similarly:

:Joseph, the Prophet, in selecting the revelations from the Manuscripts, and arranging them for publication, did not arrange them according to the order of the date in which they were given, neither did he think it necessary to publish them all in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but left them to be published more fully in his History. Hence, paragraphs taken from revelations of a latter date, are, in a few instances, incorporated with those of an earlier date. Indeed, at the time of compilation, the prophet was inspired in several instances to write additional sentences and paragraphs to the earlier revelations. In this manner the Lord did truly give 'line upon line, here a little and there a little,' the same as He did to a revelation that Jeremiah received, which, after being burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed over again with great numbers of additional words.{{ref|pratt1}}

And, B.H. Roberts later wrote of the publication of the revelations in 1833 that they

:were revised by the Prophet himself in the way of correcting errors made by the scribes and publishers; and some additional clauses were inserted to throw increased light upon the subjects treated in the revelations, and paragraphs added, to make the principles for instructions apply to officers not in the Church at the time some of the earlier revelations were given. The addition of verses 65, 66, and 67 in sec. XX of the Doctrine and Covenants is an example.{{ref|roberts1}}

The claim that the changes have been hidden simply cannot be sustained.

===What changes were made?===
====Grammar and spelling changes====
* Many changes involved matters of grammer, spelling, and the like. (''These examples all taken from one article in the ''Ensign''. Those interested in further examples can see the Further Reading section below.''{{ref|eg1}})

:We have found the following errors in the commandments, as printed: fortieth chapter, tenth verse, third line, instead of ‘corruptible,’ put ‘corrupted.’ Fourteenth verse of the same chapter, fifth line, instead of ‘respector to persons,’ put ‘respector of persons.’ Twenty-first verse, second line of the same chapter, instead of ‘respector to,’ put ‘respector of.’ Fourty-four chapter, twelfth verse, last line, instead of ‘hands’ put ‘heads.’{{ref|jh1}}

====Added material or expansions====
* Some other changes added material which had been gleaned from advancements in Church organization or later revelaions, or expanded upon ideas within the original text:

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 53:41—Wherefore I am in your midst; and I am the good Shepherd.||D&C 50:44—Wherefore, I am in your midst, and I am the good shepherd, and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall. (1835 edition, 18:8.)
|-
|65:30—Behold now it is called today, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people.||D&C 64:23—Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people. (1835 edition, 21:5.)
|-
|24:35—The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost.||D&C 20:45—The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God. (1835 edition, 2:9.)
|-
|24:32— … to administer the flesh and blood of Christ according to the scriptures.||D&C 20:40–41—And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—
And to confirm those who are baptized into the Church, by the laying on of the hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures. (1835 edition, 2:8.)
|-
|24:14—And that he gave unto the children of men commandments, that they should love and serve him the only being whom they should worship.||D&C 20:19—And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. (1835 edition, 2:4.)
|-
|3:2—Remember temperance, patience, humility, diligence, ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you: Amen.||D&C 4:6–7—Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence. Ask and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen. (1835 edition, 31:2.)
|-
|4:4— … and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation.||D&C 5:14—And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners. (1835 edition, 32:3.)
|-
|6:1—And the Lord said unto me, John, my beloved, what desirest thou?||D&C 7:1—And the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. (1835 edition, 33:1.)
|-
|Chapter 44:26— … and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.||D&C 42:31— … and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose. (1835 edition, 13:8.)
|-
|44:29—And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse to administer to the poor and needy, as shall be appointed by the elders of the church and the bishop.||D&C 42:34—Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council. (1835 edition, 13:10.)
|-
|51:6— … as is appointed to him by the bishop and elders of the church, according to the laws and commandments.||D&C 48:6— … as is appointed to him by the presidency and the bishop of the church, according to the laws and commandments. (1835 edition, 64:2.)
|-
|}
====Text removed or reworked====
* A few revelations removed text, or altered the expression of an idea with a new phrasing or approach:
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 4:5–6—And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priest-crafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old. And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan, for he reigneth and hath much power at this time, for he hath got great hold upon the hearts of the people of this generation: and not far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah, do they come at this time: and behold the sword of justice hangeth over their heads, and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that it must fall upon them.||D&C 5:19—For a desolating scourge shall go forth among the inhabitants of the earth, and shall continue to be poured out from time to time, if they repent not, until the earth is empty, and the inhabitants thereof are consumed away and utterly destroyed by the brightness of my coming. (1835 edition, 32:3.)
|-
|4:8— … but if he will go out and bow down before me …||
D&C 5:24— … but if he will bow down before me … (1835 edition, 32:5.)
|-
|16:13—Wherefore, I command you by my name, and by my Almighty power, that you repent.||D&C 19:15—Therefore I command you to repent. (1835 edition, 44:2.)
|-
|16:22—And I command you, that you preach nought but repentance; and show not these things, neither speak these things unto the world.||D&C 19:21—And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. (1835 edition, 44:2.)
|-
|24:11—Which book was given by inspiration and is called the book of Mormon, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels.||D&C 20:10—which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels … (1835 edition, 2:2.)
|-
|44:55–57—Thou shalt contract no debts with the world, except thou art commanded. And again, the elders and bishop, shall counsel together, and they shall do by the direction of the Spirit as it must needs be necessary. There shall be as many appointed as must needs be necessary to assist the bishop in obtaining places for the brethren from New York, that they may be together as much as can be, and as they are directed by the Holy Spirit; and every family shall have a place, that they may live by themselves.—And every church shall be organized in as close bodies as they can be; and this for a wise purpose;—even so. Amen.||These verses were omitted. (1835 edition, 13.)
|-
|}

====Expression altered====

See discussion of this change [[Joseph_Smith_and_the_occult#Working with the rod|here]].

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%"
!Book of Commandments!!Doctrine and Covenants
|-
| style="width:50%"|Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God.||D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.)
|-
|}

==Conclusion==
The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.

If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|fn1}} See {{s||DC|8|1-3}} and {{s||DC|9|7-10}}.
#{{note|by1}} {{JoD2_1|author=Brigham Young|vol=1|title=The Kingdom Of God|date=8 July 1855|start=314}}
#{{note|anderson1}} {{MatureJS}}
#{{note|packer1}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|date=May 1974|start=93}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1974.htm/ensign%20may%201974.htm/we%20believe%20all%20that%20god%20has%20revealed%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0}}; also in {{CR1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=April 1974|article=We Believe All That God Has Revealed|start=137}}
#{{note|cowdery1}}{{EMS1|author=Oliver Cowdery|article=No title?|date=January 1835; ''Kirtland, Ohio reprint 1''|start=16}}{{link|url=http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v1ch22.htm Direct}}
#{{note|pratt1}} {{MS1|author=Orson Pratt|article=Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchisedek Priesthoods|vol=19. 17|date=15 April 1857|start=260}}
#{{note|roberts1}} {{HoC1|vol=1|start=173, note}}
#{{note|jh1}} Joseph Smith, “Journal History 1830–1833,” Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
#{{note|eg1}} All examples from {{Ensign1|author=Melvin J. Petersen|article=Preparing Early Revelations for Publication|date=February 1985|start=14}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1985.htm/ensign%20february%201985.htm/preparing%20early%20revelations%20for%20publication.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===

{{DCWiki}}
===FAIR web site===
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai082.html|topic=Infallibility}}
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai258.html|topic=Personal beliefs of prophets}}
{{DCFAIR}}
===External links===

{{DCLinks}}

===Printed works===

{{DCPrint}}

Accuracy of Church history/The Seer

2007-04-30T09:50:45Z

TedJones: spelling correction

{{question}}

==Question==
Some critics of the Church quote from a newspaper called ''The Seer''. Was this newspaper published by the Church? Are its contents considered official Church doctrine?

==Answer==
''The Seer'' was a periodical published by Elder Orson Pratt in Washington D.C. in 1853 and 1854. Brigham Young sent Elder Pratt east to defend the Church in print after the public announcement of plural marriage in 1852. ''The Seer'' was the resulting apologetic work.

''The Seer'' was not widely read — its largest issue, in late 1853, was 400 copies. Despite its failure, Pratt's writings became the basis for many of the traditional explanations of plural marriage.

===Disavowal by Church leaders===
''The Seer'' was publicly disowned and rejected by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in 1865. (See the documentation below.) Despite any truths that it may contain, it cannot be relied upon as an accurate reflection of LDS doctrine.

'''Proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, October 21, 1865 (excerpt):{{ref|motfp1}}'''

:Whenever brother Orson Pratt has written upon that which he knows, and has confined himself to doctrines which he understands, his arguments are convincing and unanswerable; but, when he has indulged in hypotheses and theories, he has launched forth on an endless sea of speculation to which there is no horizon. The last half of the tract entitled "The Holy Spirit," contains excellent and conclusive arguments, and is all that could be wished; so also with many of his writings. But the Seer [and some of his other writings]...contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed; with proper care this can be done without much, if any, injury to the volumes.
:It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church — for ample teachings have been given on the point — that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood.

The foregoing was signed by the First Presidency and all members of the Quorum of the Twelve except Orson Pratt. Orson Pratt attached the following statement to the First Presidency's letter, accepting their censure:

:TO THE SAINTS IN ALL THE WORLD.
:DEAR BRETHREN, — Permit me to draw your attention to the proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, published in the DESERET NEWS, and copied into the MILLENNIAL STAR of the 21st inst., in which several publications that have issued from my pen are considered objectionable. I, therefore, embrace the present opportunity of publicly expressing my most sincere regret, that I have ever published the least thing which meets with the disapprobation of the highest authorities of the Church; and I do most cordially join with them in the request, that you should make such dispositions of the publications alluded to, as counselled in their proclamation.

===See also===
*Letter from Brigham Young in ''Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star'' 17:298 (12 May 1855){{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/MStar,16806}}
*Orson Pratt's confession in ''Journal of Discourses'' 7:374–76 (29 January 1860){{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9603&CISOSHOW=2770}}
*''Messages of the First Presidency'' 2:214
*''Comprehensive History of the Church'' 4:61–62, note 16.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|motfp1}}{{Messages1st2 |start=235 | end=240}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[General authorities' statements as scripture]]

===FAIR web site===
*Lance Starr, "'The Seer:' Reliable Source?"{{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Is_The%20Seer_a_Reliable_Source.html}}

===External links===
*''The Seer'' (scanned copies at BYU Library web site){{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2915}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Randy Gavin press release

2007-03-31T10:17:33Z

TedJones: spelling corrections

{{DVDHeadingBox|Distributor Press Release}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">A press release from the DVD's producers appeared on 30 March 2007. This version of the letter has comments added in <font color="blue">blue</font> by FAIR. Click [http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515522.htm here] to see the original.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith DVD Distribution Conceived and Carried out by a Broad Consortium of Churches, Ministries and Non-Profit Organizations

Salt Lake City, UT (PRWeb) March 30, 2007 -- Since its founding in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has insisted that it alone represents true Christianity and that all other churches professing the name of Christ are part of a "Great Apostasy," that has incorporated corrupt doctrine and practices. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints believe that there is much of value to be found within other denomiations and faiths, and honor such religious figures as the Reformers and Mohammed. The Latter-day Saints believe they have additional truths to offer the world, but do not believe that no one else has any truths of value, nor do they suggest that others are false Christians.

This statement misunderstands the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Latter-day Saints see the apostasy as a very early event in Christian history (probably within the first one to two centuries of the Christian era). The lack of agreement among modern Christian denominations is evidence that modern Christians are ''victims'' of the Apostasy; they are not responsible for its occurrence, or the mistakes made by earlier leaders in response to it. The Latter-day Saints believe that without divine revelation, the effects of apostasy cannot be overcome by human effort, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus, no fault for the apostasy lies with any modern Christian group or leader.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:EarlyChristianityPortal|Apostasy and early Christianity]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html|topic=Apostasy and restoration}}
* {{disarray1|start=1}}
* [[Attitude to non-members]]
* [[Salvation of non-members]]
</font>

Numerous churches, ministries and para-church organizations have now come together as part of a consortium ("Good News for LDS") to produce and distribute a DVD presentation that answers this accusation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

<font color=blue> The consortium here tries to pretend that they have been accused or attacked by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints do not attack other faiths—they share their own beliefs.

The DVD contains no analysis of early Christianity, or the evidence for an apostasy as understood by the LDS. Instead, they merely describe their ''own'' version of Christianity, assume that it represents the only original biblical Christianity, and contrast it unfairly with a caricatured and distorted version of LDS beliefs. The LDS understanding and data on the apostasy and its effects are never even mentioned by the video, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.</font>

Members of the consortium frequently receive questions about the differences between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. This DVD was created to inform people with questions about the differences between the two faiths.

<font color=blue> The press release—like the DVD—pretends that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians. The DVD only succeeds in comparing the producer's version of Christianity with a caricature of LDS beliefs. As an attempt to genuinely inform, it fails.</font>

The groups standing behind this DVD are well aware that members of the LDS Church are sincere about their beliefs. "It is not our desire to belittle those beliefs. In fact, we would be the first to defend the right of every Latter-day Saint to share their faith with others and we hope that they will allow us the same courtesy to clarify our beliefs," said Randy Gavin, spokesman for GoodNewsForLDS.org.

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints do not object to Mr. Gavin or anyone else sharing their beliefs. They do object to Mr. Gavin's group presenting itself as the ones to explain what ''Latter-day Saint'' beliefs are. Mr. Gavin and the others responsible for the DVD are not experts on Latter-day Saint beliefs. They are incapable of even ''describing'' those beliefs in a way which is acceptable and recognizable to a believing Latter-day Saint.

If Mr. Gavin does not wish to belittle Latter-day Saint beliefs,

* his group should refrain from telling Mormons they are not Christians.
* his group should quote LDS leaders in context, rather than distorting what they say for polemical purposes.
* his group should allow Latter-day Saints to describe their own doctrine.
* his group should not present reenactments of sacred LDS temple ceremonies in their DVD, which any informed person knows Latter-day Saints will find deeply offensive.

Since Mr. Gavin's group has caused offense—even if unintended—an apology is due both to the Latter-day Saints and those whom his group has misinformed about LDS beliefs, history, and doctrine. They should take the necessary steps to correct the distortions which they claim are unintentional. Other non-LDS Christians recognized ahead of time how offensive the DVD would be to members of the Church, but Mr. Gavin seems to have ignored their opinion also. See [http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-christjoseph-smith-video_10.html here].
</font>

Why Mormonism? Many of those involved with this project were once members of the LDS Church. At one time, they believed very strongly that Joseph Smith was a true prophet sent by God to restore Christianity to the earth. When they realized that their presuppositions were not true they had to make some extremely difficult life-changing decisions. This product includes many of those difficult issues with which they had to wrestle.

It is easy for some to automatically assume that those who disagree with the premises of the LDS Church are motivated by hatred and are therefore "anti-Mormon;"

<font color=blue> The term "anti-Mormon" does not mean that a person hates Mormons. "Anti-" simply means that they are opposed to the Church, and attack its teachings, leaders, and goals.

The ''Anti-Defamation League'' is not a Mormon group, and they clearly understand that the DVD is an anti-Mormon work—it is designed to attack the Church and its beliefs:

:''The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD...This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century....It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.'' {{link|url=http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm}}</font>

however, "It is our hope that thoughtful people will look beyond the name-calling to carefully examine the areas of belief that separate the LDS Church from the biblical norm," said Pastor Floyd McElveen, a member of the consortium,

<font color=blue>It is not name calling to label anti-Mormon activity for what it is. Pastor McElveen continues to label the LDS Church as beyond "the biblical norm"—does he believe this is name calling, or merely a descriptive term? Pastor McElveen employs a double standard when he refuses to acknowledge that his work is anti-Mormon, while in the same breath insisting that Mormonism is non-biblical.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Anti-Mormon]]</font>

"In our experience, we have found that many people have a very limited understanding of what Mormon leaders have actually taught. Because this is true even within the LDS Church, some Mormons might feel that much of what this DVD contains is fabricated. For this reason great pains have been made to document the statements it contains." The historical statements in the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith are taken directly from LDS publications, Joseph Smith's teachings, and speeches given by those who are recognized as authorities in the LDS Church.

<font color=blue>Pastor McElveen hides the fact that many of the statements taken from Church leaders or scriptures were quoted out of context. The words were not fabricated, but the meaning and import was. If viewers are as ignorant about LDS teachings as Pastor McElveen claims, then the DVD had a responsibility to provide the proper context. It failed to do so.

Either Pastor McElveen is ignorant of how Latter-day Saints understand their own scriptures and writings, or he is deliberately distorting them. In either case, he is not well suited to helping others understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

'''Examples of distortion of quotation in the DVD:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Distorted quotes]]

</font>

The making of this DVD is an act of love and has been placed into peoples' hands so that they too can carefully examine the truth claims of the LDS Church. Just as we respect the right of Mormon missionaries to come to our doors and share what they believe to be true with us, we hope that members of the LDS Church will respect the right of their neighbors to come to their door through this medium and share what they have found to be true.

<font color="blue">
Latter-day Saints welcome the opportunity to hear others' sincere testimonies of Christ and their beliefs about God.

However, the GoodNewsForLDS distributors specifically instructed their distributors ''not'' to discuss the DVD with their LDS members, but to simply leave the DVD in the hopes that they would watch it unaware of its source or intent. ''See:'' [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:letter(annotated)|here]].

Latter-day Saints do not want to hear their own beliefs distorted by those who have been misled by the DVD. We all have the right to share what we believe; we do not have the right to define, distort, and interpret others' beliefs.

Such behavior is not an act of love.</font>

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Randy Gavin press release

2007-03-31T10:12:18Z

TedJones:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Distributor Press Release}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">A press release from the DVD's producers appeared on 30 March 2007. This version of the letter has comments added in <font color="blue">blue</font> by FAIR. Click [http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515522.htm here] to see the original.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith DVD Distribution Conceived and Carried out by a Broad Consortium of Churches, Ministries and Non-Profit Organizations

Salt Lake City, UT (PRWeb) March 30, 2007 -- Since its founding in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has insisted that it alone represents true Christianity and that all other churches professing the name of Christ are part of a "Great Apostasy," that has incorporated corrupt doctrine and practices. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints believe that there is much of value to be found within other denomiations and faiths, and honor such religious figures as the Reformers and Mohammed. The Latter-day Saints believe they have additional truths to offer the world, but do not believe that no one else has any truths of value, nor do they suggest that others are false Christians.

This statement misunderstands the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Latter-day Saints see the apostasy as a very early event in Christian history (probably within the first one to two centuries of the Christian era). The lack of agreement among modern Christian denominations is evidence that modern Christians are ''victims'' of the Apostasy; they are not responsible for its occurrence, or the mistakes made by earlier leaders in response to it. The Latter-day Saints believe that without divine revelation, the effects of apostasy cannot be overcome by human effort, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus, no fault for the apostasy lies with any modern Christian group or leader.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:EarlyChristianityPortal|Apostasy and early Christianity]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html|topic=Apostasy and restoration}}
* {{disarray1|start=1}}
* [[Attitude to non-members]]
* [[Salvation of non-members]]
</font>

Numerous churches, ministries and para-church organizations have now come together as part of a consortium ("Good News for LDS") to produce and distribute a DVD presentation that answers this accusation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

<font color=blue> The consortium here tries to pretend that they have been accused or attacked by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints do not attack other faiths—they share their own beliefs.

The DVD contains no analysis of early Christianity, or the evidence for an apostasy as understood by the LDS. Instead, they merely describe their ''own'' version of Christianity, assume that it represents the only original biblical Christianity, and contrast it unfairly with a caricatured and distorted version of LDS beliefs. The LDS understanding and data on the apostasy and its effects are never even mentioned by the video, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.</font>

Members of the consortium frequently receive questions about the differences between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. This DVD was created to inform people with questions about the differences between the two faiths.

<font color=blue> The press release—like the DVD—pretends that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians. The DVD only succeeds in comparing the producer's version of Christianity with a caricature of LDS beliefs. As an attempt to genuinely inform, it fails.</font>

The groups standing behind this DVD are well aware that members of the LDS Church are sincere about their beliefs. "It is not our desire to belittle those beliefs. In fact, we would be the first to defend the right of every Latter-day Saint to share their faith with others and we hope that they will allow us the same courtesy to clarify our beliefs," said Randy Gavin, spokesman for GoodNewsForLDS.org.

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints do not object to Mr. Gavin or anyone else sharing their beliefs. They do object to Mr. Gavin's group presenting itself as the ones to explain what ''Latter-day Saint'' beliefs are. Mr. Gavin and the others responsible for the DVD are not experts on Latter-day Saint beliefs. They are incapable of even ''describing'' those beliefs in a way which is acceptable and recognizable to a beliving Latter-day Saint.

If Mr. Gavin does not wish to belittle Latter-day Saint beliefs,

* his group should refrain from telling Mormons they are not Christians.
* his group should quote LDS leaders in context, rather than distorting what they say for polemical purposes.
* his group should allow Latter-day Saints to describe their own doctrine.
* his group should not present reenactments of sacred LDS temple ceremonies in their DVD, which any informed person knows Latter-day Saints will find deeply offensive.

Since Mr. Gavin's group has caused offense—even if unintended—an apology is due both to the Latter-day Saints and those whom his group has misinformed about LDS beliefs, history, and doctrine. They should take the necessary steps to correct the distortions which they claim are unintentional. Other non-LDS Christians recognized ahead of time how offensive the DVD would be to members of the Church, but Mr. Gavin seems to have ignored their opinion also. See [http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-christjoseph-smith-video_10.html here].
</font>

Why Mormonism? Many of those involved with this project were once members of the LDS Church. At one time, they believed very strongly that Joseph Smith was a true prophet sent by God to restore Christianity to the earth. When they realized that their presuppositions were not true they had to make some extremely difficult life-changing decisions. This product includes many of those difficult issues with which they had to wrestle.

It is easy for some to automatically assume that those who disagree with the premises of the LDS Church are motivated by hatred and are therefore "anti-Mormon;"

<font color=blue> The term "anti-Mormon" does not mean that a person hates Mormons. "Anti-" simply means that they are opposed to the Church, and attack its teachings, leaders, and goals.

The ''Anti-Defamation League'' is not a Mormon group, and they clearly understand that the DVD is an anti-Mormon work—it is designed to attack the Church and its beliefs:

:''The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD...This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century....It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.'' {{link|url=http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm}}</font>

however, "It is our hope that thoughtful people will look beyond the name-calling to carefully examine the areas of belief that separate the LDS Church from the biblical norm," said Pastor Floyd McElveen, a member of the consortium,

<font color=blue>It is not name calling to label anti-Mormon activity for what it is. Pastor McElveen continues to label the LDS Church as beyond "the biblical norm"—does he believe this is name calling, or merely a descriptive term? Pastor McElveen employs a double standard when he refuses to acknowledge that his work is anti-Mormon, while in the same breath insisting that Mormonism is non-biblical.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Anti-Mormon]]</font>

"In our experience, we have found that many people have a very limited understanding of what Mormon leaders have actually taught. Because this is true even within the LDS Church, some Mormons might feel that much of what this DVD contains is fabricated. For this reason great pains have been made to document the statements it contains." The historical statements in the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith are taken directly from LDS publications, Joseph Smith's teachings, and speeches given by those who are recognized as authorities in the LDS Church.

<font color=blue>Pastor McElveen hides the fact that many of the statements taken from Church leaders or scriptures were quoted out of context. The words were not fabricated, but the meaning and import was. If viewers are as ignorant about LDS teachings as Pastor McElveen claims, then the DVD had a responsibility to provide the proper context. It failed to do so.

Either Pastor McElveen is ignorant of how Latter-day Saints understand their own scriptures and writings, or he is deliberately distorting them. In either case, he is not well suited to helping others understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

'''Examples of distortion of quotation in the DVD:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Distorted quotes]]

</font>

The making of this DVD is an act of love and has been placed into peoples' hands so that they too can carefully examine the truth claims of the LDS Church. Just as we respect the right of Mormon missionaries to come to our doors and share what they believe to be true with us, we hope that members of the LDS Church will respect the right of their neighbors to come to their door through this medium and share what they have found to be true.

<font color="blue">
Latter-day Saints welcome the opportunity to hear others' sincere testimonies of Christ and their beliefs about God.

However, the GoodNewsForLDS distributors specifically instructed their distributors ''not'' to discuss the DVD with their LDS members, but to simply leave the DVD in the hopes that they would watch it unaware of its source or intent. ''See:'' [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:letter(annotated)|here]].

Latter-day Saints do not want to hear their own beliefs distorted by those who have been misled by the DVD. We all have the right to share what we believe; we do not have the right to define, distort, and interpret others' beliefs.

Such behavior is not an act of love.</font>

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Randy Gavin press release

2007-03-31T10:09:48Z

TedJones:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Distributor Press Release}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">A press release from the DVD's producers appeared on 30 March 2007. This version of the letter has comments added in <font color="blue">blue</font> by FAIR. Click [http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2007/3/emw515522.htm here] to see the original.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith DVD Distribution Conceived and Carried out by a Broad Consortium of Churches, Ministries and Non-Profit Organizations

Salt Lake City, UT (PRWeb) March 30, 2007 -- Since its founding in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has insisted that it alone represents true Christianity and that all other churches professing the name of Christ are part of a "Great Apostasy," that has incorporated corrupt doctrine and practices. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19)

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints believe that there is much of value to be found within other denomiations and faiths, and honor such religious figures as the Reformers and Mohammed. The Latter-day Saints believe they have additional truths to offer the world, but do not believe that no one else has any truths of value, nor do they suggest that others are false Christians.

This statement misunderstands the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Latter-day Saints see the apostasy as a very early event in Christian history (probably within the first one to two centuries of the Christian era). The lack of agreement among modern Christian denominations is evidence that modern Christians are ''victims'' of the Apostasy; they are not responsible for its occurrence, or the mistakes made by earlier leaders in response to it. The Latter-day Saints believe that without divine revelation, the effects of apostasy cannot be overcome by human effort, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus, no fault for the apostasy lies with any modern Christian group or leader.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:EarlyChristianityPortal|Apostasy and early Christianity]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai014.html|topic=Apostasy and restoration}}
* {{disarray1|start=1}}
* [[Attitude to non-members]]
* [[Salvation of non-members]]
</font>

Numerous churches, ministries and para-church organizations have now come together as part of a consortium ("Good News for LDS") to produce and distribute a DVD presentation that answers this accusation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

<font color=blue> The consortium here tries to pretend that they have been accused or attacked by the Latter-day Saints. The Saints do not attack other faiths—they share their own beliefs.

The DVD contains no analysis of early Christianity, or the evidence for an apostasy as understood by the LDS. Instead, they merely describe their ''own'' version of Christianity, assume that it represents the only original biblical Christianity, and contrast it unfairly with a caricatured and distorted version of LDS beliefs. The LDS understanding and data on the apostasy and its effects are never even mentioned by the video, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.</font>

Members of the consortium frequently receive questions about the differences between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. This DVD was created to inform people with questions about the differences between the two faiths.

<font color=blue> The press release—like the DVD—pretends that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians. The DVD only succeeds in comparing the producer's version of Christianity with a caricature of LDS beliefs. As an attempt to genuinely inform, it fails.</font>

The groups standing behind this DVD are well aware that members of the LDS Church are sincere about their beliefs. "It is not our desire to belittle those beliefs. In fact, we would be the first to defend the right of every Latter-day Saint to share their faith with others and we hope that they will allow us the same courtesy to clarify our beliefs," said Randy Gavin, spokesman for GoodNewsForLDS.org.

<font color=blue> Latter-day Saints do not object to Mr. Gavin or anyone else sharing their beliefs. They do object to Mr. Gavin's group presenting itself as the ones to explain what ''Latter-day Saint'' beliefs are. Mr. Gavin and the others responsible for the DVD are not experts on Latter-day Saint beliefs. They are incapable of even ''describing'' those beliefs in a way which is acceptable and recognizable to a beliving Latter-day Saint.

If Mr. Gavin does not wish to belittle Latter-day Saint beliefs,

* his group should refrain from telling Mormons they are not Christians.
* his group should quote LDS leaders in context, rather than distorting what they say for polemical purposes.
* his group should allow Latter-day Saints to describe their own doctrine.
* his group should not present reenactments of sacred LDS temple ceremonies in their DVD, which any informed person knows Latter-day Saints will find deeply offensive.

Since Mr. Gavin's group has caused offense—even if unintended—an apology is due both to the Latter-day Saints and those whom his group has misinformed about LDS beliefs, history, and doctrine. They should take the necessary steps to correct the distortions which they claim are unintentional. Other non-LDS Christians recognized ahead of time how offensive the DVD would be to members of the Church, but Mr. Gavin seems to have ignored their opinion also. See [http://johnwmorehead.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-christjoseph-smith-video_10.html here].
</font>

Why Mormonism? Many of those involved with this project were once members of the LDS Church. At one time, they believed very strongly that Joseph Smith was a true prophet sent by God to restore Christianity to the earth. When they realized that their presuppositions were not true they had to make some extremely difficult life-changing decisions. This product includes many of those difficult issues with which they had to wrestle.

It is easy for some to automatically assume that those who disagree with the premises of the LDS Church are motivated by hatred and are therefore "anti-Mormon;"

<font color=blue> The term "anti-Mormon" does not mean that a person hates Mormons. "Anti-" simply means that they are opposed to the Church, and attack its teachings, leaders, and goals.

The ''Anti-Defamation League'' is not a Mormon group, and they clearly understand that the DVD is an anti-Mormon work—it is designed to attack the Church and its beliefs:

:''The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD...This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century....It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.'' {{link|url=http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm}}</font>

however, "It is our hope that thoughtful people will look beyond the name-calling to carefully examine the areas of belief that separate the LDS Church from the biblical norm," said Pastor Floyd McElveen, a member of the consortium,

<font color=blue>It is not name calling to label anti-Mormon activity for what it is. Pastor McElveen continues to label the LDS Church as beyond "the biblical norm"—does he believe this is name calling, or merely a descriptive term? Pastor McElveen employs a double standard when he refuses to acknowledge that his work is anti-Mormon, while in the same breath insisting that Mormonism is non-biblical.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Anti-Mormon]]</font>

"In our experience, we have found that many people have a very limited understanding of what Mormon leaders have actually taught. Because this is true even within the LDS Church, some Mormons might feel that much of what this DVD contains is fabricated. For this reason great pains have been made to document the statements it contains." The historical statements in the video Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith are taken directly from LDS publications, Joseph Smith's teachings, and speeches given by those who are recognized as authorities in the LDS Church.

<font color=blue>Pastor McElveen hides the fact that many of the statements taken from Church leaders or scriptures were quoted out of context. The words were not fabricated, but the meaning and import was. If viewers are as ignorant about LDS teachings as Pastor McElveen claims, then the DVD had a responsibility to provide the proper context. It failed to do so.

Either Pastor McElveen is ignorant of how Latter-day Saints under their own scriptures and writings, or he is deliberately distorting them. In either case, he is not well suited to helping others understand The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

'''Examples of distortion of quotation in the DVD:'''
*[[Search for the Truth DVD:Distorted quotes]]

</font>

The making of this DVD is an act of love and has been placed into peoples' hands so that they too can carefully examine the truth claims of the LDS Church. Just as we respect the right of Mormon missionaries to come to our doors and share what they believe to be true with us, we hope that members of the LDS Church will respect the right of their neighbors to come to their door through this medium and share what they have found to be true.

<font color="blue">
Latter-day Saints welcome the opportunity to hear others' sincere testimonies of Christ and their beliefs about God.

However, the GoodNewsForLDS distributors specifically instructed their distributors ''not'' to discuss the DVD with their LDS members, but to simply leave the DVD in the hopes that they would watch it unaware of its source or intent. ''See:'' [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:letter(annotated)|here]].

Latter-day Saints do not want to hear their own beliefs distorted by those who have been misled by the DVD. We all have the right to share what we believe; we do not have the right to define, distort, and interpret others' beliefs.

Such behavior is not an act of love.</font>

|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-23T13:28:25Z

TedJones:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Summary}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Has the video's stated purpose been accomplished?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The producers of the film began their film with a strong statement of purpose based, they asserted, out of love:

:''This video has been produced out of love for our Lord Jesus Christ and love for our Mormon and Christian friends. We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

We will evaluate their results based upon that statement of purpose.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "From his fabrication of the First Vision to his reconstruction of the Christian faith and his desire for women it is clear that Joseph centered his life around lust, wealth and power. Joseph Smith joins a long list of those who have used the name of Christ to enrich themselves."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

We have shown that these claims about the First vision and Joseph's reasons for polygamy are false.

As we have seen, the DVD's accusations are unfounded, and often rely on the twisting of historical events to create an illusion of Joseph that they are quick to condemn. Their fabricated illusion is not borne out by Joseph's actions and statements.

Joseph's life demonstrated selflessness, humility, and a desire to serve God and his fellow man. He wasn't without sin, and he never claimed to be. But despite his weaknesses, he was a prophet of God.

Joseph published numerous revelations calling him personally to repent. He was quick to aid the poor, and the early Church had many poor. As members came, leaving homes and family and most of their worldly possessions behind, they were welcomed, fed, and clothed by the Church and by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

In the end, he gave his life for his testimony of Jesus Christ, when he could have preserved it by recanting what he had taught.

'''To read more:'''
* {{lds|topic=Character of Joseph Smith|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=934f001cfb340010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&locale=0}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:First Vision|First Vision]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The %22Occult%22|"occult"]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|plural marriage]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:The Translator|translation]]
* [[Template:JosephSmithPortal|Joseph Smith resources]]
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It’s no coincidence that Joseph was murdered in the Carthage jail. Why was Joseph in jail? He destroyed a small paper press called the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' because he didn’t like what they had written about him in their one and only publication." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph Smith was in jail because he went to answer false charges of treason against the state. He voluntarily surrendered to a state official who had guaranteed him and his brother Hyrum protection.

The call for the destruction of the ''Nauvoo Expositor'' was not taken by "Joseph Smith," but by the Nauvoo city council, of which Joseph was a member. The council—which included non-members of the Church—voted to suppress the ''Expositor'' as a public nuisance.

The video will not tell you that some scholars have argued that the city council's action was ''legal'' according to Nauvoo city charter. Nor will they tell you that the council's concern was that the paper was so inflammatory that it might stir up violence.

They also won't tell you that Joseph was released by the Nauvoo municipal court on 13 June 1844. Anti-Mormons claimed this court was biased, so Joseph and others again appeared before non-Mormon judge Daniel H. Wells on 17 June, who discharged them (he did not have power to acquit them, so this was deferred).

Governor Ford of Missouri then asked Joseph to appear before the Carthage judge to satisfy the anti-Mormons. Joseph did so, and was freed on bail. Joseph and Hyrum were then ''arrested again'' because of a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia.

The DVD will not reveal that Joseph was twice released by legal courts. It will not reveal that he was out on bail awaiting trial in a ''third'' court when he was ''rearrested'' by a religious enemy. Governor Ford broke his promise to protect Joseph and Hyrum, and the Carthage Greys conspired to help murder Joseph.

It almost sounds as if the video is endorsing what happened to Joseph, or saying he "deserved it." Such an attitude shows contempt for the law and Christian ethics.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]
* [[Nauvoo city charter]]
* [[Joseph Smith as a martyr|Murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith]]
* Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965):874.
* {{CarthageConspiracy1 |start=y}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But this was not the first time Joseph was arrested. He had been arrested many times throughout his adult life for things like defrauding people while he was using his glass-looking techniques and creating an illegal bank in Kirtland, Ohio, and fleeing with its monies." – Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph was arrested many times. John the Baptist was arrested. Peter and the apostles were arrested. The apostle Paul was arrested many times. Even Jesus was arrested. Does this mean that John, Peter, Paul, and Jesus are to be condemned? Did they "deserve" what happened to them?

The video carefully avoids mentioning that Joseph was never found guilty by any court of the charges for which he was arrested. But, for the DVD producers, the mere fact of being arrested and charged with a crime is bad enough—Joseph Smith is "guilty until proven innocent."

As previously discussed, Joseph was not found guilty in the matter of the "glass-looking," and the person he had supposedly "defrauded" testified in his behalf and joined the Church. (Review treatment of this issue [[Search for the Truth DVD:Polygamy|here]].)

The Kirtland Safety Society is not an example of Joseph "defrauding" people. Joseph put more of his own money into the bank than any other person, save one. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, because of a nation-wide banking panic.

Joseph did not "flee...with its monies"—he went further into debt trying to save the bank, and owed over $100,000. Joseph had enough goods and lands to meet that debt, but converting these into cash was difficult in the early 19th-century economy following the collapse.

Joseph continued to pay his creditors after fleeing for his life. In 1843 he was far away, safe in Nauvoo, and yet continued to settle his debts from the Kirtland period. These are not the actions of a man trying to "get rich quick" or swindle others.

Once again, the DVD has lied, distorted history, and not told the whole story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph Smith's 1826 glasslooking trial|1826 'glass-looking' hearing]]
* [[Kirtland Safety Society]]
* [[Joseph Smith and legal trials]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "So why do so many people follow this man? Because they don’t know the truth about the character of Joseph Smith." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The DVD producers might ask members of the Church why they follow Joseph Smith. They would learn that they follow Joseph's teachings because:
* Joseph's teachings agree with the Holy Bible.
* Joseph's teachings brought them closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
* The power of the Holy Spirit has convinced their minds and hearts that Joseph is a true Prophet, and discple of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

The Saints do not care that Joseph was imperfect—all men have weaknesses. But it is the doctrine of Christ which Joseph taught, and the influence of the Holy Spirit which Joseph brought, which members cherish and follow.

Brigham Young described an encounter with the 19th-century version of the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD:

:''I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. ''

:''I said, hold on, Brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can.''

:''As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, ''for I never embrace any man in my faith.''

:''But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.''
::<small>—{{JoD4|author=Brigham Young|title=The Gospel Like a Net Cast Into the Sea, Etc.|date=9 November 1856|start=77|end=78}} (paragraph breaks added) {{ea}}</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "As a Mormon, you cannot question the Church on issues such as these because you run the risk of excommunication." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is complete nonsense.

The DVD wants its viewers to trust only its sources—they know that if viewers ask knowledgable LDS members or leaders about these issues, they will receive information that shows the DVD to be dishonest and inaccurate.

The Church has a lay clergy—this means that its leaders do not spend time in seminaries and degree programs. They come from many occupations and social backgrounds. Many leaders—like many members—are not experts in matters of early Mormon history.

Some leaders, like some members, may be unaware of the historical details which are so regularly distorted by the DVD. If a leader is unable to provide an answer to a sincere question, this does not mean that an answer does not exist. No one knows everything.

FAIR exists to fill any such "knowledge gaps" by providing accurate, well-researched information about LDS history and doctrine. Anti-Mormon attacks are repetitive; most were asked and answered decades ago.

No one will be excommunicated for asking questions. Excommunication occurs only for cases of severe unrepentant sin, or in cases where a member is guilty of ''apostasy''. Apostasy is the public teaching of doctrines believed to be false by the Church, even after being corrected by Church leaders.

If one begins preaching the nonsense taught by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD, one might be excommunicated. But, if one believes the DVD, excommunication is no penalty at all.

'''To read more:'''
* Do Mormons Believe in Blind Obedience? {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Do_Mormons_Believe_in_Blind_Obedience.html}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php Click here] to ask questions of FAIR. You will receive one or more e-mail replies, with additional references shortly, usually within less than 24 hours.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "This video has been sent to Mormon leaders knowing that they will try to destroy and discredit its message but this will not change the fact that the content within is true." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

In reference to this statement we note the following from the [[Search for the Truth DVD:letter|letter]] that accompanied the DVD:

:''CAUTION: This video is to be viewed by CHRISTIANS ONLY until AFTER the nation-wide distribution which is scheduled for March 25, 2007. In-other-words, do not allow any Mormon people to view the video or learn of our intended evangelistic outreach until after March 25, 2007.''

:''Why such extreme caution? If the leadership of the Mormon cult learns of our plans, they will publicly instruct their people not to watch the video and many Mormons will blindly obey.''

The reality is that the makers of this DVD wanted it to be kept secret from LDS leadership as well as LDS members. (One searches in vain for the "love" directed privately at "the Mormon cult.")

Fortunately, the DVD's message discredits itself rather well, and all members need do is to continue doing what we've always done: share the truth.

And the only ones being asked to "blindly obey" are those asked to distribute the DVD on doorknobs across the country, and those being asked to believe the DVD's version of LDS doctrine and history.

'''''Note:''''' FAIR is not owned, affiliated with, or controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These replies were not prepared at the behest of the Church, and do not represent official statements. They are the opinions only of the authors, who are believing and committed members of the Church.

'''To read more:'''
* {{Offenders1| start=1}}

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Do not trust your eternity to a burning in the bosom which can be felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie. Even terrorists believe and are willing to die for something which is not of the Lord."– Patrick Powell</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Comparing Latter-day Saint convictions to those of "terrorists" is inflammatory and absurd. Terrorists lie to achieve their goals; does that mean that the DVD producers should be compared to terrorists?

It is strange that sectarian critics fault appeals to a "burning in the bosom."

'''Would they reject a witness of Jesus?'''

Following Jesus' resurrection, He walked with two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize Jesus, but listened to Him as "he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" ({{s||Luke|24|27}}).

After breaking bread with them, Jesus was revealed to the disciples, and vanished.

Interestingly, the disciples did not say to each other, "We should have known it was Jesus because of his scriptural teaching." Rather, they said:

:Did not our heart ''burn within us'', while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? ({{s||Luke|24|32}}, emphasis added)

Would the critics likewise dismiss Jesus' disciples' witness because it was a "burning in the bosom"? Would they characterize this experience as merely the emotional rush of a Hollywood film?

The experience on the road to Emmaus illustrates another important point: a witness of the Holy Ghost is not "just a feeling." The Holy Ghost is both a "feeling" or "experiencing" process, but it is not empty emotion. Rather, ''information'' is always transmitted with it. Thus, Jesus did not just give the disciples a "feeling," but taught them information from the scriptures which gave intellectual or mental insight and satisfaction.

'''Mind and heart'''

LDS scripture understands a spiritual witness as always consisting of these two things: mind and heart unified:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
:Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God? ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/6/22#23 D&C 6:22–23]).

Notice the information spoken to the “mind,” and the peace then follows. And, the solution for later doubts or concerns is not reliance on “a feeling,” but an admonition to recall specific information communicated earlier.

This matches a later description:

:Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
:But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
:But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong... ([http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/9/7#9 D&C 9:7–9]).

'''Following Jesus' command to ask'''

Because the video's producers haven't experienced the testimony of the Spirit, they want you to ignore it. But what did Christ say?

:And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever....
:But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. ({{s||John|14|16,26}})

So, we are to heed the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, not ignore them. Instead, the video's producers want you to believe that God would give us a stone when we ask for bread (see {{s||Matthew|7|9}}).

And then we have the admonition of James:

:If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. ({{s||James|1|5}})

Are we to believe then that God will not answer when we knock at the door? That he who asketh will not receive? Latter-day Saints believe in these Biblical admonitions to seek God, to commune with the Spirit, and to trust in Him.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Burning in the bosom]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus alone is without sin, as we read in 1 John 3:5—'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin.' Only Jesus could live a sinless life."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The DVD wants you to believe that this description of Christ is different from LDS beliefs of Christ. Once again, this is false—hardly an act of love. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the only sinless person to ever live, and that his sinlessness was one of attributes that allowed him to make an atonement for all mankind.

'''To read more:'''

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

''Other resources''
* {{lds|url=http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html|topic=Jesus Christ}}
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Who Is Jesus%3F|Jesus Christ]]
* Reply to DVD on [[Search for the Truth DVD:Eternal Life|Beliefs about salvation]]
* [[Plain and Precious Book of Mormon doctrines|Book of Mormon doctrines about Jesus Christ]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "If someone today would model their life after Joseph Smith they would have to be an adulterer, a thief, a fraud and a liar.... You must choose to follow Joseph or follow Jesus but you cannot follow both."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
More verbal tar and feathers for the prophet Joseph.

Of course, Latter-day Saints do not strive to "model their lives" on Joseph Smith, but on the sinless, perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ. They imitate Joseph only to the extent that Joseph was a faithful disciple of Christ.

Throughout his life, Joseph had to endure the slurs and allegations of creedal religionists—things certainly haven't changed after more than 150 years.

Was Joseph dragged into jail many times on religiously-motivated charges? Yes, and so was Peter, so was Paul, and so even was Christ Himself.

Christ was murdered by those who hated Him, and Joseph Smith—like others persecuted for their beliefs about Christ—eventually followed the Master into violent death at the hands of those who hated his message.

Those who attack the faith of others, especially through dishonesty and misrepresentation, should remember Christ's denunciation of those who fought His message in His day:

:Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
:And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
:Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
:Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
:Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
:Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. ({{s||Matthew|23|28-34}})

If one wants to ''Search for the Truth'' about Joseph Smith, one will need to look much further than the superficial slogans, distortions, and untruths presented in this DVD.

As President Boyd K. Packer remarked:

:''There has been no end to opposition. There are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of us and of our history, some of it mean-spirited and certainly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. Sometimes clergy, even ministerial organizations, oppose us. They do what we would never do. We do not attack or criticize or oppose others as they do us.... Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.''
::<small>—{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=A Defense and a Refuge|date=November 2006|start=85|end=88}} {{link|url=http://beta.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff120d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus Christ...Joseph Smith...Choose!"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It should be clear by now that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have to choose between Jesus and Joseph. Members have simply chosen Biblical, revealed doctrines about Christ in preference to non-Biblical, post-Biblical creeds.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"If you don’t believe the things stated in this program look them up for yourself." – Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

At last, something with which we can agree. If you have questions, you ''should'' get the facts—all the facts.

But, you won't get them from this DVD, or the ministries that support anti-Mormon propaganda.

|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

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

2007-03-23T13:15:52Z

TedJones: corrected 'a honest' to 'an honest', Christian...

{{DVDHeadingBox|Witnessing to Mormons}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Robert's beliefs about what Joseph Smith did are not relevant. What matters is how Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints understood his role.

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

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

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

'''To read more:'''

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

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

|-

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

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

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

As one non-Mormon scholar noted:

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

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

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Virtually every verse I quote in scripture is [given to my congregation] because you need to go home and check me out. You need to see what the Bible has to say not what John says, not what Joseph says, not what anybody says but God. What does God say about these issues? You need to check these things out. It is your soul—your eternal soul—that is on the line and there is no reset button at the judgment. There is no finger pointing: 'But he misled me.' You have an obligation for the sake of your soul as well as to be able to share the truth with your family, people you love, to check out what God's word has to say on these issues and not what somebody else had to say and the answers are found only in the word of God which is the Bible." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Sincere seekers of truth should verify the claims made by others. FAIR has prepared these resources so that no one need rely on the word of those who distort the teachings, beliefs, and history of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Teachings should be compared with the Bible, but this is not the final step. How can we know if our interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? There are thousands of Christian sects, each with their own intepretation of certain scriptures.

The only way in which we can be assured of following God's will is to have God Himself tell us. He has promised that He will. The DVD producers hope that you will not do this, and spend a great deal of time [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that revelation from God cannot be relied upon.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And the Bible is supported by hundreds, even thousands of prophecies, proofs, evidence, history, archaeology—we can prove it." - Dave Hunt (Author and Founder, Berean Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While Latter-day Saints would agree that there is evidence—both secular and spiritual—to support the Bible as a mostly accurate narrative and as the Word of God, it is false to imply that the Bible has been proven to be the Word of God by secular means. It is likewise inaccurate to claim that we can "prove" the Bible by archaeology and history. Many biblical scholars and archaeologists believe that numerous Bible stories are myths or fabrications. Some question various parts of its history or doubt the reality of miracles and the resurrection. Archaeology and history certainly can not "prove" that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He atoned for our sins.

Only a witness from the Spirit of God can prove spiritual things:

:Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ({{s|1|Corinthians|2|13-14}})

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Saved by Faith Alone?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My faith that I will be spending eternity in heaven with Jesus Christ is dependent upon understanding who He is and what He's done. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, His life was sacrificed upon the cross, His blood was shed, He died, He is resurrected—He lives today. And if I would believe in Him and who He is and what He's done and acknowledge who I am and what I've done and ask for forgiveness then I can spend eternity with him." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints believe all of these things.

The only additional belief is that Latter-day Saints insist that because they love Jesus and believe what He tells them, they should strive to obey the commands He gives them. Critics try to portray this as a rejection of Christ's grace—it is not. It is an expression of our gratitude for it.

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "All you have to do is believe in Christ and be saved and confess it and then that's it." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard is entitled to his opinion. Of course, hundreds of millions of other Christians—such as the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the early Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—have the same Bible scriptures, and come to a different conclusion.

This demonstrates that Biblical ''interpretation'' is the key issue. Even those who agree that the Bible is the Word of God cannot agree on what it ''means.''

'''To read more:'''

* Does the Church [[Neglect grace|neglect]] the doctrine of grace?
* [[Salvation by faith alone]]
* [[Born_again_translation|Born again]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting the LDS View of Salvation</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It don't have to be I've got to join this Church and then on top of that I've got to pay my tithing to get a Temple recommend and then I've got to have a Temple recommend to get into the Temple and then I've got to go to the Temple so that I can live with God so that I can become a God so that I can go have a planet to not be with God. It just don't make sense." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard's distortion of the early Christian and Latter-day Saint doctrine of ''theosis'' makes it clear that he does not understand it.

Latter-day Saints do not view such matters as joining Christ's church, worshipping Christ in the temple, or making financial donations to the cause of Christ to be things they have "got to" do.

Rather, they are things which they do joyfully because:
* they express their love for Christ and His marvelous atonement
* they wish to imitate Christ and act as much like Him as possible
* the Lord gives His Spirit in even greater abundence when they obey Christ's teachings
* serving the Lord and others gives them joy.

They do not do these things hoping that Christ will forgive them. They do them because they have been forgiven. It is a pity that Mr. Howard knew so little of LDS doctrine that he never understood this.

'''To read more:'''

*{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Have You Been Saved?|date=May 1998|start=55}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/have%20you%20been%20saved.htm}}
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis''/human deification]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is a tremendous amount of respect that I have for them and their dedication and how hard they are seeking and the burden that they are willing to carry in their impossible attempt to live up to their impossible gospel demands." - Joel Kramer (Director, Living Hope Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader is invited to consider just how much "respect" the Latter-day Saints and their faith have experienced from Mr. Kramer and his ministry.

Mr. Kramer again presumes to speak for the Latter-day Saints—they do not consider the demands which a merciful Christ puts upon them to be "impossible," or even onerous. As Jesus taught, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" ({{s||Matthew|11|30}}).

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And so my heart is that any Mormon who would be hearing this would be going back to the scriptures, challenging the words of Joseph Smith, comparing them to the words of Jesus—the one who died for you, the one who loves you. The one who is praying for you right now, interceding, he ever lives to make intercession for you right now."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the critics are claiming that the Mormons have some "different" Jesus that they need to abandon, and turn to "Jesus--the one who died for you, the one who loves you. The one who is praying for you right now, interceding, he ever lives to make intercession for you..."

One grows weary of repeating it, but these are all doctrines believed and taught by the Latter-day Saints:
* Christ died for us ({{s||Jacob|1|8}}, {{s||Mosiah|3|7}}, {{s||Helaman|14|20}})
* Christ loves us ({{s|3|Nephi|17|5-22}}, {{s||Moroni|7|48}})
* Christ prays for us to the Father ({{s|3|Nephi|17|15-22}}, {{s|3|Nephi|18|23-25}}).
* Christ makes intercession for us ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9-10}}, {{s||Mosiah|14|12}}, {{s||Mosiah|15|5}}, {{s||DC|45|3-5}}.)

More attempts to dismiss LDS ideas about salvation through Jesus Christ—which are strikingly similar to the views advocated by the DVD—can be seen [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And I'm sure that if you do that if you truly seek Him out in the Bible I'm sure that Jesus would begin to speak to you and you would know the truth." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

How does Pastor Gallantin know that Jesus does not speak to the Latter-day Saints as they read the Bible? (According to a Christian research group, a Latter-day Saint is statistically more likely to read the Bible during the week than Catholics or Protestants.) {{link|url=http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103}}

Unless Pastor Gallantin is getting revelation from God (i.e., not from the Bible) he cannot know what God does or does not tell the Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Jesus says if the Son set you free you should be free indeed He really means it. The thing that broke forth on me was that the Bible really is the real thing there's no fantasy to it. It reveals reality to us." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints likewise believe that the Bible is "the real thing," with "no fantasy to it" as it "reveals reality to us." They also believe that they have been made free by Jesus Christ.

If Mr. Gavin believes that the LDS teach otherwise, this again demonstrates that he did not understand LDS doctrine prior to leaving the Church. He is therefore ill-equipped to comment on it.
|-

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

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I was born and raised a Mormon for 37 years.... Everything took a back seat to the Church including, as I look back, my family." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One has to chuckle at the "title" used to identify Mr. Gavin. Non-members may find such a title impressive, but the Latter-day Saints would not. A "stake mission president" is a part-time position held by assignment, for a period of time, in every LDS "stake." A "stake" is an ecclesiastical unit of roughly ten congregations. Thus, in Salt Lake City alone there are dozens of stakes, and hundreds of current and former "stake mission presidents."

This point is not brought up to belittle Mr. Gavin's former position in his stake, nor to minimize the hard work done by many former stake mission presidents. The point remains, however, that the video's producers apparently included this title for Mr. Gavin because it sounds prestigious, and somehow conveys an air of authority to Mr. Gavin.

The fact is, if Mr. Gavin put his family in the "back seat" to Church duties, the Church is not to blame for that. In fact, Mr. Gavin violated the clear teachings of the Church by not putting family before Church duties.

That he did so indicates that he did not understand even the fundamentals of LDS doctrine, regardless of being "raised a Mormon for 37 years." His poor choices in this most vital of matters make him a poor witness for how "Mormons" understand things.

Mr. Gavin and interested readers may wish to review the Church's teachings on family below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Church over family|Church over family?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You know, I thought to myself I'm teaching these kids, let alone my own kids, this song about a prophet that I don't even believe is true." - Karen Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a bizarre objection. Ms. Howard was teaching her children something she didn't believe? No parent ought to teach children things that they don't believe are true. However, that Ms. Howard did so is no fault of the Church's. The Church constantly emphasizes the necessity of knowing for oneself if one is following the path approved by God.

Ms. Howard's belief or disbelief says nothing about the truth or falsehood of any belief. It merely says that in her case she was relying on poor grounds for her actions.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Denying Testimony and the Witness of the Spirit</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "What I've discovered is when you counter Mormon theology with biblical fact and you back them up into a corner they most always go back to, 'Well I've experienced a testimony.'" - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader is invited to consider whether ''any'' reply to any of the so-called "facts" presented by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD have been answered with "Well, we at FAIR have a testimony."

Members of FAIR do have testimonies, but there are legitimate Biblical and historical answers to all the questions posed by the critics. No member can answer every objection from a hostile critic, especially one who is so convinced that ''their'' interpretation of the Bible is the only way in which an honest, Christian, God-fearing person could understand the text. But, an individual's inability to answer to the satisfaction of self-appointed "Christian" judges says nothing about the merits of any position.

Above all else, the DVD producers want you to rely on them and their interpretations of scripture, history, and doctrine. They spend a lot of effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that getting answers directly from God is unreliable.
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...when you ask them, 'Well what do you mean by “the testimony?” Is that the burning in the bosom?' They say, 'Yes, of course, and you too could have the experience of the burning in the bosom all you need to do is ask God if what Joseph Smith said is true.' Now isn't this amazing? To stake your eternal life based on some kind of a feeling, a subjective feeling? Where would you find that in the scriptures? Absolutely nowhere." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Note that the DVD intro text says: ''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The DVD spends much effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do they hope their feelings are touched?

Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

At any rate, basing one's eternal life on direct revelation from God is a thoroughly Biblical doctrine, as discussed at length [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]].

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

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I remember sitting on the edge of my bed and weeping as the recognition that I had been lied to crept in upon me." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If Mr. Gavin believed he was lied to, then he can doubtless understand how offensive it is for the Latter-day Saints when their doctrine and their history is repeatedly lied about over the course of a ninety minute DVD.

What is harder to understand is why Mr. Gavin would participate in a venture which lies about the beliefs of others.

One can only hope that he still does not understand LDS doctrine and practice, as he evidently did not prior to leaving the Church.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My heart, to see that people could know the truth because Jesus said if you know the truth the truth will set you free." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If the truth is all that is necessary to set us free (and Latter-day Saints believe that it is), why has Pastor Gallantin chosen to lend his name to a DVD that blatantly (and demonstrably) misrepresents the faith of the Latter-day Saints?

Why does he not refuse to associate with those who bear false witness?

Why does he not present ''all'' the facts?

Why does he help those who will not?

|-

|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

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

2007-03-23T13:12:22Z

TedJones: spelling correction: 'prestigious'

{{DVDHeadingBox|Witnessing to Mormons}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Robert's beliefs about what Joseph Smith did are not relevant. What matters is how Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints understood his role.

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

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

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

'''To read more:'''

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

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

|-

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

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

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

As one non-Mormon scholar noted:

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

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

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Virtually every verse I quote in scripture is [given to my congregation] because you need to go home and check me out. You need to see what the Bible has to say not what John says, not what Joseph says, not what anybody says but God. What does God say about these issues? You need to check these things out. It is your soul—your eternal soul—that is on the line and there is no reset button at the judgment. There is no finger pointing: 'But he misled me.' You have an obligation for the sake of your soul as well as to be able to share the truth with your family, people you love, to check out what God's word has to say on these issues and not what somebody else had to say and the answers are found only in the word of God which is the Bible." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Sincere seekers of truth should verify the claims made by others. FAIR has prepared these resources so that no one need rely on the word of those who distort the teachings, beliefs, and history of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Teachings should be compared with the Bible, but this is not the final step. How can we know if our interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? There are thousands of Christian sects, each with their own intepretation of certain scriptures.

The only way in which we can be assured of following God's will is to have God Himself tell us. He has promised that He will. The DVD producers hope that you will not do this, and spend a great deal of time [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that revelation from God cannot be relied upon.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And the Bible is supported by hundreds, even thousands of prophecies, proofs, evidence, history, archaeology—we can prove it." - Dave Hunt (Author and Founder, Berean Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

While Latter-day Saints would agree that there is evidence—both secular and spiritual—to support the Bible as a mostly accurate narrative and as the Word of God, it is false to imply that the Bible has been proven to be the Word of God by secular means. It is likewise inaccurate to claim that we can "prove" the Bible by archaeology and history. Many biblical scholars and archaeologists believe that numerous Bible stories are myths or fabrications. Some question various parts of its history or doubt the reality of miracles and the resurrection. Archaeology and history certainly can not "prove" that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He atoned for our sins.

Only a witness from the Spirit of God can prove spiritual things:

:Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. ({{s|1|Corinthians|2|13-14}})

'''To read more:'''
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* [[Open_canon_vs._closed_canon]]
* {{tg|topic=Biblical inerrancy|url=http://fairlds.org/apol/ai103.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Saved by Faith Alone?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My faith that I will be spending eternity in heaven with Jesus Christ is dependent upon understanding who He is and what He's done. The shed blood of Jesus Christ, His life was sacrificed upon the cross, His blood was shed, He died, He is resurrected—He lives today. And if I would believe in Him and who He is and what He's done and acknowledge who I am and what I've done and ask for forgiveness then I can spend eternity with him." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints believe all of these things.

The only additional belief is that Latter-day Saints insist that because they love Jesus and believe what He tells them, they should strive to obey the commands He gives them. Critics try to portray this as a rejection of Christ's grace—it is not. It is an expression of our gratitude for it.

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "All you have to do is believe in Christ and be saved and confess it and then that's it." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard is entitled to his opinion. Of course, hundreds of millions of other Christians—such as the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the early Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—have the same Bible scriptures, and come to a different conclusion.

This demonstrates that Biblical ''interpretation'' is the key issue. Even those who agree that the Bible is the Word of God cannot agree on what it ''means.''

'''To read more:'''

* Does the Church [[Neglect grace|neglect]] the doctrine of grace?
* [[Salvation by faith alone]]
* [[Born_again_translation|Born again]]
* "Are We Saved by Grace Alone?" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Are_We_Saved_by_Grace_Alone.html}}

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting the LDS View of Salvation</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It don't have to be I've got to join this Church and then on top of that I've got to pay my tithing to get a Temple recommend and then I've got to have a Temple recommend to get into the Temple and then I've got to go to the Temple so that I can live with God so that I can become a God so that I can go have a planet to not be with God. It just don't make sense." - Tim Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Mr. Howard's distortion of the early Christian and Latter-day Saint doctrine of ''theosis'' makes it clear that he does not understand it.

Latter-day Saints do not view such matters as joining Christ's church, worshipping Christ in the temple, or making financial donations to the cause of Christ to be things they have "got to" do.

Rather, they are things which they do joyfully because:
* they express their love for Christ and His marvelous atonement
* they wish to imitate Christ and act as much like Him as possible
* the Lord gives His Spirit in even greater abundence when they obey Christ's teachings
* serving the Lord and others gives them joy.

They do not do these things hoping that Christ will forgive them. They do them because they have been forgiven. It is a pity that Mr. Howard knew so little of LDS doctrine that he never understood this.

'''To read more:'''

*{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=Have You Been Saved?|date=May 1998|start=55}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/have%20you%20been%20saved.htm}}
* [[Deification_of_man|''Theosis''/human deification]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "There is a tremendous amount of respect that I have for them and their dedication and how hard they are seeking and the burden that they are willing to carry in their impossible attempt to live up to their impossible gospel demands." - Joel Kramer (Director, Living Hope Ministries)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader is invited to consider just how much "respect" the Latter-day Saints and their faith have experienced from Mr. Kramer and his ministry.

Mr. Kramer again presumes to speak for the Latter-day Saints—they do not consider the demands which a merciful Christ puts upon them to be "impossible," or even onerous. As Jesus taught, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" ({{s||Matthew|11|30}}).

Distorted ideas about the Latter-day Saints' views on salvation have already been addressed [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And so my heart is that any Mormon who would be hearing this would be going back to the scriptures, challenging the words of Joseph Smith, comparing them to the words of Jesus—the one who died for you, the one who loves you. The one who is praying for you right now, interceding, he ever lives to make intercession for you right now."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the critics are claiming that the Mormons have some "different" Jesus that they need to abandon, and turn to "Jesus--the one who died for you, the one who loves you. The one who is praying for you right now, interceding, he ever lives to make intercession for you..."

One grows weary of repeating it, but these are all doctrines believed and taught by the Latter-day Saints:
* Christ died for us ({{s||Jacob|1|8}}, {{s||Mosiah|3|7}}, {{s||Helaman|14|20}})
* Christ loves us ({{s|3|Nephi|17|5-22}}, {{s||Moroni|7|48}})
* Christ prays for us to the Father ({{s|3|Nephi|17|15-22}}, {{s|3|Nephi|18|23-25}}).
* Christ makes intercession for us ({{s|2|Nephi|2|9-10}}, {{s||Mosiah|14|12}}, {{s||Mosiah|15|5}}, {{s||DC|45|3-5}}.)

More attempts to dismiss LDS ideas about salvation through Jesus Christ—which are strikingly similar to the views advocated by the DVD—can be seen [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Eternal_Life|here]].

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "And I'm sure that if you do that if you truly seek Him out in the Bible I'm sure that Jesus would begin to speak to you and you would know the truth." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

How does Pastor Gallantin know that Jesus does not speak to the Latter-day Saints as they read the Bible? (According to a Christian research group, a Latter-day Saint is statistically more likely to read the Bible during the week than Catholics or Protestants.) {{link|url=http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103}}

Unless Pastor Gallantin is getting revelation from God (i.e., not from the Bible) he cannot know what God does or does not tell the Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "When Jesus says if the Son set you free you should be free indeed He really means it. The thing that broke forth on me was that the Bible really is the real thing there's no fantasy to it. It reveals reality to us." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints likewise believe that the Bible is "the real thing," with "no fantasy to it" as it "reveals reality to us." They also believe that they have been made free by Jesus Christ.

If Mr. Gavin believes that the LDS teach otherwise, this again demonstrates that he did not understand LDS doctrine prior to leaving the Church. He is therefore ill-equipped to comment on it.
|-

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

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I was born and raised a Mormon for 37 years.... Everything took a back seat to the Church including, as I look back, my family." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

One has to chuckle at the "title" used to identify Mr. Gavin. Non-members may find such a title impressive, but the Latter-day Saints would not. A "stake mission president" is a part-time position held by assignment, for a period of time, in every LDS "stake." A "stake" is an ecclesiastical unit of roughly ten congregations. Thus, in Salt Lake City alone there are dozens of stakes, and hundreds of current and former "stake mission presidents."

This point is not brought up to belittle Mr. Gavin's former position in his stake, nor to minimize the hard work done by many former stake mission presidents. The point remains, however, that the video's producers apparently included this title for Mr. Gavin because it sounds prestigious, and somehow conveys an air of authority to Mr. Gavin.

The fact is, if Mr. Gavin put his family in the "back seat" to Church duties, the Church is not to blame for that. In fact, Mr. Gavin violated the clear teachings of the Church by not putting family before Church duties.

That he did so indicates that he did not understand even the fundamentals of LDS doctrine, regardless of being "raised a Mormon for 37 years." His poor choices in this most vital of matters make him a poor witness for how "Mormons" understand things.

Mr. Gavin and interested readers may wish to review the Church's teachings on family below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Church over family|Church over family?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You know, I thought to myself I'm teaching these kids, let alone my own kids, this song about a prophet that I don't even believe is true." - Karen Howard (Former Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a bizarre objection. Ms. Howard was teaching her children something she didn't believe? No parent ought to teach children things that they don't believe are true. However, that Ms. Howard did so is no fault of the Church's. The Church constantly emphasizes the necessity of knowing for oneself if one is following the path approved by God.

Ms. Howard's belief or disbelief says nothing about the truth or falsehood of any belief. It merely says that in her case she was relying on poor grounds for her actions.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Denying Testimony and the Witness of the Spirit</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "What I've discovered is when you counter Mormon theology with biblical fact and you back them up into a corner they most always go back to, 'Well I've experienced a testimony.'" - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader is invited to consider whether ''any'' reply to any of the so-called "facts" presented by the ''Search for the Truth'' DVD have been answered with "Well, we at FAIR have a testimony."

Members of FAIR do have testimonies, but there are legitimate Biblical and historical answers to all the questions posed by the critics. No member can answer every objection from a hostile critic, especially one who is so convinced that ''their'' interpretation of the Bible is the only way in which a honest, Christian, God-fearing person could understand the text. But, an individual's inability to answer to the satisfaction of self-appointed "Christian" judges says nothing about the merits of any position.

Above all else, the DVD producers want you to rely on them and their interpretations of scripture, history, and doctrine. They spend a lot of effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince you that getting answers directly from God is unreliable.
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...when you ask them, 'Well what do you mean by “the testimony?” Is that the burning in the bosom?' They say, 'Yes, of course, and you too could have the experience of the burning in the bosom all you need to do is ask God if what Joseph Smith said is true.' Now isn't this amazing? To stake your eternal life based on some kind of a feeling, a subjective feeling? Where would you find that in the scriptures? Absolutely nowhere." - Roger Oakland (President, Understand the Times)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Note that the DVD intro text says: ''We pray that it will touch the hearts of all who watch through the grace and truth of Christ Jesus.''

The DVD spends much effort [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]] trying to convince the Latter-day Saints not to trust their feelings. Why, then, do they hope their feelings are touched?

Could it be that they realize that the Holy Ghost ''does'' work (in part) through the sentiments of the heart?

At any rate, basing one's eternal life on direct revelation from God is a thoroughly Biblical doctrine, as discussed at length [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Burning_in_the_Bosom|here]].

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

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "I remember sitting on the edge of my bed and weeping as the recognition that I had been lied to crept in upon me." - Randy Gavin (Former Salt Lake Stake Mission President)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If Mr. Gavin believed he was lied to, then he can doubtless understand how offensive it is for the Latter-day Saints when their doctrine and their history is repeatedly lied about over the course of a ninety minute DVD.

What is harder to understand is why Mr. Gavin would participate in a venture which lies about the beliefs of others.

One can only hope that he still does not understand LDS doctrine and practice, as he evidently did not prior to leaving the Church.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "My heart, to see that people could know the truth because Jesus said if you know the truth the truth will set you free." - Scott Gallantin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

If the truth is all that is necessary to set us free (and Latter-day Saints believe that it is), why has Pastor Gallantin chosen to lend his name to a DVD that blatantly (and demonstrably) misrepresents the faith of the Latter-day Saints?

Why does he not refuse to associate with those who bear false witness?

Why does he not present ''all'' the facts?

Why does he help those who will not?

|-

|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/First Vision

2007-03-23T11:35:08Z

TedJones: added letter to agree with verb: 'seven years', not seven year

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: The First Vision}}

{{DVDWitnessingRepeats}}
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLAIM: Joseph Smith said that a mortal person had to have the priesthood in order to see God and live. But since he didn't have the priesthood in 1820 he could not have really seen God as he claimed.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context, it is apparent that the critics have misread LDS scripture. The pertinent passage says:

:[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." This power becomes available to mortals when they become one with the Spirit of God. As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||DC|67|11}}). Joseph Smith described this quickening in several of his First Vision recitations. He was thereby enabled to see God face to face and live.

'''To read more:'''
* [[D%26C 84 says God not seen without priesthood%3F]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLAIM: Joseph Smith gave nine different accounts of what happened during the First Vision. He just couldn't keep his story straight - even when it came to who his heavenly visitors were.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

* The first three accounts listed are obviously not about the 1820 First Vision, but rather the 1823 angel Moroni visitation. The critics lump this material together with verifiable First Vision accounts because they want to create the perception of a problem where none exists. They want to make it appear as though Joseph Smith's first claimed visionary experience was of an angel but he later changed it into an encounter with Deity to be more impressive—the angel story then being refashioned as a second meeting with divine beings. The records do not support this scenario.

* The fourth account listed is from an 1832 unpublished history which was written partly by the Prophet himself. Critics focus on the fact that in this text only Jesus Christ is described as making an appearance to Joseph Smith—the Father is mentioned by name but not as a visitor. But they fail to notice that the Father's First Vision testimony is, in fact, mentioned in the opening paragraph of this historical document and it directly precedes the recounting of the First Vision event. And they also do not seem to be aware of the fact that the Prophet deliberately constructed the 1832 narrative to parallel the theophany experienced by the apostle Paul. {{wikilink|url=Only one Deity appears in the 1832 account}}

* The fifth account listed as 1834 was produced by Oliver Cowdery. The critics do not seem to be aware that this two-part narrative (spanning 1834/35) began by telling the orthodox First Vision story but then suddenly switched over to the Book of Mormon story because of a written request made by William W. Phelps. When this document is carefully evaluated its usefulness for the anti-Mormon agenda quickly evaporates. {{wikilink|url=Oliver_Cowdery_not_aware_of_First_Vision_in_1834-35}}

* The sixth account is 1835'''a'''. It could also be labeled as the Robert Mathias interview of November 9th. The two personages who are listed as appearing in this recital are obviously the Father and the Son. This becomes apparent when the text is compared to the 1832, 1838, and 1842 accounts.

::1835'''a''' - "another personage soon appeared like unto the first"
::1842 - "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness"

::1835'''a''' - "he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
::1838 - "This is my beloved Son"

::1835'''a''' - "he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee"
::1832 - "he spake unto me saying, 'Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee'"

* The seventh account is 1835'''b'''. It could be referred to as the Erastus Holmes interview of November 14th. This is another instance of trying to create a problem out of thin air. The critics cry "inconsistency" when they point out that the Prophet says in this text that when he was fourteen years old he had his "first visitation of angels." But just five days previous—in the 1835'''a''' account—the Prophet stated that he saw "many angels" '''IN ADDITION TO''' the two main personages of the vision. Thus, it is proper to say that Joseph Smith's first visitation of angels occurred during the First Vision experience, but they were not the only heavenly beings who were present.

* The eighth account listed is the 1838 recital which was eventually included in the canon of the LDS Church. The two celestial visitants are clearly identifiable in this document as the Father and the Son.

* The ninth account is somewhat difficult to identify in the DVD format because there are no references provided. It could be the 1844 I. Daniel Rupp reprint of the 1842 Wentworth Letter, or it could be the Alexander Neibaur 1844 diary entry. The claim is made in the DVD that the Prophet's visitors are "unidentified" in this account. If this is the Rupp reprint then the comment is irrelevant since the Prophet also published the official Church history in 1842 and the Father and the Son are certainly identifiable in that account. If reference is being made to the Neibaur dairy entry the DVD comment is similarly unimpressive because the Neibaur notes do indeed identify the personages as the Father and the Son.

The DVD fails to mention a substantial number of additional First Vision recitals given during the Prophet's lifetime. Where are the following accounts?

* 1831 sermon by the Prophet reported by Lorenzo Snow
* 1833 remarks by the Prophet reported by John Alger
* 1834 sermon by the Prophet reported by Joseph Curtis and Edward Stevenson
* 1835 missionary statements reported by Samuel Richards
* 1837 sermon by the Prophet reported by Mary Horne
* 1839 interview with the Prophet's parents reported by Wandle Mace
* 1840 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt
* 1842 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Hyde
* 1843 sermon by the Prophet reported by Levi Richards
* 1843 interview with Joseph Smith published in the ''Pittsburgh Gazette''

These eyewitnesses badly damage the anti-Mormon viewpoint on Joseph Smith's First Vision story because they demonstrate consistency in identifying the visitors in the Sacred Grove.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLAIM: Joseph Smith was "known around the country as a fabricator of stories." Even his own mother was concerned about his habit of making things up.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim of Joseph Smith being known "around the country" as a liar is not backed up with any specific reference in the DVD. Joseph's father-in-law is mentioned as a source for this accusation, but the audience is not told that he (Isaac Hale) was an embittered man because Joseph Smith eloped with his daughter when he would not consent to their marriage. Isaac did not believe in the divine calling of his son-in-law but his daughter Emma (Joseph's wife) did because she played an active role in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and gained a witness of its truthfulness for herself. It is extremely difficult for critics to pretend that Joseph Smith was a bare-faced liar about his divine calling when other people stood in the presence of angels with him, saw the same heavenly visions that he beheld, and heard the audible voice of God at the same time that he did.

The claim of the DVD that Joseph Smith's mother was "concerned" about Joseph telling stories is a case of wrenching a quotation out of proper context. Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates (see Anderson, ed., ''Lucy's Book'', 345). Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon "Nephites" and was shown to her son by vision.

In Joseph Smith's own official history he confirmed that he learned this information through the power of visions (''Times and Seasons'', vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707) and Oliver Cowdery made note of the same thing (''Messenger and Advocate,'' vol. 1, no. 7, April 1835, 112). Thus, the origin of the stories mentioned by Joseph's mother in her autobiography was a heavenly one—she was not even remotely implying that her son was a teller of tall tales.
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">CLAIM: There is inconsistency in Joseph Smith's dating of the First Vision event and also in the message that was said to be delivered during the experience.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

These are oft-repeated charges, despite the fact that they have been repeatedly and publicly debunked.

See the following FAIRwiki, FAIRlds.org, and published articles:

* [[Different_age_provided_in_the_1832_text]]
* [[1832_account_doesn%27t_mention_new_dispensation]]
* [[1832_account_doesn%27t_forbid_joining_a_church]]
* [[1832_says_wicked_will_be_destroyed_but_1838_doesn%27t]]

For several detailed charts demonstrating the consistency of the elements contained within Joseph Smith's First Vision recitals see the following:

* Michael R. Ash - http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/The_First_Vision.pdf
* James B. Allen and John W. Welch, "The Appearance of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith in 1820," in John W. Welch and Erick B. Carlson, eds., ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844'' (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book and Brigham Young University Press, 2005), 56, 60, 62, 66, 68.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: President Brigham Young "denied that the Lord came to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Young stated that Joseph had actually been visited by an angel, [who] informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The edited version of Brigham Young's remarks that critics like to use read as follows:

::"the Lord did not come...but He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith...and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day...." (''Journal of Discourses'', 2:171).

Note the use of ellipses in this quote, indicating that information has been left out from the original source. A reading of the unedited quote indicates that Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord didn't come—just that the "Lord '''did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory'''," to visit Joseph Smith. This is true; He did not. What did He do? He visited simply, along with His Son, and then He sent further messengers, just as Brigham stated.

It is clear from other sermons delivered by Brigham Young that he was well aware of the details of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in 1842—long before the 1855 address cited above. President Young taught:

* Joseph Smith was called at age fourteen: ''JD'' 8:353–54 (1861); ''JD'' 12:67-68 (1867).
* He was called as a youth: ''JD'' 2:171 (1855); ''JD'' 7:243 (1859).
* There was a revival or reformation involved: ''JD'' 12:67–68 (1867).
* Joseph was told the churches were wrong, and not to join any of them: ''JD'' 2:171 (1855); ''JD'' 12:67–68 (1867).

Late in his life Brigham Young stated:

:''Why was Joseph Smith persecuted? Why was he hunted from neighborhood to neighborhood, from city to city, and from State to State, and at last suffered death? Because he received revelations from the Father, from the Son, and was ministered to by holy angels.''
::<small>—{{JD1|vol=18|author=Brigham Young|date=17 September 1876|start=231}} (17 September 1876)</small>

The charge that President Brigham Young said an angel inaugurated the last dispensation instead of Deity cannot be supported. Evidence suggests that President Young's 1855 sermon is closely paraphrasing distinct First Vision story elements that were publicly available to all of the Saints many years before in 1842.

'''To read more:'''
*[[Brigham Young said the Lord didn%27t appear|Brigham Young said Lord didn't appear?]]
*[[Brigham Young never mentioned First Vision|Brigham Young never mentioned the First Vision?]]

'''FOR FURTHER READING ON FIRST VISION APOLOGETIC ISSUES CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK:'''

* [[First Vision accounts]]

|-

|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}

{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Summary

2007-03-20T19:08:09Z

TedJones:

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Eternal Life

2007-03-20T14:12:05Z

TedJones: changed 'with' to 'without'

__NOTOC__ __NOEDITSECTION__

{| style="width:100%;margin-top:+.7em;background-color:#ffffc0;border:1px solid #ccc"
| style="width:40%;color:#000" |
{|style="width:100%;border:solid 0px;background:none"
|-
| style="text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;color:#000"|
<div style="font-size:300%;border:none;margin: 0;padding:.1em;color:#000">Eternal Life</div>
|}

| style="width:75%;font-size:85%;color:#000"|



|}




{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "With the concept of God being so drastically different between the Bible and Joseph Smith’s teachings one must wonder how Joseph Smith could claim that the Book of Mormon was another Testament of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Powell (Host)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The claim that the Bible and Joseph Smith disagree is false, as shown [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Who_Is_God%3F|here]]. Joseph Smith disagrees with the non-Biblical creeds and resulting ''interpretations'' of the Bible favored by Mr. Powell.

The Book of Mormon is another testiment of Christ because it clearly teaches redemption through a personal covenant relationship with God, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Doctrines_relating_to_the_Savior_and_his_mission|Book of Mormon doctrines about Christ and His mission]]
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Faith.2C_Repentance.2C__Baptism.2C_the_gift_of_the_Holy_Ghost_and_Enduring_to_the_End|Book of Mormon doctrines on:]]
** Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
** Repentance
** Baptism of water
** Baptism of fire (the Holy Ghost)
** Enduring to the end
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#Prayer|Book of Mormon doctrine on prayer]]
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#The_purpose_of_life|Book of Mormon doctrine on the purpose of life]]
* [[Plain_and_Precious_Book_of_Mormon_doctrines#What_the_devil_doesn.27t_want_us_to_know|Book of Mormon doctrine on how to fight Satan]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "You just don’t pay lip service to Jesus; you enter into Him. You become a part of Him. You absorb. You identify completely with His suffering on the cross; His resurrection from the dead; His claims to be the Son of God and therefore qualified to pay the price we could never pay; and once we believe in Him in that deep sense of commitment which can be instantaneous—in fact it has to be—at that moment we have eternal life." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite the video's implication, Latter-day Saints agree wholeheartedly with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics claim cannot be a testament of Jesus Christ, contains an account of a group of people who are transformed by faith in Christ:

:2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.
:3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.({{s||Mosiah|4|2-3}})

The Book of Mormon also teaches:

:32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
:33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. ({{s||Moroni|10|32-33}})

Latter-day Saints do not wish to simply pay "lip service" to Jesus, as Dr. Whitcomb says. Therefore, they seek to obey when Jesus commands them to do something. To say we believe while not trying to obey (however imperfectly) would indeed be to give lip service. As Jesus Himself taught:

:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. ({{s||John|14|15}})

And, after presenting His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes us:

:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. ({{s||Matthew|7|24-27}}).

Is Jesus lying, or does He expect us to obey to the extent we are able?

'''To read more'''
* [[Born_again_translation|Being "born again": early Christian perspectives]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In Christianity eternal life is a gift. It’s the most radical understanding of how one goes to heaven, is resurrected, has eternal life, in the religious realm—by grace or saved through faith—it is the gift of God. Why is it a gift? Because Jesus Christ did something that we couldn’t do for ourselves. He died on the cross satisfying God’s sense of justice against sin; paid the price for our sins; was raised eternally through the resurrection with a glorified body. When we put our faith and trust in Him your pain of sins and believing in Him we receive salvation as a gift." - Dr. Phil Roberts (President, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints also agree with this doctrine. The Book of Mormon, which the critics malign, teaches:

* We can't do it ourselves:
:5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

* We are saved by grace because of Christ's sacrifice for our sins:

:6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
:7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.({{s|2|Nephi|2|6-7}})

* Christ died on the cross to satisfy the demands of justice:

:7 Yea, even so he [the Messiah, Christ] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
:8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—
:9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.({{s||Mosiah|15|7-9}})

* Eternal life and salvation is a "gift from God":

: ...lay up for yourselves a treasure in heaven, yea, which is eternal, and which fadeth not away; yea, that ye may have that precious gift of eternal life, which we have reason to suppose hath been given to our fathers.({{s||Helaman|5|8}})

* Christ was raised from the dead with a glorified body:

:13 Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God.({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})

It should be clear that the DVD critics do not understand LDS doctrine, or are trying to make it appear as if the Latter-day Saints do not believe these fundamental Christian concepts.

The speakers distort or are ignorant of LDS scripture and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. They act as if such doctrines would be novel to us, but they are not.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: After mentioning the LDS doctrine of the three degrees of glory, the video adds: "In Romans 6:23 it talks about although “wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the Latter-day Saints agree whole-heartedly with this doctrine. The Bible and Book of Mormon teach it:

:33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that [evil] spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.({{s||Mosiah|2|33}})

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "It is only by trusting Him that we come to be able to enjoy the glory of heaven. ‘I am the way, the truth and life and no one, not one person, comes to the Father but through me.’" - John McCartney (Pastor, First Baptist Church of Tooele, Utah) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The Latter-day Saints believe this scripture, and quote it frequently. And, this doctrine is again taught in the Book of Mormon, which the DVD insists isn't a "Christian" testament:

* Christ is the only way to salvation:

:And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. ({{s||Mosiah|3|17}})

: And if it so be that [men] repent and come unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they shall be received into the kingdom of God. ({{s||Ether|5|5}})

*Trust in God necessary for salvation:

: I would that ye should remember, that as much as ye shall put your trust in God even so much ye shall be delivered out of your trials, and your troubles, and your afflictions, and ye shall be lifted up at the last day.({{s||Alma|38|5}})

Latter-day Saints would ask, however, if they are to ''trust'' Jesus, why they should not trust Him enough to do what He says?

This is discussed further in the next claim.

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "According to the Bible, repenting of our sins and faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to gain eternal life. In John, Jesus was asked “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:28,29)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints agree that salvation is impossible without faith in Christ and repentance.

But, they continue to insist that beliving in Jesus includes believing what He says, and obeying Him because we love Him.

"According to the Bible," Jesus also says:

* "He that believeth ''and is baptized'' shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."{{s||Mark|16|16}} {{ea}}
* "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."({{s||Matthew|7|21}})
* "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." ({{s||Matthew|24|13}})
* "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, ''to give every man according as his work'' shall be."({{s||Revelation|22|12}}) {{ea}}
* "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world... Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me...And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.({{s||Matthew|25|31-46}}) {{ea}}

The Bible also says:
* 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})
* But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.({{s||James|1|22}})
* What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid...({{s||Romans|6|15}})
* ...if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins...({{s||Hebrews|10|26}}
* For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.({{s|1|John|5|3}})
* Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. ({{s||Galatians|6|7}})
* ...all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; ''they that have done good'', unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ({{s||John|5|28-29}}) {{ea}}
* For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.({{s||Ephesians|2|10}})
* This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.({{s||Titus|3|8}})
* That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;({{s||Colossians|1|10}})

Nothing saves us without Christ. But, "He that saith, I know [Christ], and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." ({{s|1|John|2|3-4}})

'''To read more:'''
* [[Neglect_grace|Does the Church neglect the doctrine of grace?]]
|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In the Bible it is clear that our salvation rests in the hands of Jesus Christ alone. Why? Because from the beginning God’s word tells us that the penalty for all sin is death—both physical death and spiritual separation from God." “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) (on screen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Yet again, these doctrines are all embraced by the Latter-day Saints. The Book of Mormon teaches:

* All mankind suffers spiritual and physical death

:for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal [i.e., physical] and to things spiritual.({{s||Helaman|14|16}})

* All sin and are condemned

:And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.({{s|2|Nephi|2|5}})

* No one can say anything of themselves

:And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth...({{s||Mosiah|2|25}})

* Christ alone can save us
:Wherefore, beloved brethren, be reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ, his Only Begotten Son, and ye may obtain a resurrection, according to the power of the resurrection which is in Christ, and be presented as the first-fruits of Christ unto God, having faith, and obtained a good hope of glory in him...({{s||Jacob|4|11}})

The DVD producers are either ignorant or deceitful about LDS beliefs concerning Christ and His atonement.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: To pay [the] penalty [for sin] a person must:<br>

:[1] Be sinless<br>
:[2] Be infinite to pay the infinite penalty for mankind’s sin<br>
:[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood to pay sin’s penalty<br>
:[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death<br>
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is almost as if the DVD producers have been reading the Book of Mormon!

Yet again, all these doctrines are taught and believed by the Latter-day Saints.

'''[1] Sinless'''
* I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.({{s||Mosiah|15|1}})
* Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.({{s|2|Nephi|2|6}})

'''[2] Be infinite to pay an infinite penalty'''
* ...therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.({{s||Alma|34|12}})
* ...there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man...for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. ({{s||Alma|34|10-11}})

'''[3] Die as a substitute by shedding of blood'''
* Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.({{s||DC|76|69}})
* [this] great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.({{s||Alma|34|14-16}})
* And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people({{s||Alma|7|12}}

'''[4] Rise from the dead to defeat sin and death'''
* Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my soul delighteth to prophesy concerning him, for I have seen his day, and my heart doth magnify his holy name.({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
* death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.({{s|2|Nephi|9|12}})

These are basic, fundamental doctrines accepted without reservation by all faithful Latter-day Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "No other person could do what Jesus did; therefore only faith in Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection can save a sinner."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The ignorance or deception about LDS doctrine continues. The Book of Mormon teaches:

* Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.({{s|2|Nephi|2|8}})
* remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. ({{s|2|Nephi|10|24}})
* there is no other way or means whereby man can be saved, only in and through Christ. Behold, he is the life and the light of the world. Behold, he is the word of truth and righteousness.({{s||Alma|38|9}})
* ought ye not to tremble and repent of your sins, and remember that only in and through Christ ye can be saved?({{s||Mosiah|16|13}})

Speakers who know so little of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be trusted to inform others about the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Can we know that we have eternal life? Scripture states, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)
</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, a Latter-day Saint can only give a hearty "Amen!" By now, it should be no surprise that the Book of Mormon teaches these doctrines:

* he [Christ] shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God.({{s|2|Nephi|25|13}})
* ...as many as will not harden their hearts shall be saved in the kingdom of God.({{s||Jacob|6|4}})

The Book of Mormon teaches all these doctrines which the critics insist are so important. Why, then, are they so hostile toward the faith of the Latter-day Saints? Could it be that they do not understand that which they attack?

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In order to gain access into the celestial heaven Joseph Smith’s revelation requires keeping the Ten Commandments as well as all the commandments found throughout the three sacred Mormon books; be baptized into the Mormon Church; tithe; get married in the Temple; obey the Word of Wisdom; be baptized for the dead; magnify the Church callings; and the list goes on."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The LDS position is here distorted very badly.

All that is required to enter the "celestial heaven" is the atonement of Christ (as demonstrated extensively above). Yet, Christ may set the terms whereby the atonement may be received.

We see, at last, the complaint which the critics have against the Latter-day Saints. The critics insist that no action of mankind's, aside from fervent belief in Christ, is required for salvation.

The Latter-day Saints agree that fervent faith in Christ brings salvation. But, they find it hypocritical and nonsensical to talk about a fervent faith that does not lead to fervent efforts to do one's best to honor Christ's commandments, seek His will, obey His words, and imitate His sinless life. If we love, honor, and trust someone, why would we not try to be like them to the extent possible?

Of course we will not succeed perfectly in this undertaking—but, the sincerity of our faith compels us to offer our best efforts—not because we think they will save us (they will not) but because we love Christ, and desire to obey Him. As Jesus asked rhetorically, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" ({{s||Luke|6|46}})

The Latter-day Saints desire to make Jesus not just Lord of their lips, but Lord of their lives.
|-





! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The critics insist that ''their'' view of salvation's requirements is the only Biblically legitimate one.</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics act as if ''their'' conception of salvation is the only possible one, and the only possible Biblical interpretation. But, this is clearly false, since many Christians have held other views.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

:''If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is ''the'' cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians.'' [It's almost as if Mr. Bercot has seen the DVD!]...

:''Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.''

:''The early Christians ''[and the Latter-day Saints!]'' would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience...The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And ''He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him''.''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=57, 61|end=62}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the ''modified'' doctrines adopted later, and now taught by ''Search for the Truth''.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christian views on salvation]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">"There is no religion in the world that believes this except the religion of the Bible because every religion in the world says we just have to do something to contribute, we have to earn our way, we have to somehow please God with ourselves and our attitudes in our words and deeds. Impossible." - Dr. John Whitcomb (theology professor, Old Testament scholar)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video presumes that ''their'' view of the Bible is the only legitimate one.

The early Christians were certainly both Christians and believers in the Biblical texts. Evangelical author David Bercot responded to the charge that the Early Christians didn't properly "understand" the Bible the way 20th century Christians do by pointing out that Clement of Alexandria quoted the New Testament 2,400 times and Tertullian 7,000 times. Bercot concludes:

:''So please don't accuse the early Christians ''[and, we would add, LDS Christians]'' of not reading their Bibles. These Christians were well aware of what Paul had written concerning salvation and grace. After all, Paul personally taught men like Clement of Rome. However, the early Christians didn't put Paul's letters to the Romans and the Galatians on a pedestal above the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles. They read Paul's words about grace in conjunction with such other scriptures as''...{{s||Matthew|7|21}}...{{s||Matthew|24|13}}...{{s||John|5|28-29}}...{{s||Revelations|22|12}}...{{s|1|Timothy|4|16}}...
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}}</small>

Bercot then addresses a matter which happens to be the video's next claim....

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In fact, the Bible refutes the ordinances in Joseph Smith’s Articles of Faith by stating, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8,9 NASB)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Bercot continues:

:''So, the real issue isn't a matter of ''believing'' the Scriptures, but one of ''interpreting'' the scriptures. The Bible says that "by yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast" ({{s||Ephesians|2|8-9}}). And yet the Bible also says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" ({{s||James|2|24}}). Our [i.e. evangelical] doctrine of salvation accepts that first statement but essentially nullifies the second. The early Christian doctrine of salvation gives equal weight to both."''
::<small>—{{Heretics|start=63|end=64}} {{eo}}</small>

The Latter-day Saints likewise honor ''all'' facets of salvation taught in scripture, not just some of them.

The Bible does not "refute" the idea of ordinances for salvation. When the apostles preached to a crowd, and the people were pricked in their hearts, they cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" ({{s||Acts|2|37}}).

Peter did ''not'' reply: "simply have faith in Jesus, and don't worry about any ordinances." He said:

:Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.({{s||Acts|2|38}})

Peter's answer is exactly what the fourth Article of Faith calls for after faith in Jesus Christ: repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why is Joseph Smith condemned for following Peter's teachings?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christian views on salvation]]
* [[Born_again_translation|Born of water: essential baptism in early Christianity]]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith said, “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (<i>History of the Church,</i> vol. 6, pg. 408, 409)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

To contrast against the immediately preceding statement about "lest anyone should boast," the producers of the video include a purported statement of Joseph Smith's, wherein he does, indeed boast. There is no explicit reason given for including this contrasting statement, other than to perhaps imply that Joseph was some sort of egomaniacal leader or someone who was stepping outside the bounds of propriety, and therefore not to be trusted. There are a couple of problems with such a comparison, however.

'''Joseph not the author'''

First, this statement is written as if Joseph was the author of it, but he was not. Scribes assembled this account from a "synposis" following Joseph's death. Trying to get insight into Joseph's character and intent from a statement put into his mouth after he was dead is poor history.

'''Quoted out of context'''

Second, the quote is taken out of context. In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. This statement was supposedly made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinithians, chaper 11 to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

:Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking in as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19, NASB)

Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.

Do the producers of the video dismiss the words of Paul and deny his calling as an Apostle because he used such a literary approach that included boasting? No, they do not. Yet, they dismiss Joseph Smith when it is clear by his own statements, in context, that he engaged in the exact same literary approach. Consider the words of Joseph right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:

:''My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in peils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies re no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.''
:;<small>—{{HoC1|vol=6|start=408}}</small>

After giving the above explanation, Joseph ''then'' makes the statements that the video accounts to him, in the same way that Paul made outrageous "boasts" to contrast his position with the position of those who the Corinthians were starting to listen to. Paul starts the next chapter of 2 Corinthians with the statement "boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable." So, it would appear that Paul recognizes the necessity of boasting at times (though it may do little good, being unprofitable), yet the producers of the video do not allow Joseph to follow Paul's advice and, of necessity, boast at times.

Perhaps the producers are unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps they apply a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not? Again, the producers never reveal their intent in including Joseph's Paul-like statements in their video.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Joseph Smith’s Doctrine & Covenants teaches that Joseph himself holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven (on screen) “Verily I say unto you, the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come...”({{s||DC|90|3}}) (on screen ends) and if Joseph Smith holds the keys to heaven then how can Jesus claim, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” ({{s||Matthew|28|18}})"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The critics should read their Bibles.

Jesus told Peter, the chief apostle:

:And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.({{s||Matthew|16|19}})

Peter was told that he would hold the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." The power of these keys was to continue into the hereafter, since Peter's actions on earth would have validity in the world to come.

Jesus does not seem to think that giving Peter keys in the 16th chapter of Matthew affects His ability to hold "all authority" in the 28th chapter. Should we believe His understanding, or the critics?

If the president of a company gives responsability for some part of his corporation, this does not mean that the president has lost authority—he has merely given an underling power to make some decisions on his behalf. Without the president, the underling has no power.

Are the critics offended that Peter was given keys?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_status_in_LDS_belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "God’s word tells us that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus...” ({{s|1|Timothy|2|5}}) In stark contrast, Brigham Young stated, “...that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p 289)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints embrace the doctrine taught in 1 Timothy. The Book of Mormon says likewise:

:[men] are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death...({{s|2|Nephi|2|27}})

'''Ignoring the Bible'''

The critics need to once again read their Bibles.

At the Last Supper, Jesus himself taught His apostles:

:Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.({{s||Luke|22|28-30}}; see also {{s||Matthew|19|28}}.)

Since the Latter-day Saints accept the witness that Joseph was called as an apostle and prophet (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/21/1#1 D&C 21:1]) with the same authority as that given to Peter, James, John, and others, they do not think it strange that he will likewise play a role in judgment.

The witness of a prophet will always be brought against those who did not accept his witness of Christ (see {{s||Matthew|10|40}}; {{s||John|5|45-47}}). Could first century Christians accept Christ while rejecting the witness of Peter or Paul?

'''Another incomplete quote'''

Not content to ignore a clear Biblical teaching, the DVD producers also failed to include the entirety of Brigham Young's quotation. Following the portion cited, Brigham said:

:...I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy...he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.... It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption.
::<small>—{{JoD7_1|author=Brigham Young|title=Intelligence, etc.|date=9 October 1859|start=289|end=289}}</small>>

Clearly, Joseph's role is to function under the "direction...of the Son of God," and the primary goal is the salvation of all who will accept any degree of Christ and Joseph's witness of Him. Joseph's role is not to condemn, but to do everything possible to encourage all to come unto Christ and be saved.

Joseph's participation in the judgment (at the command and sufferance of Jesus) is no more or less than the role assigned to the Lord's apostles at the Last Supper.

No mortal's role in the judgment supercedes the role given to Jesus, as the Book of Mormon bears witness:

::...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}.)

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_status_in_LDS_belief]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "But we cannot believe both the Bible and the writings of Joseph Smith when the Bible tells us there is only one God and Joseph Smith tells us there are many gods and we must become gods ourselves." - Pamela Robertson</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
The non-Biblical creeds and the ''interpretation'' of the Bible chosen by Ms. Robertson are the only problems.

Millions of Christians have not accepted the post-Biblical Trinitarian creeds, and so have believed in more than one divine being.

Millions of others have had hope in the doctrine of ''theosis'': humans being made like God.

Many of these Christians were among the earliest followers of Christ. Non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz penned a line that responds well to Ms. Robertson's superficial grasp of the issues:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
::<small>—{{FR-17-1-10}}</small>

It would seem the Latter-day Saints are closer than Ms. Robertson may want to admit.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Who_Is_God%3F|''Search for the Truth'' reply: Who is God]]
* [[Deification_of_man|Early Christians on deification]]
* [[Deification_of_man#Modern_Christian_exegesis|Modern non-LDS Christians on deification]]
* [[Godhead_and_the_Trinity]]
* D. Charles Pyle, "Early Christian Doctrine on Deification" {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/1999_Early_Christian_Doctrine_of_Deification.html}}
* {{FR-17-1-10}}
|-
|}



| class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%;border:1px solid #cef2e0;background-color:#f5fffa;vertical-align:top;color:#000"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5fffa"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#003366;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #258;text-align:left;color:#fff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Jump to...</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"| <small>{{DVD25March2007-ToC}}</small>
|-
|}
|}