FAIR - User contributions [en]

Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?

2026-03-27T23:15:13Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?==
===Obtaining plastic surgery can be done for both good and bad reasons. It is an oversimplification to associate plastic surgery with vanity===

Why does Salt Lake City have so many plastic surgeons? While New York City has 4 plastic surgeons per 100,000 people, Salt Lake City has 6 plastic surgeons per 100,000 people.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/29/plastic-health-surgery-forbeslife-cx_rr_1129health.html</ref> It is claimed that these statistics imply that Mormon's have a vanity problem.

Obtaining plastic surgery can be done for both good and bad reasons. It is an oversimplification to associate plastic surgery with vanity.

===Reasons for the large number of plastic surgeons===
Forbes, the publisher of the article entitled "America's Vainest Cities", explained one reason why some cities have such a high number of plastic surgeons:

<blockquote>
"Unexpected entries like Salt Lake City, Nashville and Louisville might rise to the top, given smaller populations and medical or university programs and centers that focus on plastic surgery. An influx of younger, more affluent residents into the smaller cities may also account for the rising number of plastic surgeons."<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/29/plastic-health-surgery-forbeslife-cx_rr_1129health.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The University of Utah has a very successful medical program, which may contribute to the large number of plastic surgeons in SLC.<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?sid=17790344</ref>

It is also interesting to note that plastic surgery costs a lot less in Utah than it does in the surrounding states. It's possible that the prices have been driven down due to a lack of business in the state.

===Statistical claims regarding Utah cannot necessarily be applied to Mormons in general. Utah is only a little over 60% Mormon===

It needs to be pointed out that there is no official LDS stance on plastic surgery. Ultimately, this is a decision that is left up to the individual.

Statistical claims regarding Utah cannot necessarily be applied to Mormons in general. Utah is only a little over 60% Mormon.<ref>http://www.sltrib.com/53909710-200/population-lds-county-utah.html</ref>

Merriam-Webster defines vanity as "The quality of people who have too much pride in their own appearance, abilities, achievements, etc."<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanity</ref> If plastic surgery is used for prideful reasons, or for the purpose of elevating oneself above others, then this is a vain use of the surgery. On the flip side, plastic surgery could be a legitimate way of taking care of one's body.

A KSL article that interviewed Dr. Brian Brzowski, a non-LDS plastic surgeon that practices in Ogden, Utah, provides some interesting insight into Mormon culture and plastic surgery:

<blockquote>
“The people here aren’t doing it for vanity; they’re doing it in their minds to restore things, almost to the extent that it’s kind of a type of reconstructive procedure,” Brzowski said.

Brzowski noted that the “strong community that’s definitely a hallmark of Utah, the (LDS) Church, plays a role” in the numbers of procedures being done here. “Patients who have a positive experience with plastic surgery, with such a good community, they share and spread that information. You learn from your neighbor, 'Oh, my gosh, this problem I had was taken care of; it works.' The word spreads faster than a lot of other spots.”

“I think it fits in with the (culture’s idea of) taking care of yourself,” Brzowski said. “That to me is absolutely the answer and the explanation for why such a devout group of people here are so accepting of plastic surgery. They’re doing it for appropriate reasons, not for some vulgar type of motivation.<ref>http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=16938771</ref>"'
</blockquote>

Of course, even getting plastic surgery for the reasons that Dr. Brzowski points out can be taken to the extreme. Individuals should exercise wisdom and self-control when considering plastic surgery.

</onlyinclude>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and culture/Plastic surgery/CriticalSources}]
{{endnotes sources}}

<!—PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE 
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El hecho de que Salt Lake City tenga muchos cirujanos plásticos es indicativo de la vanidad mormona y la preocupación por la apariencia?]]

Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?

2026-03-27T23:13:01Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Is the fact that Salt Lake City has many plastic surgeons indicative of Mormon vanity and concern with appearance?==
===Obtaining plastic surgery can be done for both good and bad reasons. It is an oversimplification to associate plastic surgery with vanity===

Why does Salt Lake City have so many plastic surgeons? While New York City has 4 plastic surgeons per 100,000 people, Salt Lake City has 6 plastic surgeons per 100,000 people.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/29/plastic-health-surgery-forbeslife-cx_rr_1129health.html</ref> It is claimed that these statistics imply that Mormon's have a vanity problem.

Obtaining plastic surgery can be done for both good and bad reasons. It is an oversimplification to associate plastic surgery with vanity.

===Reasons for the large number of plastic surgeons===
Forbes, the publisher of the article entitled "America's Vainest Cities", explained one reason why some cities have such a high number of plastic surgeons:

<blockquote>
"Unexpected entries like Salt Lake City, Nashville and Louisville might rise to the top, given smaller populations and medical or university programs and centers that focus on plastic surgery. An influx of younger, more affluent residents into the smaller cities may also account for the rising number of plastic surgeons."<ref>http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/29/plastic-health-surgery-forbeslife-cx_rr_1129health.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The University of Utah has a very successful medical program, which may contribute to the large number of plastic surgeons in SLC.<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?sid=17790344</ref>

It is also interesting to note that plastic surgery costs a lot less in Utah than it does in the surrounding states. It's possible that the prices have been driven down due to a lack of business in the state.

===Statistical claims regarding Utah cannot necessarily be applied to Mormons in general. Utah is only a little over 60% Mormon===

It needs to be pointed out that there is no official LDS stance on plastic surgery. Ultimately, this is a decision that is left up to the individual.

Statistical claims regarding Utah cannot necessarily be applied to Mormons in general. Utah is only a little over 60% Mormon.<ref>http://www.sltrib.com/53909710-200/population-lds-county-utah.html</ref>

Merriam-Webster defines vanity as "The quality of people who have too much pride in their own appearance, abilities, achievements, etc."<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanity</ref> If plastic surgery is used for prideful reasons, or for the purpose of elevating oneself above others, then this is a vain use of the surgery. On the flip side, plastic surgery could be a legitimate way of taking care of ones body.

A KSL article that interviewed Dr. Brian Brzowski, a non-LDS plastic surgeon that practices in Ogden, Utah, provides some interesting insight into Mormon culture and plastic surgery:

<blockquote>
“The people here aren’t doing it for vanity; they’re doing it in their minds to restore things, almost to the extent that it’s kind of a type of reconstructive procedure,” Brzowski said.

Brzowski noted that the “strong community that’s definitely a hallmark of Utah, the (LDS) Church, plays a role” in the numbers of procedures being done here. “Patients who have a positive experience with plastic surgery, with such a good community, they share and spread that information. You learn from your neighbor, 'Oh, my gosh, this problem I had was taken care of; it works.' The word spreads faster than a lot of other spots.”

“I think it fits in with the (culture’s idea of) taking care of yourself,” Brzowski said. “That to me is absolutely the answer and the explanation for why such a devout group of people here are so accepting of plastic surgery. They’re doing it for appropriate reasons, not for some vulgar type of motivation.<ref>http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=16938771</ref>"'
</blockquote>

Of course, even getting plastic surgery for the reasons that Dr. Brzowski points out can be taken to the extreme. Individuals should exercise wisdom and self-control when considering plastic surgery.

</onlyinclude>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and culture/Plastic surgery/CriticalSources}]
{{endnotes sources}}

<!—PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE 
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El hecho de que Salt Lake City tenga muchos cirujanos plásticos es indicativo de la vanidad mormona y la preocupación por la apariencia?]]

Question: Does the fact that Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" mean that universal apostasy was impossible?

2026-02-05T04:37:15Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* "Prevail" meaning "shut up against" */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Does the fact that Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" mean that universal apostasy was impossible?==
===Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail===

Some Christians argue that a universal apostasy is impossible, because Jesus told Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ({{b||Matthew|16|18}}) It is claimed that this means the Church organized by Jesus would never suffer apostasy and loss.

Jesus' teaching about the rock is not a reference to any individual church or group of believers, since even well-intentioned mortals must fail. Christ is the only sure foundation upon which a church can be built, and the knowledge of Christ must come as it always has, as it came to Peter—by direct revelation from the Father. Christ's Church will then be built upon those who have such revelation of Christ, including prophets and apostles.

===The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits===

The gates of hell prevailing against the church must refer to keeping the church in or out of the Hades, the dwelling place of departed spirits. Gates do not force people to enter or leave, but they do keep people from going in or out. Therefore, the Catholic and Protestant interpretations are not very intelligible whereas the Latter-day Saints can interpret the passage in at least two logical, Biblically sound ways.

It is not surprising that this issue revolves around how one interprets Jesus' remark. There are several options. Key to understanding the passage, however, is figuring out what the final "it" refers to: the church or the rock. Does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church," or does the passage mean "the gates of hell shall not prevail against this rock?" If it refers to the "rock," then one must determine what "the rock" refers to. Similarly, the word "prevail" can be interpreted in a number of ways.

===Catholic perspective: "this rock" is literally Peter===

The Catholic church, of course, thinks that "this rock" is literally Peter, and have based their claims to apostolic succession on the unbroken succession of bishops of Rome back to Peter. Other churches must necessarily define a different meaning, because they cannot claim apostolic succession in this way.

Churches (such as the Protestants) who believe that the Church of Rome is somehow flawed or in apostasy from the pure truth must adopt a different reading.

===Protestant perspective: "the rock" refers to the Christian Church===

Protestant readers have generally interpreted "the rock" to refer to the Christian Church. Under this reading, Jesus is promising that the church will never be entirely overcome by death and/or the forces of Satan.

===Latter-day Saint perspective: the only true, unmovable rock that exists is revelation from God===

Latter-day Saints have generally read this verse as referring to the only true, unmovable rock that exists--revelation from God. That is the rock upon which any Church must be built, and it is evidenced by the verses just before this one. In {{b||Matthew|16|13-17}}, the subject is literally revelation given to Peter as to who Jesus Christ really is. This knowledge came by revelation from God ({{b||Matthew|16|17}}), and Christ taught Peter that this revelation is the rock upon which He would build His Church. This is confirmed by Joseph Smith's teachings.

<blockquote>
Jesus in His teaching says, “upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.<ref>{{wordsjs|start=156|end=158}}; {{HoC1|vol=5|start=258}}; {{TPJS1|start=274}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Both the Protestant and Catholic versions must contend with the fact that other Biblical authors taught an inevitable [[Prediction of the apostasy|apostasy]]. It would seem strange for such Biblical authors, including Peter, to teach something which Jesus here denies.

One must also notice that gates only prevail against something by keeping it out or by holding it in. It makes little sense for gates, which by nature keep inhabitants in or out of a place, to "prevail" by forcing something to enter is completely illogical. The Catholic and Protestant interpretations force an interpretation that isn't logical, namely, that gates prevail by forcing someone to enter or someone to leave. Gates, of course, serve no such function. Gates keep things in or out, but they do not force things to go in or to go out.

==="Prevail" meaning "to keep out"===

The word translated as "hell" in the KJV is actually ''Hades'', the dwelling place of all departed spirits. For the gates of Hades to not prevail against them could mean that the gates would not be able to stop the church from entering therein. (By comparison, in ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'' the "gates" mentioned in Psalm 24 refer to the gates of Hades and the attempt made there to keep out Jesus in the period between his death and resurrection.<ref>See ''The Gospel of Nicodemus'', Part II, 6 in ANF 8:436-437.</ref> In other words, Christ’s Church, his disciples, would preach the gospel not only among the living, but also among the dead—not even the gates of Hades could keep them out.

In this context, Jesus gives Peter the sealing power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. For Latter-day Saints the word "bind" in Matthew 16:19 is synonymous with "seal." This passage has reference to priesthood authority to perform ordinances or sacraments, such as baptism, echoing the ''Shepherd of Hermas''’ usage of the word "seal."<ref>''The Pastor of Hermas'', ANF 2:49. See also, {{MD|pages=615-616}} and {{s||D&C|128||}}. </ref> When a baptism (seal) is performed vicariously for the dead by proper priesthood authority, the seal (baptism) is recognized in heaven. Thus, Joseph Smith explained, "there is a way to release the spirit of the dead; that is, by the power and authority of the Priesthood—by binding and loosing on earth."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Essential Joseph Smith|pages=151-152}} </ref>

As extreme as this interpretation may seem, this was not a foreign concept to early Christians. Clement of Alexandria (AD 160-215), among others, believed that the apostles of Christ preached the gospel to the departed spirits in Hades. "And it has been shown also…that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the master..."<ref>Clement of Alexandria, ''The Stromata,'' or ''Miscellanies VI.'' in ANF, 2:490.</ref>

==="Prevail" meaning "to keep in"===

Another interpretation is that "prevail" has reference to keeping inhabitants inside. In this thought, gates could only prevail against something that is already inside of them and not external to them. This interpretation would be that Christ was saying that His Church would soon be inside the gates of the spirit world alone because of apostasy on earth, but that the Church would later come out from the world of the dead and back to earth—that His Church would shortly be confined to the spirit world, held back by its gates, but that later, members of Christ's Ancient Church (such as Peter, James, and John) would come, by revelation, out from behind the gates of Hades to restore the gospel to the earth.

Both of the above readings are distinct possibilities. Both reconcile all the Biblical data.

==="Prevail" meaning "shut up against"===

A literal translation of the passage reads as follows:

<blockquote>
''"You are Peter or a small stone broken from a larger rock and upon the original larger rock I will establish my church and the gates of the world of spirts, or sheol, will not be shut up against my church or overpower the dead saints."''<ref>Personal translation taken from [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=16&verse=18&version=KJV#18 Blueletter Bible] and BYU Professor C. Wilfred Griggs.</ref>
</blockquote>

In this context the passage could be Christ teaching that the spirits of the departed will have the chance to hear the gospel. This is supported by Peter's teaching about Christ's ministry to the world of spirits just prior to his resurrection in {{b|1|Peter|3|18-22}} through {{b|1|Peter|4|1-6}}).

Latter-day Saints believe that this sealing power given to Peter is the same power and keys that can seal families on both sides of the veil.

===Jesus is also the Rock===

It is not just revelation, however, that is key, but the revelation of Christ by God the Father.

The image of a rock is found throughout scripture, and bears directly on Jesus' remark to Peter:

<blockquote>
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. ({{b||Ephesians|2|13-22}})
</blockquote>

Paul argues that the Church is built on a foundation of, among others, apostles and prophets, who were grounded in Christ as the cornerstone. Thus, Christ is the rock, as are those who receive revelation of Christ (such as the apostles and prophets) and His mission as part of their calling. Significantly, the apostasy resulted in the loss of apostolic authority (unless one accepts the apostolic succession of Rome).

Paul cautioned the Corinthian saints against presuming they could build on anyone or thing besides Christ:

<blockquote>
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. '''For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.''' Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. ({{b|1|Corinthians|3|9-23}}) {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Paul tells the saints that they are building the Church; but the Church cannot be built on man or men, even great men like Paul, Apollos, or Peter. (Of course, one cannot ''reject'' the testimony of the prophets and apostles either. But, relying on a mortal, fallible man alone will not suffice.)

Only Christ is a sufficiently firm basis for faith, practice, and belief. And, Christ cannot be found through the "wisdom of this world," but only through on-going ''revelation''.

Paul noted the use of the same symbol later in the epistle, tying the Christians to covenant Israel:

<blockquote>
MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and '''that Rock was Christ'''. ({{b|1|Corinthians|10|1-4}}) {{ea}}
</blockquote>

One must ask again, How was Israel guided? By a prophet, who provided knowledge by revelation of the Rock of Israel. This symbol was a common one, of course, for the Israelites:

<blockquote>
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. ({{b||Isaiah|28|16-17}})
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}



[[pt:Pergunta: Será que o fato de que Jesus disse: "sobre esta pedra edificarei a minha igreja, e as portas do inferno não prevalecerão contra ela" quer dizer que a apostasia universal era impossível?]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife

2026-01-18T17:47:34Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<h1>Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife</h1>
'''Summary:''' Following her [[Sarah Allen CES Response Posts|excellent response]] to the [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director|''CES Letter'']], FAIR asked Sarah Allen to respond in line-by-line fashion to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|''Letter For My Wife'']]. ''Letter For My Wife'' is a similar document to the ''CES Letter'' but was written in a much more even-keeled tone in order to be more appealing to those who found the tone of the ''CES Letter'' too combative and off-putting. ''Letter For My Wife'' covers much of the same ground as the ''CES Letter'', with some additional material from the author. Following the procedure used for the ''CES Letter'', FAIR posted Sarah's responses to ''Letter For My Wife'' serially on the ''FAIR Blog'' and then gathered links to each of those posts here. Sarah got through much of the project before having to abandon it to turn her time to more pressing matters.

FAIR has posted their own rebuttal to ''Letter For My Wife'' which can be read [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|here]].

Sarah Allen worked in mortgage compliance and was a freelance copyeditor by trade. A voracious reader, she loved studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah was affiliated with FAIR from 2022 [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2026/01/12/in-memoriam-sarah-allen until, tragically, she passed away on January 11, 2026].

If you are new to reading FAIR, strongly consider reading the material on the following pages to become acquainted with FAIR, our goals in defending the Church, and our methods for defending the Church and organizing our website:
*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about About FAIR]
*[[Mormonism and apologetics]]
*[[Logical fallacies]]

If you have any questions about the material covered in these posts, be sure to reach out to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

Below is a link to each of Sarah's posts responding to ''Letter For My Wife''.

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]

#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/01/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-1-preface-introduction Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/02/lfmw-rebuttal-part-2-the-early-church-the-first-vision-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-3-the-early-church-the-first-vision-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-4-the-early-church-the-first-vision-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/22/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-5-the-early-church-the-translation-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/01/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-6-the-early-church-the-translation-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 6: The Early Church – The Translation, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/08/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-7-the-early-church-the-translation-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 7: The Early Church – The Translation, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-8-the-early-church-the-witnesses-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 8: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/23/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-9-the-early-church-the-witnesses-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 9: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/29/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-10-the-early-church-the-witnesses-c?fbclid=IwAR3DnlP_Hw_EygkImJ-HecnkWZnGkKYuooIngoscJCLMs9ufg6zzP0xPwaE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 10: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-11-the-early-church-the-kinderhook-plates Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 11: The Early Church – The Kinderhook Plates]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/12/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-12-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 12: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/19/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-13-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-b?fbclid=IwAR1_XmjLnbESGphLgjMK9hl9uRyPtS6j1xoHzJD7xC9MEuhe9EeH7xwzphE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 13: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-14-the-early-church-the-endowment-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 14: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/04/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-15-the-early-church-the-endowment-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 15: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/11/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-16-the-early-church-polygamy-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 16: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/17/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-17-the-early-church-polygamy-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 17: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section B]

Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife

2026-01-18T17:45:58Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<h1>Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife</h1>
'''Summary:''' Following her [[Sarah Allen CES Response Posts|excellent response]] to the [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director|''CES Letter'']], FAIR asked Sarah Allen to respond in line-by-line fashion to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|''Letter For My Wife'']]. ''Letter For My Wife'' is a similar document to the ''CES Letter'' but was written in a much more even-keeled tone in order to be more appealing to those who found the tone of the ''CES Letter'' too combative and off-putting. ''Letter For My Wife'' covers much of the same ground as the ''CES Letter'', with some additional material from the author. Following the procedure used for the ''CES Letter'', FAIR posted Sarah's responses to ''Letter For My Wife'' serially on the ''FAIR Blog'' and then gathered links to each of those posts here. Sarah got through much of the project before having to abandon it to turn her time to more pressing matters.

FAIR has posted their own rebuttal to ''Letter For My Wife'' which can be read [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|here]].

Sarah Allen worked in mortgage compliance and was a freelance copyeditor by trade. A voracious reader, she loved studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah was affiliated with FAIR from 2021 [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2026/01/12/in-memoriam-sarah-allen until, tragically, she passed away on January 11, 2026].

If you are new to reading FAIR, strongly consider reading the material on the following pages to become acquainted with FAIR, our goals in defending the Church, and our methods for defending the Church and organizing our website:
*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about About FAIR]
*[[Mormonism and apologetics]]
*[[Logical fallacies]]

If you have any questions about the material covered in these posts, be sure to reach out to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

Below is a link to each of Sarah's posts responding to ''Letter For My Wife''.

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]

#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/01/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-1-preface-introduction Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/02/lfmw-rebuttal-part-2-the-early-church-the-first-vision-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-3-the-early-church-the-first-vision-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-4-the-early-church-the-first-vision-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/22/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-5-the-early-church-the-translation-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/01/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-6-the-early-church-the-translation-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 6: The Early Church – The Translation, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/08/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-7-the-early-church-the-translation-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 7: The Early Church – The Translation, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-8-the-early-church-the-witnesses-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 8: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/23/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-9-the-early-church-the-witnesses-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 9: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/29/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-10-the-early-church-the-witnesses-c?fbclid=IwAR3DnlP_Hw_EygkImJ-HecnkWZnGkKYuooIngoscJCLMs9ufg6zzP0xPwaE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 10: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-11-the-early-church-the-kinderhook-plates Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 11: The Early Church – The Kinderhook Plates]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/12/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-12-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 12: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/19/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-13-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-b?fbclid=IwAR1_XmjLnbESGphLgjMK9hl9uRyPtS6j1xoHzJD7xC9MEuhe9EeH7xwzphE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 13: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-14-the-early-church-the-endowment-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 14: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/04/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-15-the-early-church-the-endowment-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 15: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/11/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-16-the-early-church-polygamy-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 16: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/17/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-17-the-early-church-polygamy-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 17: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section B]

Sarah Allen CES Response Posts

2026-01-16T23:27:11Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<h1>Sarah Allen's Response to the ''CES Letter''</h1>
'''Summary:'''Sarah Allen is brand new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. A voracious reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah originally started posting these rebuttals to the ''CES Letter '' on the faithful Latter-day Saint subreddit (r/lds) and was invited to repost those rebuttals here on the FAIR website. She’s grateful to FAIR who has given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience. This page is a compilation of links to each of her posts (reposted serially on the ''FAIR Blog'') responding to the ''CES Letter''. Sarah has begun responding to another document similar to the ''CES Letter'' called ''Letter for My Wife''. You can find posts on the ''FAIR Blog'' responding to that document [[Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife|here]].

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]
----
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/25/ces-rebuttal-part-1-extended-version The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 1: Manipulations and Dishonesty in the CES Letter]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/26/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-2 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 2: Book of Mormon Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/27/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-3 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 3: Book of Mormon Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-4 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 4: Book of Mormon Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/03/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-5 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 5: Book of Mormon Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-6 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 6: Book of Mormon Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-7 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 7: Book of Mormon Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/15/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-8 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 8: Book of Mormon Translation Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-9 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 9: First Vision Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/22/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-10 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 10: Book of Abraham Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-11 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 11: Book of Abraham Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/29/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-12 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 12: Book of Abraham Questions, Section C]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-13?fbclid=IwAR2zo2y3xRH_D-IfOGn68CsQgYS4F_M846mbeAXwms1F3DpsqAHSv2Fjj3Y The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 13: Book of Abraham Questions, Section D]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/06/29447?fbclid=IwAR0_8M4ysQXN96IiyDZHR52GXshvH7xpW-AgYCq8gBe_spXRVF8FHuIWXhU The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 14: Book of Abraham Questions, Section E]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-15 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 15: Book of Abraham Questions, Section F]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/13/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-16?fbclid=IwAR0zRxdtzzfWA3UBBBQkfeD4J-LjnmwQXXQGrWUpC-3pcVW5k7xWD306RWk The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 16: Book of Abraham Questions, Section G]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/15/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-17 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 17: Book of Abraham Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/20/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-18 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 18: Book of Abraham Questions, Section I]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/22/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-19 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 19: Book of Abraham Questions, Section J]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/27/part-20-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-a The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 20: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/29/part-21-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-b The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 21: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/03/part-22-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-c The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 22: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/05/part-23-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-d The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 23: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/10/part-24-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-e The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 24: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/12/part-25-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-f The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 25: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-26 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 26: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/19/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-27 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 27: Prophet Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/24/29901 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 28: Prophet Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/26/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-29 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 29: Prophet Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-30 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 30: Prophet Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/03/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-31 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 31: Prophet Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/08/29951 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 32: Prophet Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-33 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 33: Prophet Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/15/29961 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 34: Prophet Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/17/29963 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 35: Prophet Questions, Section I]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/22/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-36 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 36: Kinderhook Plates/Translation Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-37 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 37: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/29/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-38 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 38: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/31/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-39 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 39: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/12/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-40 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 40: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/14/41 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 41: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/19/42 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 42: Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/21/43 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 43: Priesthood Restoration Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/26/44 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 44: Priesthood Restoration Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/01/28/45 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 45: Witnesses Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/02/46 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 46: Witnesses Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/04/47 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 47: Witnesses Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/16/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-48?fbclid=IwAR0cDscDPEcm3b4Xa18wsdU-ZCz3uJOLGVhkeh_GQXFUs4QAh7FpKSR5V6Y The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 48: Witnesses Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-49 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 49: Witnesses Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/02/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-50 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 50: Witnesses Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/09/30890?fbclid=IwAR3C7YF1_TTH5VllDqMTYPr9kA5LtJmaBlvGDKGDDZfinDISmIhK5fbX_3M The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 51: Witnesses Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-52 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 52: Witnesses Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/16/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-53 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 53: Witnesses Questions, Section I]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-54 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 54: Witnesses Questions, Section J]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/03/30/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-55?fbclid=IwAR2hNkEQr6YeS8537tGC-41f8ermI65Bge8lnOP61BltjDXRV6lnOhe5qhk The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 55: Temples & Freemasonry Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/04/06/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-56 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 56: Temples & Freemasonry Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/04/13/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-57 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 57: Temples & Freemasonry Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/04/20/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-58 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 58: Science Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/05/18/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-59 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 59: Other Concerns/Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/05/25/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-60 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 60: Other Concerns/Question, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/06/01/31959?fbclid=IwAR16Q3kfOu9cH4y4ADid77-PirXCtxh2EEdQmu2YoPC_5IJK6G1RrElYQMk The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 61: Other Concerns/Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/06/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-62?fbclid=IwAR0qWjFwnuBjPjEu61uUwwSTYQseAZkejFrGNXcsBhTB8Iehq2uzyn8wCSY The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 62: Other Concerns/Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/06/23/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-63 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 63: Other Concerns/Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/06/29/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-64 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 64: Other Concerns/Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/07/20/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-65 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 65: Other Concerns/Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/07/27/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-66 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 66: Other Concerns/Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/08/03/33167 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 67: Conclusion, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/08/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-68?fbclid=IwAR0d9YMx32-24H0q6nowH53fan7Oujw6AFk3nvY6cdo0gMI_1s7S3Q4BMLc The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 68: Conclusion, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/08/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-69?fbclid=IwAR2jHzVatFGagrNLok7wH4GmRxqxpgDt2BYcctnDM9cjoE8XCONS52x1H-4 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 69: Conclusion, Section C]

NewTestPage

2025-10-20T16:03:40Z

TrevorHolyoak: Created page with "New test page"

New test page

"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"

2024-05-10T05:00:09Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine" */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
=="Approaching Mormon Doctrine," ''LDS Newsroom'' (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"==
<blockquote>
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. {{read more|url=https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine}} <ref>"Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine," ''Newsroom'' (May 2007)</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}


[[de:Quelle:Presseportal der Kirche:Ein Zugang zur Lehre der Mormonen:4. Juli 2007:Nicht jede Aussage eines führenden Repräsentanten der Kirche, ob aus der Vergangenheit oder der Gegenwart, ist notwendigerweise gleich Lehre]]
[[pt:Fonte:LDS Newsroom:Approaching Mormon Doctrine:Maio 2007:Não cada declaração feita por um líder da Igreja, passada ou presente, constitui necessariamente doutrina]]
[[es:Acercarse Doctrina Mormona," LDS Newsroom (May0 2007): "No todas declaración hecha por un líder de la Iglesia, pasado o presente, constituye necesariamente doctrina"]]

Question: How quickly could one join the Methodists in the 1830s?

2024-04-28T03:42:36Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waved, but this still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph Smith did not have */

{{Main Page}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: How quickly could one join the Methodists in the 1830s?==

As we examine Osmon Cleander Baker's ''A guide-book in the administration of the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church'', we will discover that the scenario described by Joseph and Hiel Lewis of Joseph Smith's ejection from the Methodists simply does not match how Methodists admitted or expelled members. <ref>{{Book:Baker:Methodist Guide Book}} All citations in this article are from this work, unless otherwise footnoted. All italics are original; bold-face has been added.</ref> (This work dates to 1855, but it often invokes Wesley himself, and is a good first approximation of how Methodists saw such matters.)

===A six month probationary period was required in order to join the Methodists===

The ''Guide-Book'' is clear that considerable time needs to elapse before one is formally admitted as a member:

<blockquote>
[23] The regularly-constituted pastor is the proper authority to admit suitable persons to the communion of the Church. The preacher in charge, acting at first under the authority of Mr. Wesley, received members into the society, and severed their relations from the Church, according to his own convictions of duty. In 1784 the assistant was restricted from giving tickets to any, until they had been recommended by a leader with whom they had met, at least two months, on trial. In 1789 the term of probation was extended to six months....Hence, [24] since the organization of our Church, none could be received into full communion who had not previously been recommended by a leader; and, since 1840, it has been required that the applicant pass a satisfactory examination before the Church, respecting the correctness of his doctrine and his willingness to observe the rules of the Church....
</blockquote>

Joseph's experience would predate the 1840 requirement, but clearly the requirement of at least a six month probationary period was required, and this required a leader to meet with them and be recommended for membership. The Lewis' three days certainly make this impossible.

===Orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived, but this still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph Smith did not have===

The ''Guide-Book'' indicates that orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived:

<blockquote>
6. "Persons in good standing in other ''orthodox'' Chruches, who desire to unite with us, may, by giving satisfactory answers to the ''usual inquiries'', be received at once into full fellowship."....
</blockquote>

This still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph did not have. Further, he clearly could not give the "satisfactory answers" to the types of questions which the ''Guide-Book'' recommends, since the Lewis brothers insist that he was unwilling to do so only three days later. Furthermore, Joseph's views were clearly not "orthodox" by Methodist standards.

===Those who were not full members of the church were called "probationers," and at least six months was required to end a probationary period===

The ''Guide-Book'' is again specific about the length of time required to pass this stage, and the searching examination of conduct and belief that Methodist groups required:

<blockquote>
[28]...it is a matter of vital importance to test, with deep scrutiny, the moral and Christian character of those who propose to enter her holy communion. No proselyte was admitted to Jewish fellowship without being well proved and instructed. The same care was observed by the early Christian Church. "None in those days," says Lord King, "were hastily advanced to the higher forms of Christianity, but according to their knowledge and merit, gradually [29] arrived thereto."...It is the prerogative of the preacher in charge alone to receive persons on trial. No one whose name is taken by a class-leader can be considered as a member on trial until the preacher recognizes the person as such....

[30] As the minister may not know whether the candidate makes a truthful declaration of his moral state, he is authorized "to admit none on trial except they are well recommended by one you know, or until they have met twice or thrice in class." As they are not supposed, at the time of joining on trial, to be acquainted with our doctrines, usages, and discipline, they are not required, at that time, to subscribe to our articles of religion and general economy; but if they propose to join in full connexion, "they must give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church."...

The Discipline does not specify the time when the probation shall terminate, but it has [31] fixed its minimum period. "Let none be received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met ''at least six months''."...
</blockquote>

Again, at least six months was required to end a probationary period. One could not even be a trial, or probationary member unless they were "well recommended" (which seems unlikely, given the reaction to those who ''did'' know about Joseph as soon as they heard) or had attended "twice or thrice in class"--this too seems unlikely given only three days of membership.

An earlier account from a Methodist magazine ''prior'' to 1828 also supports this reading. In a letter to the editor from a Methodist missionary in Connecticut, the missionary responds to the accusation by others (usually Calvinists) who claim the Methodists falsify their membership records: they are accused of counting only those who have been added, but subtracting those who had left. Part of the response includes line: ".... though the first six months of their standing is probationary, yet they are not during that time denied any of the privileges of our church" (page 33-34).

The letter writer speaks of a revival in New Haven, where he is based, in 1820. "My list of probationers, commencingt June 25, 1820, to this date [March 16, 1821], is one hundred and forty; between twelve and twenty of these have declined from us, some to the Congregationalists, and some back to the world, and some have removed, and one died in the triumphs of faith. I think we may count about one hundred and twenty since June last." (36-7)<ref>''The Methodist Magazine'' 5 (January 1822). Citation provided by Ted Jones. </ref>

It seems likely, then, that the same procedures would have been in place in Joseph's 1828 encounter with Methodism, which occurred squarely between this 1822 letter and the 1855 manual.

===Methodists also regarded baptism as an essential part of becoming a member, and specifically barred probationers who were not baptized from full membership and participation===

<blockquote>
[32] Nor is it the order of the Church for probationers, who have never been baptized, to partake of the holy sacrament. The initiatory rite should first be administered before the person is admitted to all the distinguishing rites of the new covenant.
</blockquote>

Since we have no record that Joseph was baptized into Methodism or any other faith prior to his revelations and founding of a new religious movement, this is another bar to his membership with the Methodists. How did he compress his six-month probation, proper answers to all the questions, searching interview by his fellow parishioners, and his baptism, only to abandon the faith without complaint, all within three days?

===The Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined===

The ''Guide-Book'' was also clear that (save for immorality in preachers), the Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined:

:[90] Any crime, committed at however remote a period, if it be within the time in which the accused has been a member of the Church, is indictable; but it cannot extend to any period beyond membership....

Thus, nothing that Joseph had said or done prior to his membership could have been grounds for action. Thus, only the events of a scant three days were under the jurisdiction of the Methodists, ''if'' he had been accepted as a full member. (The Lewises even admit that nothing Joseph had said or done was cause for suspicion, because those who did not know him saw no cause for concern. It was only those who knew his past who were concerned.)

If, however, he was seen as a probationary or "person on trial," then the church and its leaders and members had every right to assess anything about him and decide if he merited membership.

===Those who have not formally joined the Methodists could leave the group relatively easily===

The ''Guide-Book'' is clear that those who have not formally joined the Methodists can leave the group relatively easily:

<blockquote>
[30] A mere probationer enters into no covenant with the Church. Every step he takes is preliminary to this, and either party may, at any time, quietly dissolve the relation between them without rupture or specific Church labour.

The Lewis brothers claim they gave Joseph a choice: (1) repent and change his ways; or (2) remove himself from association with them, by either (a) telling the class publicly that he was doing so; or (b) being subject to a disciplinary investigation. This matches how the ''Guide-Book'' recommends that probationers or "person[s] on trial" be handled:

[32] A person on trial cannot be arraigned before the society, or a select number of them, on definite charges and specifications. "If he walk disorderly, he is passed out by the door at which he came in. The pastor, upon the evidence and recommendation required in the Discipline, entered his name as a candidate, or probationer, for membership, and placed him in a class for religious training and improvement; now if his conduct be contrary to the gospel, or, in the language of our rule, if he 'walk disorderly [33] and will not be reproved,' it is the duty of the pastor to discontinue him, to erase his name from the class-book and probationers' list. This is not to be done rashly, or on suspicion, or slight evidence of misconduct. It is made the duty of his leader to report weekly to his pastor 'any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved.' This implies that the leader, on discovering an impropriety in his conduct, first conversed privately with him, and, on finding that he had done wrong, attempted to administer suitable reproof that he might be recovered. Had he received reproof, this had been the end of the matter; but he 'would not be reproved,'--would not submit to reproof,--and the leader therefore reports the case to the pastor. But it is evidently the design that after this first failure on the part of the leader, further efforts should be made by the pastor; for the rule, after providing that such conduct shall be made known to the pastor, adds: 'We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But, then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us.' The pastor, on consultation with the leader and others when convenient in country societies, and with the [34] leaders' meeting, where there is one, determines on the proper course, and carries the determination into effect. Here is a just correspondence between rights and duties." - ''Plat. Meth.'', p. 87.
</blockquote>

===In contrast to probationers, full members were ''required'' to undergo a disciplinary procedure===

The ''Guide-Book'' is very clear:

<blockquote>
[35] When a Church relation is formed, the member, virtually, promises to observe the rules and usages of the society, and if he violates them, to submit to the discipline of the Church. And hence none can claim a withdrawal from the Church against whom charges have been preferred, or until the Church has had an opportunity to recognise the withdrawal. A solemn covenant cannot be dissolved until the parties are duly notified....
</blockquote>

How is this discipline to be handled? The ''Guide-Book'' contains extensive rules for managing such trials, and insists that such a trial is the only way to challenge the membership of a full member:

<blockquote>
[83] It is a principle clearly recognised by the Discipline of our Church, that no member, in full connexion, can be dropped or expelled by the preacher in charge until the select committee, or the society of which he is a member, declares, in due form, that he is guilty of the violation of some Scriptural or moral principle,, or some requisition of Church covenant....[96] The Discipline requires that an accused member shall be brought before "the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them." In either case it should be understood that '''only members in full connexion are intended'''....
</blockquote>

The "select committee" was a quasi-judicial body of church members assembled to hear such charges, assess the evidence, and affix punishment if necessary. The ''Guide-Book'' emphasizes that this important right had been explicitly defined after Joseph's time (in 1848). For full members, it is clearly seen as a privilege which cannot be abridged:

<blockquote>
[83] The restrictive rules guarantee, both to our ministers and members, the privilege of trial and of appeal; and the General Conference has explicitly declared that "it is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right."—''Rec. Gen. Con.'' [89] 1848, p. 73. The fact that the member is guilty of the violation of the rules of the Church must be formally proved before the body holding original jurisdiction in the case. If the administrator personally knows that the charges are substantially true, it does not authorize him to remove the accused member. The law recognises no member as guilty until the evidence of guilt is duly presented to the proper tribunal, and the verdict is rendered....
</blockquote>

Thus, even if the Lewis brothers had personal knowledge of Joseph's guilt, if he had been a full member, they could not have simply told him to leave.

===Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member?===

The ''Guide-Book'' seems to rule this option out, for full members:

<blockquote>
[108] If an accused member evades a trial by absenting himself after sufficient notice has been given, and without requesting any one to appear in his behalf, it does not preclude the necessity of a formal trial....
</blockquote>

Furthermore, the public removal in front of the congregation seems to be out of harmony with another rule regarding trials for full members:

<blockquote>
[110] It is highly improper, ordinarily, to conduct a trial in a public congregation. None should be present except the parties summoned; at least, unless they are members of the Church....
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:Questions]]

Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife

2023-05-22T19:00:57Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife
|H=Sarah Allen's Response to ''Letter For My Wife''
|S=Following her [[Sarah Allen CES Response Posts|excellent response]] to the [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director|''CES Letter'']], FAIR has asked Sarah Allen to respond in line-by-line fashion to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|''Letter For My Wife'']]. ''Letter For My Wife'' is a similar document to the ''CES Letter'' but was written in a much more even-keeled tone in order to be more appealing to those who found the tone of the ''CES Letter'' too combative and off-putting. ''Letter For My Wife'' covers much of the same ground as the ''CES Letter'' with some extra material from the author added in. Following procedure for the ''CES Letter'', FAIR will post Sarah's responses to ''Letter For My Wife'' serially on the ''FAIR Blog'' and then gather links to each of those posts here.

FAIR has posted their own rebuttal to ''Letter For My Wife'' which can be read [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|here]].

Sarah Allen works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor by trade. A voracious reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah has been affiliated with FAIR since 2021.

If you are new to reading FAIR, strongly consider reading the material on the following pages to become acquainted with FAIR, our goals in defending the Church, and our methods for defending the Church and organizing our website:
*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about About FAIR]
*[[Mormonism and apologetics]]
*[[Logical fallacies]]

If you have any questions about the material covered in these posts, be sure to reach out to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

Below is a link to each of Sarah's posts responding to ''Letter For My Wife''.

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]
}}
</onlyinclude>

#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/01/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-1-preface-introduction Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/02/lfmw-rebuttal-part-2-the-early-church-the-first-vision-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-3-the-early-church-the-first-vision-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-4-the-early-church-the-first-vision-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/22/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-5-the-early-church-the-translation-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/01/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-6-the-early-church-the-translation-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 6: The Early Church – The Translation, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/08/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-7-the-early-church-the-translation-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 7: The Early Church – The Translation, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-8-the-early-church-the-witnesses-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 8: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/23/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-9-the-early-church-the-witnesses-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 9: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/29/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-10-the-early-church-the-witnesses-c?fbclid=IwAR3DnlP_Hw_EygkImJ-HecnkWZnGkKYuooIngoscJCLMs9ufg6zzP0xPwaE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 10: The Early Church – The Witnesses, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-11-the-early-church-the-kinderhook-plates Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 11: The Early Church – The Kinderhook Plates]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/12/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-12-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 12: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/19/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-13-the-early-church-the-word-of-wisdom-b?fbclid=IwAR1_XmjLnbESGphLgjMK9hl9uRyPtS6j1xoHzJD7xC9MEuhe9EeH7xwzphE Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 13: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/04/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-14-the-early-church-the-endowment-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 14: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/04/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-15-the-early-church-the-endowment-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 15: The Early Church – The Endowment, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/11/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-16-the-early-church-polygamy-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 16: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/05/17/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-17-the-early-church-polygamy-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 17: The Early Church – Polygamy, Section B]
#To be continued. . .

Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife

2023-03-09T23:23:53Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife
|H=Sarah Allen's Response to ''Letter For My Wife''
|S=Following her [[Sarah Allen CES Response Posts|excellent response]] to the ''CES Letter'', FAIR has asked Sarah Allen to respond in line-by-line fashion to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|''Letter For My Wife'']]. ''Letter For My Wife'' is a similar document to the ''CES Letter'' but was written in a much more even-keeled tone in order to be more appealing to those who found the tone of the ''CES Letter'' too combative and off-putting. ''Letter For My Wife'' covers much of the same ground as the ''CES Letter'' with some extra material from the author added in. Following procedure for the ''CES Letter'', FAIR will post Sarah's responses to ''Letter For My Wife'' serially on the ''FAIR Blog'' and then gather links to each of those posts here.

FAIR has posted their own rebuttal to ''Letter For My Wife'' which can be read [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|here]].

Sarah Allen works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor by trade. A voracious reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah has been affiliated with FAIR since 2021.

If you are new to reading FAIR, strongly consider reading the material on the following pages to become acquainted with FAIR, our goals in defending the Church, and our methods for defending the Church and organizing our website:
*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about About FAIR]
*[[Mormonism and apologetics]]
*[[Logical fallacies]]

If you have any questions about the material covered in these posts, be sure to reach out to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

Below is a link to each of Sarah's posts responding to ''Letter For My Wife''.

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]
}}
</onlyinclude>

#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/01/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-1-preface-introduction Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/02/lfmw-rebuttal-part-2-the-early-church-the-first-vision-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-3-the-early-church-the-first-vision-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-4-the-early-church-the-first-vision-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/22/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-5-the-early-church-the-translation-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/01/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-6-the-early-church-the-translation-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 6: The Early Church – The Translation, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/03/08/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-7-the-early-church-the-translation-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 7: The Early Church – The Translation, Section C]
#To be continued. . .

Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette account)

2023-03-06T18:14:09Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Source text */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette account)
|H=The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 1843 account of the First Vision
|S=
|L1=Source
|L2=Source text
}}
</onlyinclude>
===Source===
“The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, etc.,” editor, David Nye White, The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 (September 15, 1843): 3

===Source text===
“[…] The Lord does reveal himself to me. I know it. He revealed himself first to me when I was about fourteen years old, a mere boy. I will tell you about it. There was a reformation among the different religious denominations in the neighborhood where I lived, and I became serious, and was desirous to know what Church to join. While thinking of this matter, I opened the Testament promiscuously on these words, in James, 'Ask of the Lord who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.' [James 1. 5] I just determined I'd ask him. I immediately went out into the woods where my father had a clearing, and went to the stump where I had stuck my axe when I had quit work, and I kneeled down, and prayed, saying, 'O Lord, what Church shall I join?' Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, 'Behold my beloved Son, hear him.' I then, addressed this second person, saying, 'O Lord, what Church shall I join.' He replied, 'don't join any of them, they are all corrupt.' The vision then vanished, and when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back; and it was some time before my strength returned. When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation, and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since..." ("Interview, 29 August 1843, Extract," p. [3], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 6, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/interview-29-august-1843-extract/1)


[[es:Fuentes primarias/José Smith/Relatos de la Primera Visión/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette)]]
[[pt:Fontes Primárias/Joseph Smith, Jr./Relatos da Primeira Visão/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette)]]

Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette account)

2023-03-06T18:12:48Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Source text */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette account)
|H=The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 1843 account of the First Vision
|S=
|L1=Source
|L2=Source text
}}
</onlyinclude>
===Source===
“The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, etc.,” editor, David Nye White, The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 (September 15, 1843): 3

===Source text===
“He [Joseph Smith] said: ". . . The Lord does reveal himself to me. I know it. He revealed himself first to me when I was about fourteen years old, a mere boy. I will tell you about it. There was a reformation among the different religious denominations in the neighborhood where I lived, and I became serious, and was desirous to know what Church to join. While thinking of this matter, I opened the Testament promiscuously on these words, in James, 'Ask of the Lord who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.' [James 1. 5] I just determined I'd ask him. I immediately went out into the woods where my father had a clearing, and went to the stump where I had stuck my axe when I had quit work, and I kneeled down, and prayed, saying, 'O Lord, what Church shall I join?' Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, 'Behold my beloved Son, hear him.' I then, addressed this second person, saying, 'O Lord, what Church shall I join.' He replied, 'don't join any of them, they are all corrupt.' The vision then vanished, and when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back; and it was some time before my strength returned. When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation, and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since." ("Interview, 29 August 1843, Extract," p. [3], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 6, 2023, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/interview-29-august-1843-extract/1)


[[es:Fuentes primarias/José Smith/Relatos de la Primera Visión/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette)]]
[[pt:Fontes Primárias/Joseph Smith, Jr./Relatos da Primeira Visão/1843 (The Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette)]]

Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife

2023-02-22T20:51:04Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Sarah Allen's Response to Letter For My Wife
|H=Sarah Allen's Response to ''Letter For My Wife''
|S=Following her [[Sarah Allen CES Response Posts|excellent response]] to the ''CES Letter'', FAIR has asked Sarah Allen to respond in line-by-line fashion to [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|''Letter For My Wife'']]. ''Letter For My Wife'' is a similar document to the ''CES Letter'' but was written in a much more even-keeled tone in order to be more appealing to those who found the tone of the ''CES Letter'' too combative and off-putting. ''Letter For My Wife'' covers much of the same ground as the ''CES Letter'' with some extra material from the author added in. Following procedure for the ''CES Letter'', FAIR will post Sarah's responses to ''Letter For My Wife'' serially on the ''FAIR Blog'' and then gather links to each of those posts here.

FAIR has posted their own rebuttal to ''Letter For My Wife'' which can be read [[Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/For my Wife and Children (Letter to my Wife)|here]].

Sarah Allen works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor by trade. A voracious reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah has been affiliated with FAIR since 2021.

If you are new to reading FAIR, strongly consider reading the material on the following pages to become acquainted with FAIR, our goals in defending the Church, and our methods for defending the Church and organizing our website:
*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about About FAIR]
*[[Mormonism and apologetics]]
*[[Logical fallacies]]

If you have any questions about the material covered in these posts, be sure to reach out to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

Below is a link to each of Sarah's posts responding to ''Letter For My Wife''.

[[File:Sarah Allen.png|200px|thumb|center|Photo of Sarah Allen. Click to enlarge.]]
}}
</onlyinclude>

#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/01/26/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-1-preface-introduction Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/02/lfmw-rebuttal-part-2-the-early-church-the-first-vision-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/06/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-3-the-early-church-the-first-vision-b Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/15/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-4-the-early-church-the-first-vision-c Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2023/02/22/letter-for-my-wife-rebuttal-part-5-the-early-church-the-translation-a Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation, Section A]
#To be continued. . .

Mormonism and church leadership/Criticisms

2022-12-02T20:19:30Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Was Russell M. Nelson part of a satanic cult called “Skulls and Bones” in college? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Mormonism and church leadership/Criticisms
|H=Criticisms directed at Church leaders
|S=
|L1=Question: Was Russell M. Nelson part of a satanic cult called “Skulls and Bones” in college?
|L2=Paul H. Dunn's stories about baseball and World War II
}}
</onlyinclude>

==Question: Was Russell M. Nelson part of a satanic cult called “Skull and Bones” in college?==
The collegiate honor society “Skull and Bones” began at Yale University in 1832. Students at the University of Utah formed their own Skull and Bones society in 1909. Like other honor societies, this society is “comprised of students who have been actively involved on campus and who are committed to furthering the U’s success and notoriety.” To be admitted, a student is invited and has to “maintain a 3.5 GPA, and be actively involved in different campus groups.”<ref>Rochelle McConkie, [https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/02/03/bonesmen-celebrate-100-years/?return “Bonesmen celebrate 100 years,”] ''The Daily Utah Chronicle'', 3 February 2009.</ref>

One member of the society described those who are invited and who participate: “They’re the ‘difference-makers’—people that get stuff done. . . . Our affiliation is one that doesn’t revolve around us socializing as much as accomplishing the task at hand.” This includes “assisting and leading campus groups, networking, working with the Alumni Association and supporting administrators.” Another member of the society said, “We really meet as a group of friends. We go to dinner and talk, get to know each other…try to create a better bond of brotherhood.” .<ref>McConkie, “Bonesmen celebrate 100 years.”</ref>

Since the society’s founding in 1909, members have had varying levels of privacy or secrecy. Currently, membership is anonymous to those outside the society. This is intended to “creat[e] an ‘invisible force’ and ‘honor[] tradition,’ [and] works to ensure that no one in the group lets their membership go to their head.” For this reason, members may dress in a mask and hood for meetings. “Despite their off-putting appearance, the group assure[s] . . . they were actually quite relaxed. One individual described the group as ‘one big happy family’ comprised of ‘light and fun interaction.’<ref>Casey Koldewyn, [http://dailyutahchronicle.com/2015/12/07/getting-to-know-secret-student-society-skull-and-bones/ “Getting to Know Secret Student Society Skull and Bones,”] ''The Daily Utah Chronicle'', 8 December 2015.</ref>

Prominent members of the Skull and Bones society (living or deceased, either from the University of Utah or other universities) include George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, John Kerry, Russell M. Nelson, Robert D. Hales, Arnold Ferrin (a famous basketball player), David McCullough (a famous author), and Daniel Gilman (founder of The Johns Hopkins University).<ref>McConkie, “Bonesmen celebrate 100 years”; William H. Jarrett II, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012287/ “Yale, Skull and Bones, and the Beginnings of Johns Hopkins,”] Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 24:1 (2011).</ref>

{{endnotes sources}}

{{:Mormonism and church leadership/Criticisms/Paul H. Dunn's baseball and war stories}}



[[es:El Mormonismo y el liderazgo de la iglesia/Críticas]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Liderança da Igreja/As críticas]]

Question: Why would Lehi be living in Jerusalem if he was of the tribe of Joseph?

2022-09-06T17:19:38Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Israelites from the Northern tribes, including the tribes of Joseph, had fled to Jerusalam in the 8th century BC */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Why would Lehi be living in Jerusalem if he was of the tribe of Joseph?==
===Israelites from the Northern tribes, including the tribes of Joseph, had fled to Jerusalam in the 8th century BC===

It is claimed that the fact that Lehi was not of Judah, but of the tribe of Joseph, makes it absurd for him to have been living in Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity: "The tribe of Joseph at Jerusalem! Go, study scripture-geography, ye ignorant fellows, before you send out another imposition, and make no more such foolish blunders."<ref>{{CriticalWork:Bachelor:Mormonism Exposed|pages=9}}</ref>

Research by Jeffery R. Chadwick shows that Israelites from the Northern tribes, including the tribes of Joseph, had fled to Jerusalam in the 8th century BC, and their descendants had become established in that city by the time of King Zedekiah.

The story of 1 Nephi begins in Jerusalem ca. 600 BC, where Lehi had “dwelt…all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4). A curious fact is that all our principal characters (Lehi, Laban, and Ishmael), as descendants of Joseph, are Israelites of the Northern Kingdom (see 1 Nephi 5:14, 16). Nonetheless, they seem to be wealthy and powerful people in Jerusalem. This would, at first, seem to be amiss, and certainly not what you would expect from a 19th century writer telling a story about “Jews at Jerusalem.” Archaeologist Jeffrey R. Chadwick, however, has shown that just a few generations earlier an influx of refugees from the Northern Kingdom poured into Jerusalem in the wake of the Assyrian conquest of 722-721 BC. These refugees had settled into an extension of the city known as the Mishneh, which by the time 1 Nephi begins, had become fairly well-to-do and had been enclosed by the extended city-wall. (See Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “Lehi’s House at Jerusalem and the Land of his Inheritance,” in ''Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem'', 87-99, 118-124.) This thus fits the portrayal in 1 Nephi of powerful and wealthy Northern Kingdom Israelites being present in Jerusalem at that period.

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}



[[pt:Pergunta: Por que Lehi estar vivendo em Jerusalém se ele era da tribo de Joseph?]]

Lehi's ancestry and place of residence

2022-09-06T17:18:24Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Book of Mormon/Josephites and Jerusalem
|H=Lehi's ancestry and place of residence
|S=It is claimed that the fact that Lehi was not of Judah, but of the tribe of Joseph, makes it absurd for him to have been living in Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity: "The tribe of Joseph at Jerusalem! Go, study scripture-geography, ye ignorant fellows, before you send out another imposition, and make no more such foolish blunders."
|L1=Question: Why would Lehi be living in Jerusalem if he was of the tribe of Joseph?
|L2=Roper et al.: "Nephi had been a Jew politically, but his ancestors were of Manasseh"
|L3=Jeffrey R. Chadwick: "Lehi's land of inheritance was most likely not located within the borders of the southern kingdom of Judah"
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Why would Lehi be living in Jerusalem if he was of the tribe of Joseph?}}
{{:Source:Roper et al:“If there be faults:BYU Studies 53:3:Nephi had been a Jew politically, but his ancestors were of Manasseh}}
{{:Source:Chadwick:Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem:Lehi's land of inheritance was most likely not located within the borders of the southern kingdom of Judah}}
{{CriticalSources}}


[[es:El Libro de Mormón/Anacronismos/Bíblico/Josefinos y Jerusalén]]
[[pt:O Livro de Mórmon/Anacronismos/Bíblico/Josefinos e Jerusalém]]

Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith remove the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision from its original letterbook and hide it in his safe?

2022-08-23T17:55:50Z

TrevorHolyoak: Reverted edits by SpencerMarsh (talk) to last revision by TrevorHolyoak

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith remove the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision from its original letterbook and hide it in his safe?==
===It is not known who removed the pages from the book or why, nor is it known when or why they were restored to the book. The removal may have been done by Joseph Fielding Smith, Earl E. Olson, or A. William Lund.===

From [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832#!/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832&p=3 ''History, circa Summer 1832''] on the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' site (click the Source Notes tab):
<blockquote>
Photocopy and microfilm images of the book, as well as an inspection of the conservation work now present in the volume, indicate that the text block separated from the binding at some point. Also, the initial three leaves containing the history were excised from the volume. The eight inscribed leaves in the back of the volume may have been cut out at the same time. Manuscript evidence suggests that these excisions took place in the mid-twentieth century. A tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930. The three leaves of the history certainly had been removed by 1965, when they were described as “cut out,” although they were archived together with the letterbook. The size and paper stock of the three excised leaves match those of the other leaves in the book. Also, the cut and tear marks, as well as the inscriptions in the gutters of the three excised leaves, match those of the remaining leaf stubs, confirming their original location in the book. The three leaves were later restored to the volume, apparently in the 1990s. This restoration was probably part of a larger conservation effort that took place, in which the entire volume was rebound, including binding the formerly loose index of letters. The first gathering, which contains the history, was slightly trimmed in connection with this conservation work. The volume shows marked browning, brittleness, and wear. It is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody. <ref>[http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832#!/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832&p=3 History, circa Summer 1832], ''The Joseph Smith Papers''.</ref>
</blockquote>

Stan Larson adds more perspective following that of the Joseph Smith Papers team:

<blockquote>
Although the editors of the Histories volume of the Joseph Smith Papers do not discuss why the 1832 history was excised, we can speculate about who might have removed the leaves, and why. Because we know that the missing pages were kept in the office safe of Joseph Fielding Smith, it is unlikely that the leaves were removed simply in accordance with the archival practice of separating collectionsbased on content. We can also surmise that one of the senior members of the Church Historian’s Office would have been responsible for the decision to keep the pages separate; it was probably Joseph Fielding Smith himself, but could possibly have been Earl E. Olson or A. William Lund.<ref>Robin Jensen, lead archivist for ''The Joseph Smith Papers Project'',
confirmed in an informal telephone [to Larson] conversation on December 20, 2012, that
this is a plausible scenario.</ref> There are no available records of the reasoning behind the decision to keep the 1832 account from becoming widely known, but the history of denying researchers access to the account suggests some uneasiness about its contents. Some time during the 1940s or early 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith<ref>When Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the LDS Church in 1970, the personal safe in his office was moved into the First Presidency’s walk-in vault. The exact time that the 1832 account was put into the Joseph Fielding Smith office safe and the date that he showed the history to Levi Edgar Young
would probably be found in the Joseph Fielding Smith Collection, catalogued as Ms 4250 at the Church History Library Archives. On December 11, 2012 the writer sent to Richard E. Turley a written request for permission to read the diaries (either photocopies or microfilm) of Joseph Fielding Smith from 1930 to 1954, but this request was denied.</ref>showed Levi Edgar Young (who was then the senior president of the First Council of the Seventy) this 1832 account of the First Vision. LaMar Petersen, an organist and music teacher by profession but an amateur Mormon historian by avocation, had a meeting with Young on February 3, 1953, and took the following notes:

"A list of 5 questions was presented. Bro. Young indicated some surprise at the nature of the questions but said he heartily approved of them being asked. Sa[i]d they were important, fundamental, were being asked more by members of the Church, and should be asked. Said the Church should have a committee available where answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding (Smith) because he was laughed at and put off. His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History reference to “documents from which these writings were compiled.” Asked to see them. told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a “strange” account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. remains unused, unknown.<ref>Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, ''Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision; Also a Critical Study of the First Vision'' (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., [1965]), 4, with the quotation being based on notes made by Petersen of the interview with Levi Edgar Young. Emphasis is in the original, but that emphasis is probably due to the Tanners, who added the full caps and underlining. Levi Edgar Young was wrong about the date of the “Strange” account of the First Vision, since we now know that it was written in 1832, not 1837 or 1838. </ref>"

Thirty-four years later, Petersen wrote his memories of this same episode:

"The most noteworthy [meetings with LDS General Authorities] were six sessions in which my wife and I spent with Levi Edgar Young in 1952. He was forthright in discussing Mormon problems in history and theology, but always in loyal church terms. He told us that he had been defended before the First Presidency by his “buffers”—Apostles [Joseph F.] Merrill, [Charles A.] Callis, and [John A.] Widtsoe. He told us of a “strange account” (Young’s own term) of the First Vision, which he thought was written in Joseph’s own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years in a locked vault. He declined to tell us details, but stated that it did not agree entirely with the official version. Jesus was the center of the vision, but God was not mentioned. I respected Young’s wish that the information be withheld until after his death.<ref> LaMar Petersen, The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry (Salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 2000), xii. Petersen gave the year as 1952, instead of February 3, 1953. Since he had six separate sessions with Levi Edgar Young, these meetings could have covered late 1952 as well as early 1953. The other option is that the 1952 date is an error in the memory of the nonagenarian Petersen.</ref>"

Even though Levi Edgar Young told LaMar Petersen that he had read the “strange account” of the First Vision, he had been instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained,” and accordingly did not divulge the contents to anyone. However, while not providing any detailed information about this “strange account” of the First Vision, Young did disclose that it described a vision of only Jesus, without any mention of God. Petersen kept this information confidential until Young’s death in December 1963. In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this “strange account” of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account. Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832 history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection. Then he authorized Earl E. Olson, his Assistant Church Historian, to show the newly available leaves to Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU graduate student working on his thesis. Cheesman explained that Olson demonstrated how the pages “matched with [the] edge of the journal to prove location” in the Joseph Smith letterbook.<ref>Paul R. Cheesman, “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions” (unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965), 126. Cheesman thought that this six-page account was written about 1833. In a telephone conversation with the writer on December 15, 2012, his widow, Millie Foster Cheesman, stated that in contrast to the complete restriction placed on Fawn M. Brodie (a niece of President David O. McKay), Cheesman was given full access, allowing him to transcribe the 1832 account of the First Vision.</ref> As the result of this assistance, Cheesman prepared a typescript in his 1965 BYU master’s thesis on Joseph Smith’s visions.<ref> Two decades later Cheesman published his thesis as a hardback book, ''The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (Provo: Eagle Systems International, 1988).</ref> Later that same year Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner were the first to publish the text of the 1832 account, using Cheesman’s imperfect transcript. Four years later Dean C. Jessee published his important article in Brigham Young University Studies, with an accurate transcript of the text.<ref>Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” ''BYU Studies'' 9 (Spring 1969): 275–94.</ref><ref> Stan Larson, "Another Look at Joseph Smith's First Vision" ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'', 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 37-62 (41-43).</ref></blockquote>

Jerald and Sandra Tanner made a similar statement in their book ''Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?'':
<blockquote>
"Strange" Accounts

For years the Mormon leaders publicly maintained that Joseph Smith told only one story concerning the First Vision. Preston Nibley declared: "Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story--..." (Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1944, page 30)

At the very time that Preston Nibley made this statement the Mormon leaders were suppressing at least two accounts of the First Vision which were written prior to the account which Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons. Levi Edgar Young, who was the head of the Seven Presidents of Seventies in the Mormon Church, told LaMar Petersen that he had examined a "strange" account of the First Vision and was told not to reveal what it contained. The following is from notes by LaMar Petersen of an interview with Levi Edgar Young which was held on Feb.3, 1953:

"A list of 5 questions was presented. Bro. Young indicated some surprise at the nature of the questions but said he heartily approved of them being asked. Said they were important, fundamental, were being asked more by members of the Church, and should be asked. Said the Church should have a committee available where answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding (Smith) because he was laughed at and put off.

"His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts' Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown." <ref>Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Chapter 8: The First Vision," Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?</ref>
</blockquote>

===Response to the critical perspective===

It does seem very likely that someone from the Church Historian's Office was responsible for the excision of the leafs from the notebook. We don't know exactly who did it, but it does seem reasonable to assume that it was kept in the safe because of a discomfort with the 1832 accounts' content. We can be certain that at least the keeping of the account in the safe wasn't contested by Joseph Fielding Smith. But would this be for entirely nefarious purposes? Not necessarily. We might consider the words of Latter-day Saint historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bushman Richard L. Bushman]:

<blockquote>
Now the Church Museum is going beyond this one familiar account to draw on multiple accounts of the First Vision. This may surprise some Church members. Not everyone has been aware of the existence of these other records and may be startled to discover that other versions exist. Contemplating what to say to you today, I thought you might be interested in hearing how it came about that we have these other accounts when for so long there was just one. Even more important, how does this new knowledge affect our understanding of Joseph Smith and the Gospel?
 
The discovery of nine versions of the First Vision is the result of work by historians in response to a challenge from critics of the Church. The standard account found in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church is so rich and interesting that for many years we were content to rely on it alone. Then in the middle of the twentieth century, a number of critics of Joseph Smith, including Fawn Brodie author of a biography of the Prophet, asked why was the account of the First Vision not written until 1838. Brodie thought that so spectacular an event should have been recorded earlier--if it had actually happened. Brodie hypothesized that Joseph Smith made up the whole story in 1838 to reinvigorate belief at a time when many of his followers were falling away. The first vision, she argued, was a fabrication meant to strengthen the faith of his wavering followers.
 
Church historians of course could not leave that challenge unanswered. They thought Brodie made a weak argument but without evidence of an earlier account, her conjecture might persuade some. And so the hunt was on. The historians began to scour the archives for earlier references to the First Vision. And sure enough, one by one, other accounts began to turn up, one in 1835, another as early at 1832, and others scattered through his life. Brodie’s claim that Joseph had said nothing about the First Vision until 1838 was effectively dispelled. He wrote the first of these accounts in 1832 as a start on a history of the church which he hoped to continue in a daily journal.<ref>Richard Bushman, "[https://devotional.byuh.edu/node/1514 What Can We Learn From the First Vision]" ''BYU Hawaii Speeches'' (15 November 2016).</ref></blockquote>

We might now consider the words of Stan Larson in conjunction with Richard Bushman's comments here. Could it be that Joseph Fielding Smith, upon learning that Paul Cheesman was writing his work on the First Vision and that faithful historians were trying to answer charges against the Church in the Gospel, surrendered the account knowing that it would be in trusted hands? It's a theory that at the least fits the evidence but to speculate about his motives without explicit evidence can be tricky so this theory should be considered as just that for now, a theory--but a theory that we can use to counter those critics that seek to deliberately assign nefarious motives without evidence to malign past presidents of the Church.

A final question we can deal with is if the discomfort exhibited towards the 1832 account and its supposed mention of only Jesus Christ was warranted. That is discussed more in detail elsewhere on the wiki:
{{Main|Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1832/Only one Personage appears}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]

[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Fielding Smith eliminar la cuenta de 1832 de José Smith Primera Visión desde su letterbook original y ocultarla en su caja fuerte?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Fielding Smith remover a conta de 1832 de Joseph Smith A Primeira Visão de seu original carta-livro e escondê-lo em seu cofre?]]

Question: Did Emma Smith discover her husband Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn?

2022-08-10T18:02:47Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* William McLellin claimed to have heard a story that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma had observed them */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Did Emma Smith discover her husband Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn?==
===William McLellin claimed to have heard a story that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma had observed them===

In 1872, William McLellin (then an apostate excommunicated nearly 34 years prior) wrote a letter to Emma and Joseph's son, Joseph Smith III:
<blockquote>
Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, retired in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. I did not ask her to tell, but I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams practiced with me in Clay Co. Mo. during the latter part of 1838. And he told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [sic]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.
<ref>William McLellin, Letter to Joseph Smith III, July 1872, Community of Christ Archives</ref>
</blockquote>

Some critics interpret "transaction" to mean intercourse in this case and that Emma caught Joseph in the very act. But McLellin reported on the event again three years afterwards in 1875 to J. H. Beadle and makes it clear that he is talking about the wedding or sealing ceremony:
<blockquote>
He [McLellin] was in the vicinity during all the Mormon troubles in Northern Missouri, and grieved heavily over the suffering of his former brethren. He also informed me of the spot where the first well authenticated case of polygamy took place in which Joseph Smith was “sealed” to the hired girl. The “sealing” took place in a barn on the hay mow, and was witnessed by Mrs. Smith through a crack in the door! The Doctor was so distressed about this case, (it created some scandal at the time among the Saints,) that long afterwards when he visited Mrs. Emma Smith at Nauvoo, he charged her as she hoped for salvation to tell him the truth about it. And she then and there declared on her honor that it was a fact—“saw it with her own eyes.”
<ref>William McClellin, quoted in J. H. Beadle, “Jackson County,” 4</ref>
</blockquote>

===Ann Eliza Webb, who was born 11 years after Joseph's marriage to Fanny, claimed that Emma threw Fanny out of the house===

Ann Eliza Webb, who was born in 1844, was not even alive at the time of these events, could only only comment based upon what her father told her about Joseph and Fanny. Ann apostatized from the Church and wrote an "expose" called ''Wife No. 19, or The story of a Life in Bondage''. She described Fanny as follows:
<blockquote>
Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently is was with a shocked surprise that people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night.<ref>Ann Eliza Webb Young, ''Wife No. 19, or The story of a Life in Bondage'', 66.</ref>
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:No Man Knows My History]]
[[Category:One Nation Under Gods]]

[[pt:Pergunta: É verdade que Emma Smith descobriu seu marido Joseph com Fanny Alger em um celeiro?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Emma Smith descubrió a su esposo Joseph con Fanny Alger en un granero?]]

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

2022-07-21T17:12:07Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* What do I do if I'm struggling with masturbation? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?==
===Introduction to Question===
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] views the practice of masturbation to be sinful.<ref>Wikipedia has an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_and_masturbation#Timeline_of_teachings_and_events exhaustive timeline] documenting the Church's attitudes towards masturbation over time and up to today. There are two aspects of the article that may be misleading. The first is that the article states that most members do not believe that masturbation is a sin. But the research to support this assertion is an article done in 2005. It is simply not a reliable indicator for how Church members view the practice as of 2022 when this article was last edited. The second aspect is that it relies on the same journal article from 2005 to assert that there was a relative silence on masturbation from the earliest days of the Church to now. But the fact that there was not an explicit mention and condemnation in the earliest days of Church history does not necessarily mean that early Church leaders' attitudes about masturbation weren't negative. It is in the historical contexts of greater sexual permissiveness in society and in the Church that Church leaders have more frequently addressed the topic. There has been a trajectory towards greater and greater sexual permissiveness since the 1800s.</ref> The Church's current handbook for leaders (2020; 2021) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number35 lists] abstaining from masturbation as among the standards of conduct placed on Church members. But it states that "a [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_membership_council church membership council] is not held for" it. "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&para=title_number108-p363#title_number108 However, a council may be necessary for intensive and compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family]," which usually is accompanied by masturbation. The rulebook for the Church's missionaries (2019) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ/3-missionary-conduct?lang=eng#title_number6 says] to "avoid any thought or action that would separate you from the Spirit of God. This includes but is not limited to adultery; fornication; same-sex activity; oral sex; arousing sexual feelings; inappropriate touching; sending or receiving messages, images, or videos that are immoral or sexual in nature; masturbation; and viewing or using pornography (see 7.5.3). See ''For the Strength of Youth'' (2011), 'Repentance,' 28–29, for additional information." The youth pamphlet [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng ''For the Strength of Youth''] (2011) has said to "not do anything…that arouses sexual
feelings" and to "not arouse [sexual] emotions in your own body."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf ''For the Strength of Youth''] (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), 36. While the pamphlet is more directly addressed to youth, it is clear from reading the actual pamphlet that Church leaders hope that youth will carry the attitudes and standards gleaned from the pamphlet into adulthood. This is confirmed especially when one looks at the injunctions identical to those in ''FSOY'' given in the publication ''True to the Faith'': a doctrinal reference work written for all members and approved by the First Presidency. Thus, the pamphlet should be viewed as a relevant text for Latter-day Saints of all ages.</ref> ''True to the Faith'' (2004), a doctrinal reference work written for Church members of all ages and approved by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Presidency_(LDS_Church) First Presidency], tells members to “[d]etermine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body.”<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36863_eng.pdf?lang=fin ''True to the Faith''] (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 32.</ref> Church leaders have long been clear that masturbation should not be regarded nearly as bad as other sexual practices, but that it is bad enough to require sincere repentance.<ref>See, for instance, Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78. President Kimball makes comments about homosexuality as he perceived they relate to masturbation here. For info on this, see under "Causing Homosexuality?" in Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/?fbclid=IwAR1WXa2QthbFtucrlcAskS2OLg4KUs6xIQ0BXyFw52e2p6qFL14TWiWpA_I#section-h Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–15. One can also see our wiki article on it [[Question: Did Mormon leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation?|here]].</ref>

Many have wondered why the Church takes this stance. Much of the modern scientific community views the practice as normal in humans of all ages. Many benefits are associated with masturbation such as improved sleep, a better immune system, a better cardiovascular system, reduced stress, and reduced sexual tension—especially when a partner is not available, whether by their own choice or not, for sexual relations. Certain health professionals recommend masturbating to mitigate tension in relationships where one partner has a higher libido than the other and doesn’t want to demand intercourse of the lower libido partner (or the lower libido partner doesn’t want to accept demands). There are a number of health issues that can cause pain (aka “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyspareunia dyspareunia]”) for one or both partners during sex. A number of psychological issues can also limit someone from enjoying partnered sex such as trauma. For some of these conditions, there are certain health professionals that recommend masturbation as a form of treatment for the patient or as a release for their partner. Prior to marriage and after engagement, it is sometimes recommended that men and women masturbate in order to explore their bodies and determine what kind of touch they would like during intercourse. There is at least ''some'' evidence (though currently inconclusive) that more frequent ejaculation in men can result in reduced risk of prostate cancer.<ref>For a positive case, see R. Morgan Griffin, "Can Sex, Masturbation Affect Prostate Cancer Risk?" WebMD, accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/ejaculation-prostate-cancer-risk. Literature reviews, however, have been inconclusive as to whether masturbation is the cause of reduced risk of prostate cancer. See Rui Miguel Costa, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20180610082922/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-012-9956-0 Masturbation is related to psychopathology and prostate dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)]," ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' 41, no. 3 (2012): 539–540; Aboul-Enein, Basil H., Joshua Bernstein, and Michael W. Ross, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20210331093647/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2050052116000780 Evidence for Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk: Do We Have a Verdict?]" ''Sexual Medicine Reviews'' 4, no. 3 (2016): 229–234; Zhongyu Jian et al, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20201111201129/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609518310646 Sexual Activity and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis]," ''The Journal of Sexual Medicine'' 15, no. 9 (September 2018), 1300–09.; Nathan P. Papa et al, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20201111215917/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1078143917301072 Ejaculatory frequency and the risk of aggressive prostate cancer: Findings from a case-control study]," ''Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations'' 35, no. 8 (August 2017): 530.e7–530.e13.</ref> Limited evidence suggests that orgasm might help women relieve pain from menstrual cramps and increase their pain threshold.<ref>Beverly Whipple et. al, “[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4000685/ Elevation of pain threshold by vaginal stimulation in women],” ''Pain'' 21, no. 4 (April 1985): 357–67.</ref> Orgasm has also been correlated with relief from headaches in some individuals.<ref>Colleen Doherty, “Can an Orgasm Cure My Headache?” VeryWell Health, last updated September 7, 2021, https://www.verywellhealth.com/orgasm-headache-migraine-1718250.</ref> A 2008 study at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabriz_University_of_Medical_Sciences Tabriz University of Medical Sciences] in Iran found that ejaculation in men can help reduce swollen nasal blood vessels (nasal congestion).<ref>David Robson, “Masturbation could bring hay fever relief for men,” New Scientist, April 1, 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men/?ignored=irrelevant.</ref> Masturbation is seen as having an evolutionary utility in that it flushes out low [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motility motility] sperm in men so that higher motility sperm will compete to more quickly reach the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell ovum] and fertilize it. In earlier days of human evolutionary development, men competed for females to mate with. Women would be inseminated multiple times by different partners. Thus, evolution allegedly instilled in men a need to masturbate in order to have agile sperm and get offspring before other men. Masturbation also allegedly has an evolutionary utility for women in that it can change the state of the cervix, vagina, and uterus and make chances of conception more likely if climaxing one minute before [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insemination insemination] and 45 minutes after. It can increase acidic content in the cervical mucus as well as move debris out of the cervix to protect against cervical infection.

This article will explore, by study and also by faith,<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.118?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 88:118]; [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/109.7,14?lang=eng 109:7, 14]</ref> why the Church might take the stance that it does on masturbation even given the potential benefits of it. Almost all of these points apply to a discussion about pornography. This article can thus be considered a response outlining the Church’s potential rationale against masturbation as well as pornography.

===Response to Question===
====Sexual Desire is a Fundamentally Good Thing====

Before we proceed with the rest of our response, it should be first noted and emphasized that our sexual desires are fundamentally good things, given to us by God to be used for “strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” and bringing children into this world.<ref>David A. Bednar, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/05/saturday-afternoon-session/we-believe-in-being-chaste.html?lang=eng#title1 We Believe in Being Chaste],” ''Ensign'' 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 42.</ref> As ''For the Strength of Youth'' says, "[p]hysical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf ''For the Strength of Youth''], 35. This same attitude about sexuality is reflected in the [https://issuu.com/vintageldspamphlets/docs/for-the-strength-of-youth-1990 1990] and [http://manmrk.net/tutorials/pda/b/PDF/Church/Youth/Books/ForStrengYouth.pdf 2001] editions of the pamphlet. Other editions of the pamphlet do not have as extended of discussions regarding sexuality and sexual purity as the 1990, 2001, and 2011 editions.</ref> Thus, sexual desire in and of itself should not be considered bad. Indeed, it should be celebrated.<ref>There are basically four views that one can take about what the purpose of sex is: procreation, stabilization of a relationship, bonding, or recreation. A Latter-day Saint can accept all four views. What they can’t do, and what they’d need to respond to critics about, is ever making sex merely about recreation ever. Sex cannot be merely recreational for a Latter-day Saint. That would justify masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and a myriad other sexual behaviors Latter-day Saints hold to be sinful. It seems that all sexual activity, whether isolated or relational, accomplishes the task of bonding us to someone or something including ourselves potentially. So not only would things like masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and the like be morally wrong for a Latter-day Saint. It’s also just logically impossible to believe that we can engage in sexual activity without bonding emotionally to someone or something. Latter-day Saints would also need to reject that you can separate bonding and recreation from stabilizing a relationship since they hold that sexual activity outside of marriage between a married man and the woman and to accept otherwise would justify things like cohabitation, same-sex relations, and other behaviors they see as sinful. Latter-day Saints can accept that you can separate stabilizing a relationship, bonding, and recreation from procreation since they believe that one of the purposes of sex is to strength in the emotional bonds between husband and wife so that they can better provide for the needs of their children. We could go on, but this brief exposition may be enough to help turn the wheels of people’s mind so they can fill in the rest of the gaps.</ref>

As [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt Parley P. Pratt] once wrote:

<blockquote>Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are 'carnal, sensual, and devilish,' and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life … Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether.<ref>Peter L. Crawley, ed., ''The Essential Parley P. Pratt'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 124.</ref></blockquote>

All this said, since sexual desire has a proper use, it follows that it should be exercised or put to use for that purpose and that boundaries should be in place to guide us towards fulfilling that purpose. It is not a sin to have a sexual desire. It ''is'' sinful, however, to exercise that desire in illicit ways as defined by God. It is also sinful to begin to plan to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways.

====The Act is Bad. The Person is Not.====

Another thing to be emphasized is that the person that engages in masturbation is '''not''' a bad person. The ''act'' is bad. We are not "good people" and "bad people”. We are ''people'' that '''''do''' good things and bad things''. It is true that Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and neither a bad tree, good fruit.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/7.15-20?lang=eng Matthew 7:15–20]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/3.11?lang=eng James 3:11]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.11?lang=eng Moroni 7:11].</ref> But, for Jesus, it is not who you are that will determine what you do; it is ''what you do'' that will determine ''who you are''. What you do creates proclivities and habits that become parts of you. Undoing one or more of those and becoming a different creature requires deliberate and sometimes ongoing self-restraint and change. This change ''can'' happen for everyone and Jesus lovingly invites us with open arms to make that change if those habits are not in line with God's will as outlined in prophetic teaching/revelation.

Jesus' view of identity is similar to that of Parable of the Two Wolves told here:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=yWEiBIitfQM</embedvideo>

====The Scriptural Case Against Masturbation====

The scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.12,13,56,57,58,59,60?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60]</ref> Citing [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/4?lang=eng&id=17#p17 James 4:17], the Church argues on its website that "sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth".<ref>"Sin," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed November 26, 2021, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng.</ref> It is logical, therefore, that if we wish to establish something as sinful, that we make our best scriptural case—since scripture contains revealed truths from God—for it actually being such. We will generally examine passages in the order they appear in the canon of scripture. Only those passages that the author believes have relevance to the question of the morality of masturbation will be cited and discussed.

'''The sexually relational telos of men and women.''' The great Greek philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle Aristotle] considered all things to have a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos ''telos''] or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their ''telos''. Telic thinking (aka "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology teleology]") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics virtue ethics]”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their ''telos'' to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh”.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/2.21-24?lang=eng&clang=eng#p21 Genesis 2:21–24]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19.3-9?lang=eng#p5#5 Matthew 19:3–9]; [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/mark/10.2,11?lang=eng Mark 10:2–12]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/rom/1.20-28?lang=eng Romans 1:20–28]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 49:15–17]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.21-24?lang=eng#p24#24 Moses 3:21–24]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/5.14-18?lang=eng#p18#18 Abraham 5:14–18]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/the-family-a-proclamation?lang=eng The Family: A Proclamation to the World]. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See [[Question: Is the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" official doctrine?|this page]] for more info. For a solid exegesis of the Romans passage, see Justin W. Starr, "Biblical Condemnations of Homosexual Conduct]," ''FAIR Papers'', 2004, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/starr-justin-BiblicalHomosexuality.pdf. Another way to argue for this ''telos'' is to cite [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.21?lang=eng Jacob 2:21] which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17] teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses. Scripture consistently associates keeping commandments with happiness and flourishing. See, for example, [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/2.41?lang=eng Mosiah 2:41]. </ref> Becoming “one flesh” does not merely refer to physically joining the complementary reproductive sexual organs of a man and woman,<ref>That the joining of the complementary reproductive sexual organs of men and women is the referent “one flesh” is confirmed in scripture and in nature. Scripturally, Eve is the “missing rib” of Adam. God takes Adam’s rib and forms Eve. Scripture then gives us a “therefore” to indicate that for this reason—the reason of Eve being the complementary opposite of Adam and being his missing rib—should they again unite and become “one flesh”. In nature, only the organic sexual union of man and woman can create children.</ref> but also to that man and woman becoming psychologically and spiritually unified through their sexual union. Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “''telos''”. Sex is therefore a ''relational'' (rather than ''isolated'') act between married men and women for Latter-day Saints.<ref>It may be important to mention the differences that Latter-day Saints have with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Catholics] in views of the human sexual ''telos''. The Catholic Church's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Roman_Catholicism view] of human sexuality makes almost no separation between the ''unitive'' purpose of sex (bringing men and women together maritally) and the ''procreative'' purpose of it (being open to the possibility of children resulting from the sexual act). This is why the Catholic Church formally opposes all birth control besides the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods rhythm method]. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control believes] that sex should be used for at times procreative ends and at times unitive ends but always in the context of marriage between a man and a woman. When to have children and when to make use of birth control—as well as what method of birth control to use (besides elective abortion, which is condemned)—is between the couple and God through prayer.</ref> Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as immoral by the Church. This understanding of men and women's sexually relational ''telos'' will pervade much of the rest of our response.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis C.S. Lewis] wrote:

<blockquote>For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.<ref>C.S. Lewis, ''Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis'' (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 292–93.</ref></blockquote>

One may still wonder why we have this ''telos'' and why it is so important to make sexuality relational as much as possible. Latter-day Saints believe that one of the central purposes of marriage is child-bearing and rearing. [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.17?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 49:17] states that one of the purposes of marriage is to fill the earth "with the measure of man [i.e. the amount of spirit children created by God in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence#Mormonism pre-mortal existence] ], according to his creation before the world was made." Sex is obviously the action taken by a ''mother and father'' in order to produce children. However, it is ''also'' the act of a ''husband and wife''. Sex acts as a means of strengthening the emotional and spiritual bonds between husbands and wives so that they can stabilize/fortify their relationship as fathers and mothers and thus attend better to the needs of their children. Sex is the most complete union that any human can achieve with another human. It involves uniting the hearts, spirits, minds, ''and'' bodies (the sum total of a person) of a man and a woman into their complementary, reproductive roles so that they can achieve the goals of motherhood and fatherhood as well as the goals of being a husband or wife. ''Isolated'' sexual activity, like masturbation and pornography, accomplishes the goal of bonding a person to themselves and hyper-sexualized, dehumanizing, fictive fragments of other people. ''Relational'' sexual activity, and especially that between a husband and a wife, accomplishes the goal of uniting a person to ''another person; another human being''.

'''Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her.''' There are two verses that have been used most frequently to justify abstaining from masturbation and they are the [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/5.27-28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 27th and 28th of Matthew 5]:
:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

These verses are echoed in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12.28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p28 3 Nephi 12:28], [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.23?lang=eng&clang=eng#p23 Doctrine & Covenants 42:23], and [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/63.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p16 Doctrine & Covenants 63:16].

Jason Staples, an assistant teaching professor in philosophy and religious studies at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University North Carolina State University], has argued persuasively that Jesus is not condemning sexual desire in and of itself here. Rather, he is condemning ''planning to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways'' and "''fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own''." Furthermore, according to Staples, "lust" is better translated as “covet”. So, if you are making plans to engage in unlawful sexual activity (without actually engaging in that activity) with someone while either you or they are still married (or both are married to other people), you are, according to Jesus, committing adultery in your heart.<ref>Jason A. Staples, "'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1," Jason A. Staples, August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.</ref> It's the difference between feeling a sexual desire towards another, on the one hand, and saying in one's mind "I should go talk to her/him and flirt with her/him to see if she'll/he’ll be turned on by it enough and come home with me" on the other. This passage, though, doesn't seem to clearly address the question of whether or not masturbation is an appropriate outlet for desire. Is someone who is married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone besides their spouse? Is someone who is not married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone who is married? Dr. Staples says this:

<blockquote>While I don’t think the Bible condemns masturbation (the usual interpretation of the Onan story doesn’t get it right), it also doesn’t seem that masturbation is “one of the proper outlets,” either. Actually, Matthew putting “and if your right hand causes you to stumble” [Matthew 5:30] immediately after this statement about coveting a woman may be seen as an indirect reference to masturbation. It’s not entirely clear, but it’s the closest thing in [the Bible] you’ll find to a statement about masturbation. Given the general outlook on sex in [the Bible], though, I’d say masturbation would not be included among the “proper outlets,” which are limited to heterosexual marital relations whenever discussed.<ref>Jason Staples, May 22, 2012 1:20pm, "Comment on," Jason Staples, “'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1” Jason A. Staples (blog), August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.</ref></blockquote>

A few notes regarding this comment by Dr. Staples:
#Regarding Jesus' words about the right hand causing us to stumble, Dr. Will Deming, a professor in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology theology] at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Portland University of Portland], makes a lengthy and compelling case for interpreting this passage as referring to ancient [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi rabbinic] commentaries on the Old Testament (specifically the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah Mishnah]) that discuss how one could commit adultery by masturbating.<ref>Will Deming, "[https://pilotscholars.up.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=the_facpubs Mark 9:42-10:12, Matthew 5:27-32, and b. Nid.13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality]," ''New Testament Studies'' 36 (1990): 130–41.</ref>
#If masturbation is a form of adultery, then it follows naturally that it can be an example of fornication as well.
#Biblical scholar Lyn M. Bechtel confirms Dr. Staples’ understanding of biblical (more specifically on the Old Testament; but the Old Testament's outlook is reflected in the New Testament as well as modern Restoration scripture) sexuality in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible''. In her words:

<blockquote>In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., Deut. 22:28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 23-24). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual.<ref>Lyn M. Bechtel, “Sex,” in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible'', ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192–93.</ref></blockquote>
:Masturbation, since it doesn't build the community and does not create marital or family bonding (and more especially for those that do it while single) is outside the biblical outlook on proper sexuality. Properly extended, it is outside of Restoration scripture’s outlook on sex.

'''A case study from Corinthians.''' Here's another example that we can point to that gives good evidence that masturbation is not seen as proper. 1 Corinthians 7 opens with Paul talking about the sexual immorality of the Corinthians. He recognizes that cases of sexual immorality had taken place among them. In order to ameliorate this problem of sexual immorality, what does he do? He tells the Corinthians that they should marry and have sexual relations with their spouse. Paul does not encourage self-stimulation. He encourages monogamy and fidelity within marriage (cf. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-thes/4.3-5?lang=eng 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5]). It's not absolutely probative; but it ''is'' highly suggestive.

'''Masturbation and love of others.''' Masturbation most often affects the way that you look at others similar to how pornography does—even if only temporarily. When masturbating, one makes use of others or the image of them as the object of their own self-gratification. With repeated masturbation and over time, this can condition you to regularly see others as potential objects of your own pleasure. Especially with porn, pornographic actors and actresses allow others to objectify them. Some may believe that there exists such a thing as “ethical porn”, but such views are mistaken. There will never be a time in which you are viewing pornography and/or masturbating to pornography when you will not be objectifying the actors/actresses or they will not be objectifying themselves. Using others as merely a means to an end and treating them as an object—as well as viewing them as mere objects (even when they facilitate that objectification)—is contrary to the Lord's command to love our neighbor as ourselves.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/22?lang=eng Matthew 22:34–40]</ref> While you’re only using people in your mind, masturbation still requires that someone be an ''object'' of your passion instead of a full ''subject''; a full person. It “requires conjuring a pseudo-relational stimulus, replacing a real human being with a fantasized sexual fragment.”<ref name="butlerandcrawford">Mark H. Butler and Misha D. Crawford, “How Could Avoiding ‘Sexual Soloing’ Be a Good Thing?” ''Public Square Magazine'', September 20, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/how-could-avoiding-sexual-soloing-be-a-good-thing/. </ref> You must abandon, even temporarily, the ''attitudinal'' aspect of love: seeing the beloved individual as of merely ''instrumental'' rather than ''intrinsic'' and ''absolute'' value. [[Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|As we know]], love is ''both'' an ''attitudinal'' and an ''active'' virtue. Abandoning one or both halves of this is engaging in an inherently ''unloving'' act. In this way, it isn’t virtuous. God and Christ, through their prophets, have taught us that thought is the birthplace of virtue.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/12?lang=eng&id=14#p14 Alma 12:14]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng&id=45#p45 Doctrine & Covenants 121:45]</ref> Virtues such as charity must be practiced in our thoughts as well as our actions.

Some may believe that you can have masturbation without inner mental fantasy, or masturbation without pornography, or pornography without masturbation; but as Dr. Mark H. Butler—a professor in the school of family life and addiction specialist at Brigham Young University—and Misha D. Crawford—a master’s student in the marriage, family, and human development program at BYU— have observed "[w]e cannot decontextualize or ignore the stimulus–response linkage between sexual soloing and pornographic images, scripting, and fantasizing. Sexual arousal and experience do not exist in some pristine isolation but in an increasingly tightly bound stimulus-response (S–R) equation."<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref>

'''Masturbation and love of self.''' We've established above that men and women have a sexually relational ''telos''. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.21?lang=eng Jacob 2:21], for instance, tells us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments and glorifying him forever. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17] tells us that one of God's commandments, one of his laws, is for us to be married and become "one flesh" as husband and wife. [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/2.41?lang=eng Mosiah 2:41] tells us to consider the happy and prosperous state of those that keep the commandments. Well, Christ also tells us that revealed law is grounded in teaching us how to love God and love one another as ourselves in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/22.34-40?lang=eng&clang=eng#p34 Matthew 22:34-40]. Therefore, any commandment is going to be some instruction in the meaning and proper exercise of love. Learning love helps us take on God’s nature which is the nature of love and also happiness.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-jn/4.8?lang=eng&clang=eng#p8 1 John 4:8] [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/41.11?lang=eng&clang=eng#p11 Alma 41:11]</ref> We've argued [[Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|elsewhere on the FAIR site]] that part of the definition of love is to use something according to the purpose it was designed for. Loving ourself would then, arguably, include not masturbating since masturbation is not adhering to your ''telos'' of keeping God's command to be one flesh. It would be, definitionally, an unloving act towards yourself.

It will be important to adhere to this ''telos'' of becoming one flesh and not only for the fact that not masturbating facilitates greater marital unity with a future or current spouse, but also because masturbating can have a debilitating psychological impact on ''us''. We can start to view ourselves as slaves to our passions and out of control. We will recognize that a force that is threatening to neither our life nor health is overcoming our agency. We will feel like our sexuality isn't an integral part of our personhood that we get to choose when to express and exercise. We will recognize that we are getting this cheap thrill of sexual dopamine and oxytocin without anyone paying the price of emotional commitment to us and ''really caring'' for us. We'll recognize that we are engaged in a ''simulation'' of intimacy without experiencing ''real'' intimacy. This can cause deep feelings of embarrassment, loneliness, anxiety, and depression. Being placed over our desires and mastering them can help us embody a fuller self concept and make us feel like the divine beings we are and meant to become. ''We'' can start to feel like an object of passion just as much as we make others the objects of our passion while we masturbate. As the Book of Mormon says, the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the fall of Adam. The only way to overcome this is by listening to the enticings of the Spirit and putting off the natural man. We can’t engage in recreational, indulgent masturbation and consider ourselves as putting off the natural man. We are indeed distancing ourselves from the Spirit and the joy we feel when close to it.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/3.19 Mosiah 3:19]</ref>

'''Masturbation as part of the definition of other words in scripture.''' The scriptures contain a constellation of words that describe unlawful sexual activity. Among those that are perhaps most relevant to this discussion (including their derivatives) are "adultery",<ref>''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' contains this entry defining adultery from an Old Testament perspective: "In the ancient Near East and the OT (Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22) adultery meant consensual sexual intercourse by a married woman with a man other than her husband. However, intercourse between a married man and another woman was not considered adultery unless she was married. The betrothed woman is also bound to fidelity, but leniency is shown to a married or betrothed man (Exod. 22:16-17[MT 15-16]; Deut. 22:28-29; Prov. 5:15-20; Mal. 2:14-15). Some scholars distinguish between the ancient Near Eastern laws, where adultery was a private wrong against a husband, who could prosecute an offender, and the biblical laws, where adultery was an offense against God, with mandatory prosecution and a sentence of death, or, in some cases, atonement through a sin offering (Lev. 19:20-21). Others argue that biblical and ancient Near Eastern laws agree that adultery was an offense against the husband, with prosecution at his discretion (Prov. 6:32-35). Mistaken paternity and its effect on family inheritance, as well as protection of the husband's economic interest, were the primary reasons why adultery was a sin and included in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Adultery was also used as a metaphor for Israel's idolatrous and immoral behavior (e.eg., Jer. 3:6-13; 23:9-15; Ezek. 16:30-43; Isa. 57:3-13)." See Hendrik L. Bosman, "Adultery," ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', 23–24. It should be noted that the New Testament takes a different perspective on adultery to include relations between a married man and an unmarried woman. See Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18.</ref> "carnal", "chastity”, "concupiscence”, "fornication”,<ref>''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' has this entry defining fornication from a biblical perspective: "In general, illicit sexual intercourse (Heb. ''zānâ''), a sin violating the spirit of the Seventh Commandment (Exod 20:14), which was meant to protect the integrity of the family. Fornication (Gk. ''porneía'') can be linked with adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9) or distinguished from it (15:19 = Mark 7:21). Committing fornication is noted and rebuked (1 Cor. 6:18; 10:8; Jude 7). Paul advised monogamous marriage "because of cases of sexual immorality" (1 Cor. 7:2). Metaphorically, fornication can describe the corruption of God's people with pagan idolatry (e.g. Her. 2:20-36; Ezek. 16:15-43; Rev. 2:14, 20-22; 17:1-18; 18:2-9). Abstaining from fornication (unchastity) was one of the four conditions demanded of the Gentiles for their admission into the Church by the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:20, 29)." See Allison A. Trites, "Fornication," ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', 469.</ref> "lasciviousness”, "lewdness”, "lust”,<ref>The ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' reads: "The word lust today is used almost exclusively to mean strong sexual desire. In the KJV usage it connotes intense pleasure or delight, or simply an inclination or wish. In the OT "lust" as a noun translates in the KJV a variety of Hebrew words and designates, among other things, an intense desire for holy war (Exod. 15:9), a craving for food (Ps. 78), a desire so strong that "stubbornness" would be a more appropriate translation (Ps. 81:12), and sexual desire (Prov. 6:25). In the NT Gk. ''epithymía'' is now more often translated "desire" for what in general in the KJV instead translates "lusts" (Mark 4:19). It can be used for a strong pure desire of Christ (Luke 22:15), a longing to be with Christ (Phil 1:23), a desire to do evil (John 8:44), and adultery (Matt. 5:28) and other impure sexual passions and practices (Romans 1:24; 6:12; Gal. 5:16, 24). In addition to ''epithymía'' to indicate sexual desire, the NT also uses Gk. ''órexis'', thymós, ''hēdoné'', and ''páthos''. The context must always be considered in choosing the appropriate translation." See William R. Goodman, "Lust," ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', 831.</ref> and "sensual”. An exhaustive scriptural [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordance_(publishing) concordance] of these words and their derivatives have been placed in Appendix 2 of this article. Readers are encouraged to read each occurrence in their original scriptural contexts (preferably following [[Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?|this approach]] articulated in another article on the FAIR wiki). Given that the scriptural outlook on proper sexuality (as discussed above) includes only marital relationships between husband and wife, any sexuality that falls outside of those bounds (including masturbation) is likely being condemned in scripture. Masturbation likely falls under the definition or the penumbras of the definition of all of these words. If it does, then it is condemned in scripture and we are bound to follow those injunctions to abstain from it (seeing as how scripture is the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the Church established above).

As an example, let’s take "lasciviousness”. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24] states that God gives commandments to his prophets after the manner of their language so that they can come to understanding. The 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' (which records the definitions of words as they would have been understood by Joseph Smith and thus the intended meaning behind many words in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) [http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lasciviousness defines] lasciviousness as "[l]ooseness; irregular indulgence of animal desires; wantonness; lustfulness." If masturbation falls under this category of lasciviousness (and it likely does) then masturbation is condemned scripturally.

'''Other scriptures that may justify refraining.''' Other scriptural injunctions that may support abstaining from masturbation include being able to bridle your body and passions as taught by Alma and the author of James,<ref> [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/3.2?lang=eng#p2#2 James 3:2]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/38.12?lang=eng#p12#12 Alma 38:12]. The author of this article says "the author" of James since it is not known whether James actually wrote James, someone else wrote James and then attributed it to him, or someone who was a close follower of James reworked material originally written by him into Greek literary style and form. See Timothy B. Cargal, "The Letter of James," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2165. Some may believe that the Alma passage has no relevance to masturbation, but the scripture comes right before Alma's letter to his son Corianton which, at the very least, has a lot to do with sexual restraint.</ref> being a peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work and member retention,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/14.2?lang=eng&clang=eng#p2 Deuteronomy 14:2]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/26.18?lang=eng&clang=eng#p2 26:18]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ps/135.4?lang=eng Psalms 135:4]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/titus/2.14?lang=eng Titus 2:14]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-pet/2.9?lang=eng 1 Peter 2:9]</ref> to keep unspotted from the world,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/1.27?lang=eng James 1:27]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/59.9?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 59:9]</ref> to abstain from all appearance of evil,<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-thes/5.22?lang=eng&clang=eng#p22 1 Thessalonians 5:22]. The Greek word translated as "appearance" is better translated as "form”. So the scripture is not saying to not do anything that might ''appear'' evil, but to abstain from doing anything that is ''actually'' evil.</ref> practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have implored us to abstain,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.44?lang=eng Moroni 7:44]</ref> following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as he receives them as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/21.4-5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5]</ref> being anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.27-29?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 Doctrine & Covenants 58:27–29]</ref> and ridding ourselves of "inordinate affection" (πάθος "vile passion") as encouraged by the author of Colossians.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/col/3.5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p5 Colossians 3:5]. The author of this article says "the author of Colossians" since it remains in debate whether Paul wrote Colossians, someone else wrote it and attributed it to him, or one of his followers adapted material that he had taught and/or written for the audience. Wikipedia has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians#Authorship decent discussion] of the relevant issues.</ref>

'''A note on likelihood.''' In the foregoing discussion on scripture and masturbation, we have used the word "likely" a lot in order to establish interpretation. Some may be tempted to think that just because we have used this word, that we don't know for certain and can't know for certain whether masturbation is condemned scripturally. This is not true. Academic disciplines like history and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis scriptural exegesis] are most often not in the business of telling us what is absolutely the case but what is most likely the case. What is most likely the case is taken as what is the case and translated to religious practice. We believe that we have established that masturbation is most likely condemned in scripture.

If nothing else, choosing to masturbate when the prophets have repeatedly implored us to abstain and called it a sin is going against the revealed commandment of being meek and easy to be entreated. Particularly when done if single or married and not directing your thoughts to your spouse, it does not qualify as adhering to your telos and makes you fix your desire on what is not yours as taught by Christ and illustrated by Dr. Staples. Since, as Butler and Crawford observed, you cannot decontextualize stimulus from arousal, there will almost never be a time while masturbating (while single or married and not centering thoughts on your spouse) where you will not be fixing your desire on what is not yours.

'''Personal revelation justifying practice of masturbation.''' It’s possible that some feel like they’ve received personal revelation telling them that masturbation is okay; but such revelation, [[Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?|given prophetic teaching and revelation on the subject]], is almost certainly coming from false spirits. There are some scenarios that may rightly necessitate the use of personal revelation to determine what is right. We discuss those below.

'''Masturbation not a part of the Church’s explicit definition of the Law of Chastity?''' Some have argued that masturbation is not unchaste given that it doesn't fall under the Church's definition of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_chastity Law of Chastity]. In its handbook for leaders, the Church [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number102 defines] the Law of Chastity as merely (1) abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law, and (2) fidelity within marriage. Given the scriptural outlook on sexuality as we've outlined in the foregoing sections, those that make this argument may want to reconsider their stance. True chastity is correlating your outward expressions of sexuality and romance towards another with your underlying emotional commitment to that person. This correlation is where true happiness and sexual wholeness are found. Masturbation and porn give you all the excitement of sex without the price of emotional commitment to a real human being. They are definitionally unchaste.

====How Masturbation Might Take Away from Marriage====

An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction addiction] is a behavior you knowingly and compulsively engage in that both causes harm to you and interferes with other objectives you wish to accomplish in life. So, if you masturbate enough that you lose your job because of it or your grades suffer because you're losing too much time with it, or if you lose a healthy relationship with your spouse because of masturbation, and you know that this harm is being inflicted but you engage in the behavior anyway, it is likely that you have an addiction.

While masturbation does appear by most metrics to be harmless when done sparingly, it does have the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to become addictive or at least compulsive.<ref>The existence of an addiction to porn and/or masturbation is debated in academia. Masturbation addiction is not listed in the DSM-5. It is more widely agreed that masturbation compulsion exists. On March 5, 2022, it was reported that the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization World Health Organization] changed the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-11 ICD-11] to list “use of pornography” and “masturbation” to the diagnostic criteria for Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder. To see the criteria for CSBD from the ICD-11, see [https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en?fbclid=IwAR0aurp6WNax4A7KhM0xofhoMlOMSbiAFGIOa-VQCr2bjerq9ONO21ywW00#/http%253A%252F%252Fid.who.int%252Ficd%252Fentity%252F1630268048 here]. For information on recovery from excessive masturbation, see Matt Glowiak and Trishanna Sookdeo, “Masturbation Addiction: Signs, Symptoms, and Treatments,” Choosing Therapy, July 14, 2021, https://www.choosingtherapy.com/masturbation-addiction/. The author believes masturbation and pornography addiction exists. For persuasive commentary and research on the reality of masturbation and pornography addiction, see "Research," Your Brain on Porn, accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/. For a succinct summary of
what the Your Brain on Porn website uncovers, see Jacob Z. Hess, "There's One More Atheist in Heaven," ''Public Square Magazine'', May 22, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/theres-one-more-atheist-in-heaven/.</ref> When turning addictive (or compulsive), masturbation can quickly become a deterrent from having normal sexual relations with a spouse. It can become more pleasurable to the person engaging in it over other relationships. Taking away sexual relations from a spouse can cause deep dissatisfaction and distrust in the relationship—thus potentially leading to the breakup of marriages and families.

Donald L. Hilton, a Latter-day Saint neurosurgeon based in Texas, relates how, during any stimulation of the genitals and orgasm, chemicals such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine dopamine], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin vasopressin], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin oxytocin] are released in the brain. Oxytocin and vasopressin in particular have been linked to emotional bonding mechanisms in humans and other animals. When oxytocin was selectively blocked in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vole voles], for example, it was observed that they don't mate for life or bond.<ref>Karen L. Bales, Julie A. Westerhuyzen, Antoniah D. Lewis-Reese, Nathaniel D. Grotte, Jalene A. Lanter, C. Sue Carter, "[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17553502/ Oxytocin has Dose-dependent Developmental Effects on Pair-bonding and Alloparental Care in Female Prairie Voles]," ''Hormones and Behavior'' 52, no. 2 (August 2007): 274–79. Cited in Donald L. Hilton, ''He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ'' (San Antonio: Forward Press Publishing, 2009), 57.</ref> Hilton cites American counselor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Carnes Patrick Carnes] who says that one stage of recovery from addiction is ''grief'' where the person says "goodbye" to their addiction. Hilton writes that "[i]t may be a combination of craving for dopamine and yearning for oxytocin-bonded pornography, among other things, that pushes a person to act out and view pornography."<ref>Hilton, ''He Restoreth My Soul'', 58.</ref> Thus, according to Hilton, you can ''actually develop an emotional attachment'' to your masturbation/pornography problem. If he's right about this, we'd do well to ask "why don't we do more to keep sexual stimulation within marriage so that we can direct our oxytocin and vasopressin-driven emotional bonding towards our spouse and thus more fully recognize and adhere to our sexually relational ‘''telos''’?"<ref>It is for this same reason (of emotional bonding via oxytocin and vasopressin being so tightly bound to sexual stimulation of the genitals) that there is no such thing as “casual sex”. ''All'' sex is imbued with meaning for us as humans. Even if we don’t think there is meaning to this “casual sex” we may or may not be engaged in, our brains and bodies will ultimately not treat it as such. Nor is there casual romance. Kissing releases the same chemicals. See Adrienne Santos-Longhurst, "Why Do We Kiss? What Science Says About Smooching," Healthline, last updated July 25, 2018, https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-kiss. Perhaps this can give us new insight (and a good response to those critics inside and outside of the Church that mock it) into why ''For the Strength of Youth'' and other church leaders warn against "passionate kissing" before marriage. See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf ''For the Strength of Youth''] (2011), 36. Think of the mental health benefits that can be gleaned if we, and especially the youth and young adults of the Church, didn't, for example, extol non-committal make outs and treated sex and romance with the emotional commitment that they deserve; if we actually correlated our outward expressions of sex and romance with an underlying commitment to the happiness and well-being of our partners. As President Spencer W. Kimball once said, "[w]hat do kisses mean when given out like pretzels and robbed of sacredness?” See Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball'', ed. Edward L. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982), 281. Quoted in "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2012/07/to-the-point/for-the-strength-of-youth-says-not-to-participate-in-passionate-kissing-what-is-that?lang=eng For the Strength of Youth says not to participate in 'passionate kissing.' What is that?]" ''New Era'' 41, no. 7 (July 2012): 29.</ref>

====Masturbation and Escalation====
The highs that one gets from masturbation and the ensuing addiction that might follow from it ''can'' result in escalation of that sexual behavior to include viewing pornography, attending strip clubs, requesting various forms of local prostitution, and even forced sexual advances on the unwilling.

Some will be tempted to immediately apply the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope slippery slope fallacy] to this argument. “Masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation of sexual behavior.” The author would respond with applying the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy fallacist’s fallacy]. While it is true that masturbation doesn’t ''necessarily'' lead to escalation, the argument is that it ''can'' lead to escalation; that it has the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to lead to escalation. To illustrate, let's take a lesson from porn. We're illustrating our point with porn and not masturbation by itself, but porn is ''almost always'' connected with masturbation so this example becomes relevant to the author's point.

Over 60 studies have connected porn use with escalation of interests.<ref>"Studies reporting findings consistent with escalation of porn use (tolerance), habituation to porn, and withdrawal symptoms," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-find-escalation-and-habituation-in-porn-users-tolerance/.</ref> That is, porn users who have been viewing porn on multiple occasions over time tend to become interested in certain types of porn scenes that they were initially uninterested in or even repulsed by. It all has to do with what is known by medical researchers and other professionals as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect Coolidge Effect].

Independent researcher and activist (and, for what it's worth, an atheist) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Wilson_(author) Gary Wilson] explains the relationship between porn use, brain chemistry and structure, escalation, and the Coolidge Effect from 0:41-3:16 in the video below. Many people find it hard to believe that porn and masturbation could be addictive enough to a human brain and lead to escalation since sex is supposed to be healthy. But, as Wilson points out, internet porn is as different from real sex as today's video games are from checkers. He addresses this assumption thoroughly from 5:16-9:31 in the video below. We ''strongly'' recommend readers view ''both'' clips from the video:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=wSF82AwSDiU&t</embedvideo>

The same principles ''very likely'' apply to masturbation. You have a form of stimulation that is accessible to you any time you want. Following the Coolidge Effect, you can do it in novel ways over time. You can begin to involve pornography and then harder forms of pornography. Once pornography becomes unhelpful in getting the same dopamine hit, you can try out sex with others and escalate that, as mentioned before, to forced sexual advances on the unwilling. Does that claim sound extreme? Let's go further.

Over 110 studies link pornography to sexual offending, sexual aggression, and sexual coercion.<ref>"Studies linking porn use to sexual offending, sexual aggression, and sexual coercion," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/studies-linking-porn-use-to-sexual-offending-sexual-aggression-and-sexual-coercion/.</ref> Your brain becomes conditioned over time to want harder and harder forms of sex in order to get the same dopamine hit. Following the Coolidge Effect, you're very, very likely to seek it out. For men, they are much more likely to see women as objects and sexually subservient first before escalating. Over 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” towards women.<ref>"Studies linking porn use to 'un-egalitarian attitudes' toward women," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 23, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-un-egalitarian-attitudes-toward-women/.</ref>

How do you avoid all of this? Go back to 1:12 of the Wilson video and you'll find your answer: find a sexual relationship with a single partner and mate with him/her long term. Your relationship will be naturally more stable. Get married to your partner and avoid porn and other promiscuity outside of the context of relational sex. Over 80 studies link porn use and/or masturbation to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.<ref>"Studies linking porn use or porn/sex addiction to sexual dysfunctions and poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction," Your Brain on Porn, accessed May 30, 2022, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-or-porn-sex-addiction-to-sexual-dysfunctions-and-poorer-sexual-and-relationship-satisfaction/#less.</ref> Your marriage will be more stable and your kids will be more likely to grow up in the context of a stable, low-conflict home. Hopefully one can begin to see our Heavenly Parents' design for sex and why they wanted us to ''cleave'' to one another and become "one flesh".

====Deriving the Benefits of Masturbation Elsewhere====

But what about the many benefits of masturbation? Shouldn’t one care about the risk of prostate cancer at least? The problem is that the benefits of masturbation can be derived elsewhere and there is no net detriment to one's health while abstaining from masturbation (discussed more below under "Is there something that biologically determines us to masturbate?"). Indeed, masturbation is not even among the top things typically recommended by professionals when wanting to derive most of these benefits. Thus, it's more likely than not that anyone claiming that masturbation is essential to our health are getting their information from biased or merely non-credible sources. We can take the potential benefits one by one and see what is recommended to reap them to demonstrate.

#'''Improved Sleep:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic The Mayo Clinic] suggests six things to improve one’s sleep. These include sticking to a set sleep schedule, paying attention to what you eat and drink, creating a restful environment, limiting daytime naps, including physical activity in one's daytime routine, and managing one's worries.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “6 steps to better sleep,” Mayo Clinic, April 17, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/sleep/art-20048379.</ref>
#'''Improved Cardiovascular System:''' Heather Shannon of UC Irvine Health recommends that one exercise, quit smoking, lose weight, eat heart-healthy foods such as guacamole and vegetables, have some chocolate in moderation, not overeat, and manage stress in order to have a healthy heart.<ref>Heather Shannon, “7 powerful ways you can strengthen your heart,” UCI Health, February 9, 2017, https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2017/02/how-to-strengthen-heart.</ref>
#'''Improved Immune System:''' Harvard Health recommends that one not smoke, eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, maintain a healthy weight, get adequate sleep, wash hands frequently, minimize stress, and keep with current vaccines in order to maintain and improve one’s immune system.<ref>”How to boost your immune system,” Harvard Health Publishing, February 15, 2021, https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-to-boost-your-immune-system.</ref>
#'''Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends that one keep a healthy diet (such as doing a low-fat diet, increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables you eat each day, and reducing the amount of dairy products you eat each day), maintain a healthy weight, and exercise most days of the week to reduce risk of prostate cancer.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Prostate cancer prevention: Ways to reduce your risk,” Mayo Clinic, September 24, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/in-depth/prostate-cancer-prevention/art-20045641.</ref>
#'''Sexual Tension/Differing Libidos:''' This is a question that is best left between the couple and God through prayer (and ''maybe'' the local bishop or stake president). That said, if one is struggling with something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality hypersexuality] and truly trying to lower their libido, Janet Brito and Daniel Yetman recommend focusing on your diet, getting medication, focusing on relationships, and stopping illegal drug use.<ref>Daniel Yetman, "How to Decrease Libido," Healthline, October 28, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-decrease-libido.</ref> Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.
#'''Dyspareunia/Psychological Impediments:''' Approaching treatment for any case of dyspareunia and/or other psychological impediments to partnered sex are best left between husband, wife, God, qualified, reputable medical professionals, and maybe local leaders. More information on treatment options that fit with your values can be found online or by contacting your local doctor. Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.
#'''Menstrual Cramps:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends taking pain relievers like ibuprofen, looking into hormonal birth control, getting surgery, exercising regularly, using heating pads, using dietary supplements, reducing stress, acupuncture, acupressure, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and herbal medicine as potential treatments for menstrual cramps.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Menstrual cramps,” Mayo Clinic, April 8, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menstrual-cramps/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20374944.</ref>
#'''Headaches:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends (among many other things) using pain relievers, using hot or cold compresses, resting in dark and quiet rooms, and other stress-reducing therapies for treating headaches.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Headaches: Treatment depends on your diagnosis and symptoms,” Mayo Clinic, May 10, 2019, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-daily-headaches/in-depth/headaches/art-20047375.</ref>
#'''Nasal Congestion:''' R. Morgan Griffin and Carmelita Swiner recommend using a humidifier, taking steamy showers, drinking lots of fluids, using saline nasal spray, using a neti pot, putting warm and wet towels on your face, avoiding chlorinated pools (while symptoms persist), propping yourself up on more pillows while you sleep, and using decongestants, antihistamines, and pain relievers for treating nasal congestion.<ref>R. Morgan Griffin, “How to Treat Nasal Congestion and Sinus Pressure,” WebMD, accessed January 24, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-congestion.</ref>
#'''Low Motility Sperm:''' Atli Arnason and Jillian Jubala recommend taking Vitamin C supplements, getting Vitamin D, incorporating maca root and ashwaganda into your diet, and taking D-aspartic acid supplements to improve sperm motility.<ref>Atli Arnason, “10 Ways to Boost Male Fertility and Increase Sperm Count,” Healthline, May 18, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/boost-male-fertility-sperm-count.</ref> Since, in a monogamous marriage, males are not competing for females like the earliest humans did in the evolutionary scheme, you don’t have to have the most agile sperm in order to conceive your own child.
#'''Preventing Cervical Infection''': Menstrual cycles and orgasms during sleep/dreams have the same evolutionary utility for women. The vagina and cervix are self-cleaning organs. Douches can also be helpful but should be used with caution as these can sometimes increase chances of infection. Brenda Goodman and Traci C. Johnson recommend using condoms during sex (when not trying to conceive), limiting the number of people you have sex with, not having sex with a partner who has genital sores or penile discharge, making sure both you and your partner have been treated adequately for sexually-transmitted diseases, not using feminine hygiene products, and taking good control of your blood sugar if you have diabetes to lower your risk of getting cervicitis.<ref>Brenda Goodman, "Cervicitis," WedMD, accessed February 7, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/cervicitis.</ref>
#'''Exploring Body''': This aspect of sexuality can certainly be discovered by husband and wife during partnered sexual activity with good communication as well as patient trial and error. Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford have an excellent discussion of this in their article cited above. Click the blue endnote to the right of this sentence to jump to a link to their article.<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref> The discussion of sexual discovery is had under the subtitle "In the Married Years”.
#'''Facilitating Conception''': These benefits can obviously be derived in partnered sexual activity.<ref>It should be clear that when the author says "partnered sexual activity", they do not mean that the only form of appropriate sexual activity is penis-in-vagina penetrative sex. It merely means sexual activity between husband and wife.</ref>
#'''Increasing Pain Threshold:''' Jacquelyn Cafasso and Elaine K. Luo recommend doing yoga, performing aerobic exercise, vocalization (saying "ow" when you experience pain), using mental imagery to shrink the pain, and biofeedback in order to increase someone's pain threshold.<ref>Jacquelyn Cafasso, "How to Test and Increase Your Pain Tolerance," Healthline, last updated June 12, 2018, https://www.healthline.com/health/high-pain-tolerance.</ref>

All the potential nuances/exceptions to the general prohibition most likely come when fostering or nourishing the relational, tender, committed, married, and man-woman sexuality outlined in scripture and/or as ''specifically'' prescribed by a qualified, reputable professional for a particular health reason. We should approximate this ideal as much as possible.

====Benefits of Not Masturbating====
But are there benefits for not engaging in masturbation? We've expressed many so far, but it may be helpful to restate them clearly and in one place.

#You are able to have a more unified relationship with your current or future spouse
#You get to embody a fuller self concept by mastering your desires and making your sexuality an integral part of your agency and personhood
#You avoid any addiction or get to heal from it
#You get to learn something crucial and important about love
#You can avoid any guilt, embarassment, or cognitive dissonance that comes from not living within your values and those of your faith

Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford enumerate the following benefits in their article:

#Avoiding sexual soloing helps impressionable youth and adults alike stay away from pornography use and habituation, steering clear of pornography’s fetishization of anti-relational, toxic sexual imagery, scripts, and fantasizing as the basis of sexual arousal. Avoiding sexual soloing helps hold that “flight” from takeoff until the “copilot” is on board, preventing the sexual arousal template (SAT, conditioned patterns of sexual arousal) from veering off course.
#Avoiding sexual soloing promotes healthy social development before marriage, laying the groundwork for relationship and sexual well-being in marriage.
#Avoiding sexual soloing can promote a relational sexual template and lead to strengthening marriage relationships, both sexually and generally.
#Avoiding sexual soloing helps ensure that the sexual flight is copiloted safely and surely in marriage toward its relational destination.
#Avoiding sexual soloing makes it easier to stay away from, habituate to, or fetishize toxic sexual fantasizing. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents an inherently relational flight from lurching off course toward sexual fetishization.
#Avoiding sexual soloing holds open space for a relational sexual template and the development of holistic marriage relationships that are deeply aware and caring, strengthening marriage both sexually and generally.
#Avoiding sexual soloing and practicing sexual restraint promotes the development of positive coping strategies.
#Avoiding sexual soloing can promote sexual self-mastery, a competence crucial to couple relationship and sexual well-being.
#Avoiding sexual soloing prevents mapping sexuality to a distorted hedonistic template, or at worst the anti-relational, anti-attachment pornographic template.
#Avoiding sexual soloing confirms and strengthens a relational and attachment-oriented sexual arousal template (SAT) anchored in “being for the other.”<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref>

An important thing to note is that any human can derive these benefits from not masturbating. You do not need God to command you to do this. Thus not masturbating does not need to be considered an exclusively religious moral. It can be a secular person’s moral as well as a religious person's. Indeed, one is not and cannot be making a religious argument for a particular kind of moral until they cite scripture, revelation, prophets, etc. One can make an entire case for the law of chastity without citing any of those things. What both the religious and secular person can recognize is that human beings are designed—whether by God, evolution, or maybe God through evolution—in a particular way. Our design is such that we flourish and find our greatest happiness in relational, monogamous sexuality. Our greatest happiness will be found as we all recognize our design and live in accordance with it.

====Is there something within us that biologically determines us to masturbate?====

Some people construct an identity around the practice of masturbation. People say that “we’re sexual beings” (which is true) and “masturbation is a part of our natural development.” What these people often mean is that “engaging in masturbation is a behavior that is biologically-determined and thus prohibiting it goes against who and what we are. It serves as a net detriment to our well-being.” We often construct these identities to justify bad behavior and protest against certain standards that go against these identities we construct arbitrarily and artificially around those behaviors. Thus, the imposition of a prohibition on masturbation starts to feel like an assault to our personhood. This is one reason that General Authorities of the Church so often stress that our fundamental identity is that of children of God: if we construct identities around sinful behaviors, we will quickly embroil ourselves in habits that are contrary to the will of God and his nature and feel that any call to repentance is a crusade against ''us''. We can thus squeeze ourselves out of faith and find ourselves in rebellion to the Lord's anointed. If we center our thinking about our essential identity in the fact that we are infinitely beloved, spirit sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents, then we will be much more open to changing our behavior so as to foster closer relationships with them and the rest of their creation. Identity construction is one of our most common forms of denial as human beings. We need be careful in how we construct our identity.

The truth is that we are not merely sexual beings. We are ''marital'' beings. Marital beings ''are'' sexual beings, but they are not ''merely'' sexual beings. We are built with the purpose of being joined maritally and, after marriage, sexually as man and woman; husband and wife. We were designed for a relational, psychologically and spiritually-unified, tender, married man-woman sexuality and we should create our norms to funnel us towards that as stipulated by scripture.

There actually ''is'' one biologically-determined function that both men and women experience that serves the purpose people might think masturbation serves: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_emission nocturnal emission]. We don’t need masturbation to pull double duty.

People sometimes believe that releasing our sexual urge is a human need since, like hunger, sexual desires do not go away with differing values (contrast with something like what political party you vote for which desire is entirely contingent on your values and the arguments you're currently persuaded by), they're about as frequent as the desire for food, they arise sometimes without any obvious stimulus, and they arise whether we want them to arise or not. But none of these facts necessarily entail that "releasing" our sexual urge through porn, masturbation, or other promiscuity is a human ''need''. At most it's just a strong human desire. What perhaps ''is'' needed is emotional and spiritual connection, and that can be achieved through a variety of non-sexual (but still meaningful) ways. On the author's view, it's more coherently argued that the sex desire functions as it does because we need to procreate to survive as a species. Again, think about it. A person can live an entirely happy, wholesome, healthy life without sex, masturbation, porn, etc. Not releasing our sex urge isn't threatening to neither our life nor health. There does not seem to be any other persuasive explanation for the function of our sexual desires.

====But what harm does one really do when engaged in isolated sexual acts?====

But do isolated sexual acts really hurt anyone else? The foregoing analysis should be sufficient to demonstrate that masturbation can very likely have adverse effects on others. However, another point to make here is that, as humans, we are remarkably bad at creating and being faithful to norms that are based on the ''delayed'' consequences of our actions. We are really good at creating and abiding by norms that are based off of the ''immediate, obvious'' consequences of our actions. For example, all of us agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent person. Only some of us agree that masturbation is wrong because society consistently tries to condition us to believe in morals that have to do only with the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions on others and many have bought into that logic and framework. We would do well to ponder more about how we can create and more diligently abide by (still important) norms based on delayed, less-obvious, and even unseen consequences of our actions. Doing so may help us understand why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds many of the moral positions it holds. It may help us to strengthen our testimonies of the Church and Gospel.

====What do I do if I'm struggling with masturbation?====
[[File:Jesus Christ open arms.png|250px|thumb|right|Christ lovingly and with open arms invites all who are struggling with pornography and masturbation to come unto him.]]
If you're struggling with masturbation, there is always help and hope for you. You may be trying to quit for the first timeThe first thing to do will be to disclose your struggles to those you love and trust most. It may also be a good idea to speak with your local ecclesiastical leaders. You should thoroughly discuss the prospect of whether or not you actually have an addiction. Many people unfortunately are diagnosed as having an addiction wrongly and end up spending a lot of money unnecessarily on professional help. If you have trouble diagnosing the problem on your own, it may be helpful to seek professional counsel. There will very likely be many wonderful, qualified professionals in your area that will be eager to help you. These might include marriage and family therapists, sex therapists, and addiction recovery specialists.

The Church [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/addressing-pornography/?lang=eng provides] addiction recovery programs for individuals interested in overcoming addiction. There are also some resources available from Latter-day Saint individuals that can help with recovery from masturbation/pornography addiction. These individuals and others you seek help from may have different beliefs about whether masturbation and pornography addiction exist and/or whether masturbation is sinful. Some have been vocal proponents of the view that masturbation and pornography addiction do not exist. Discretion is advised if seeking for a professional that affirms your view. Regardless, any number of therapeutic modalities may be helpful in eliminating unwanted masturbation and pornography use, and for that reason all of these individuals are included here for selection of the reader. ''Any'' good recovery specialist is going to help you on addressing limiting core beliefs that keep you from recovery, understanding the brain science behind compulsion/addiction, and setting daily boundaries that help address your core emotional, physical, and spiritual needs as well as take away about 80% of potential relapses. ''Any'' good marriage and family and/or sex therapist is going to help you address your problems according to the objectives that you set. So if you go in with the firm and explicit objective of not engaging in recreational, indulgent masturbation, they are obligated by their professional ethics (of allowing individual self-determination) to provide you the best therapies that help you accomplish those goals and are conducive to your ultimate well-being. If they don't help you move towards those objectives, then they are not acting ethically and you should consider seeking other help.

===Conclusion===
While masturbation is not an avenue of sexual exploration or expression that will be wholly endorsed by the Church, it is still encouraged that parents have open discussions with their children about the beautiful, sacred nature of human sexuality, that everyone read out of the best of books about how to have more fulfilling sexual relationships with their partner (future or current), and that, generally, we make sexuality a topic of open discussion among those that we love and trust most. We often spend too much time in church talking about ''illicit'' sexual behavior that we often neglect defining and discussing what ''healthy'', ''righteous'' sexuality is and how we can engage in it. That’s not always a bad thing. Talking about all the minutiae of sexuality is most often not going to be tasteful in Sunday School and other public church meetings. That said, among our families and others that we love and trust most, it can and should be much more comfortable. Sexuality is a topic that everyone should become an expert of at the right time so that we can all better understand how to reach and live in accordance with our divine destiny and identity.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:19–20]</ref>

There may be those that still doubt the conclusions of this article. Your best testimony of this principle will be gained as you experience the benefits of not masturbating for yourself again. The author echoes the words of Jesus: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/7.17?lang=eng John 7:17]</ref>

It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a source of clarity on the Church's stance on masturbation for those that are confused about it, as a source of hope for those that would like to discontinue masturbation and remain in line with the Church, and as a source of great insight to those that are generally looking to understand the utterly sacred and beautiful nature of human sexuality.

{{Seealso|Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?| Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?}}

===APPENDIX 1: Additional Content===
*Steve Densley, "[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation FAIR Questions 4: What’s Wrong with Masturbation?]" ''FAIR Blog'', January 2, 2013.
*Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford, "[https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/how-could-avoiding-sexual-soloing-be-a-good-thing/ How Could Avoiding 'Sexual Soloing' Be a Good Thing?]" ''Public Square Magazine'', September 20, 2021.

===APPENDIX 2: Scriptural Concordance of Words Referring to Unlawful Sexual Conduct and Relevant to Considerations About Masturbation===
Below we provide an exhaustive concordance of every passage of scripture that may be relevant to considerations about masturbation as promised above. We again invite people to examine each occurrence of these words in their original context following the approach articulated in [[Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?|this article]] on the FAIR wiki.

'''Adulterer'''
*Leviticus 20:10
*Job 24:15
*Isaiah 57:3

'''Adulterers'''
*Psalm 50:18
*Jeremiah 9:2
*Jeremiah 23:10
*Hosea 7:4
*Malachi 3:5
*Luke 18:11
*1 Corinthians 6:9
*Hebrews 13:4
*James 4:4
*3 Nephi 24:5
*Doctrine & Covenants 63:14
*Doctrine & Covenants 76:103

'''Adulteress'''
*Leviticus 20:10
*Proverbs 6:26
*Hosea 3:1
*Romans 7:3

'''Adulteresses'''
*Ezekiel 23:43
*Hosea 2:2
*Matthew 15:19
*Mark 7:21
*Doctrine & Covenants 63:14

'''Adulteries'''
*Jeremiah 12:27
*Ezekiel 23:43
*Hosea 2:2
*Matthew 15:19
*Mark 7:21

'''Adulterous'''
*Proverbs 30:20
*Matthew 12:39
*Matthew 16:4
*Mark 7:21

'''Adultery'''
*Exodus 20:14
*Leviticus 20:10
*Leviticus 20:10
*Deuteronomy 5:18
*Proverbs 6:32
*Jeremiah 3:8
*Jeremiah 3:9
*Jeremiah 5:7
*Jeremiah 7:9
*Jeremiah 23:14
*Jeremiah 29:23
*Ezekiel 16:32
*Ezekiel 23:37
*Ezekiel 23:37
*Hosea 4:2
*Hosea 4:13
*Hosea 4:14
*Matthew 5:27
*Matthew 5:28
*Matthew 5:32
*Matthew 19:9
*Matthew 19:9
*Matthew 19:18
*Mark 10:11
*Mark 10:12
*Mark 10:19
*Luke 16:18
*Luke 16:18
*Luke 18:20
*John 8:3
*John 8:4
*Romans 2:22
*Romans 2:22
*Romans 13:9
*Galatians 5:19
*James 2:11
*James 2:11
*2 Peter 2:14
*Revelation 2:22
*Mosiah 2:13
*Mosiah 13:22
*Alma 16:18
*Alma 23:3
*Alma 30:10
*Helaman 4:12
*Helaman 7:5
*3 Nephi 12:27
*3 Nephi 12:28
*3 Nephi 12:32
*3 Nephi 12:32
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:24
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:24
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:25
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:75
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:80
*Doctrine & Covenants 59:6
*Doctrine & Covenants 63:16
*Doctrine & Covenants 66:10
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:41
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:41
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:42
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:43
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:44
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:44
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:61
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:61
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:62
*Doctrine & Covenants 132:63

'''Carnal'''
*Romans 7:14
*Romans 8:7
*Romans 15:27
*1 Corinthians 3:1
*1 Corinthians 3:3
*1 Corinthians 3:3
*1 Corinthians 3:4
*1 Corinthians 9:11
*2 Corinthians 10:4
*Hebrews 7:16
*Hebrews 9:10
*2 Nephi 28:21
*Mosiah 4:2
*Mosiah 16:3
*Mosiah 16:3
*Mosiah 16:5
*Mosiah 16:12
*Mosiah 26:4
*Mosiah 27:25
*Alma 22:13
*Alma 30:53
*Alma 36:4
*Alma 41:11
*Alma 41:13
*Alma 41:13
*Alma 42:10
*Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
*Doctrine & Covenants 29:35
*Doctrine & Covenants 67:10
*Doctrine & Covenants 67:12
*Doctrine & Covenants 84:27
*Moses 5:13
*Moses 6:49

'''Carnally'''
*Leviticus 18:20
*Leviticus 19:20
*Numbers 5:13
*Romans 8:6

'''Carnally-Minded'''
*2 Nephi 9:39

'''Chaste'''
*2 Corinthians 11:2
*Philippians 4:4
*Titus 2:5
*1 Peter 3:2
*Jacob 2:7
*Articles of Faith 1:13

'''Chastity'''
*Jacob 2:28
*Moroni 9:9

'''Concupiscence'''
*Romans 7:8
*JST Romans 7:8
*Colossians 3:5
*1 Thessalonians 4:5

'''Devilish'''
*James 3:15
*Mosiah 16:3
*Alma 41:13
*Alma 42:10
*Helaman 12:4
*Doctrine & Covenants 20:20
*Moses 5:13
*Moses 6:49

'''Fornication'''
*Ezekiel 16:26
*Ezekiel 16:29
*Isaiah 23:17
*2 Chronicles 21:11
*Matthew 5:32
*Matthew 15:19
*Matthew 19:9
*Mark 7:21
*John 8:41
*Acts 15:20
*Acts 15:29
*Acts 21:25
*Romans 1:29
*1 Corinthians 5:1
*1 Corinthians 5:1
*1 Corinthians 6:13
*1 Corinthians 6:18
*1 Corinthians 7:2
*1 Corinthians 10:8
*2 Corinthians 12:21
*Galatians 5:19
*Ephesians 5:3
*Colossians 3:5
*1 Thessalonians 4:3
*Jude 1:7
*Revelation 2:14
*Revelation 2:20
*Revelation 2:21
*Revelation 9:21
*Revelation 14:8
*Revelation 19:2
*Jacob 3:12
*3 Nephi 12:32
*Helaman 8:26
*Doctrine & Covenants 35:11
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:74
*Doctrine & Covenants 88:94
*Doctrine & Covenants 88:105

'''Fornications'''
*Ezekiel 16:15

'''Fornicator'''
*1 Corinthians 5:11
*Hebrews 12:16
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:77

'''Fornicators '''
*1 Corinthians 5:9
*1 Corinthians 5:10
*1 Corinthians 6:9
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:76

'''Lasciviousness'''
*Mark 7:22
*2 Corinthians 12:21
*Galatians 5:19
*Ephesians 4:19
*1 Peter 4:3
*Jude 1:4
*Jacob 3:12
*Alma 16:18
*Alma 45:12
*Alma 47:36
*4 Nephi 1:16

'''Lewd'''
*Ezekiel 16:27
*Ezekiel 23:44
*Acts 17:5

'''Lewdly'''
*Ezekiel 22:11

'''Lewdness'''
*Judges 20:6
*Jeremiah 11:15
*Jeremiah 13:27
*Ezekiel 16:43
*Ezekiel 16:58
*Ezekiel 22:9
*Ezekiel 23:21
*Ezekiel 23:27
*Ezekiel 23:29
*Ezekiel 23:35
*Ezekiel 23:48
*Ezekiel 23:48
*Ezekiel 23:49
*Ezekiel 24:13
*Hosea 2:10
*Hosea 6:9
*Acts 18:14

'''Lust'''
*Exodus 15:9
*Psalms 78:18
*Psalms 78:30
*Psalms 81:12
*Proverbs 6:25
*Matthew 5:28
*Romans 1:27
*Romans 7:7
*1 Corinthians 10:6
*Galatians 5:16
*1 Thessalonians 4:5
*James 1:14
*James 1:15
*James 4:2
*2 Peter 1:4
*2 Peter 2:10
*1 John 2:16
*1 John 2:17
*1 Nephi 3:25
*3 Nephi 12:28
*Doctrine & Covenants 42:23
*Doctrine & Covenants 63:16

'''Lusted'''
*Numbers 11:34
*Psalms 106:14
*1 Corinthians 10:6
*Revelations 18:14

'''Lusteth'''
*Deuteronomy 12:15
*Deuteronomy 14:26
*Galatians 5:17
*James 4:5

'''Lustful'''
*Doctrine & Covenants 88:121
*Doctrine & Covenants 101:6

'''Lusting'''
*Numbers 11:4

'''Lusts'''
*Mark 4:19
*John 8:44
*Romans 1:24
*Romans 6:12
*Romans 13:14
*Galatians 5:24
*Ephesians 2:3
*Ephesians 4:22
*1 Timothy 6:9
*2 Timothy 2:22
*2 Timothy 3:6
*2 Timothy 4:3
*Titus 2:12
*Titus 3:3
*James 4:1
*James 4:3
*1 Peter 1:14
*1 Peter 2:11
*1 Peter 4:2
*1 Peter 4:3
*2 Peter 2:18
*2 Peter 3:3
*Jude 1:16
*Jude 1:18
*1 Nephi 22:23
*Alma 39:9
*Mormon 9:28
*Doctrine & Covenants 46:9

'''Sensual'''
*James 3:15
*Jude 1:19
*Mosiah 16:3
*Alma 42:10
*Doctrine & Covenants 20:20
*Doctrine & Covenants 29:35
*Moses 5:13
*Moses 6:49

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ/Aversion therapy performed at BYU

2022-07-11T19:47:38Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Aversion therapy performed at BYU
|H=Homosexual aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's
|S=What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality in the 1970's? How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
|L1=Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?
|L2=Question: What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?
|L3=Question: Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy?
|L4=Question: Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy?
|L5=Question: How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?}}
{{:Question: What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality?}}
{{:Question: Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy?}}
{{:Question: Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy?}}
{{:Question: How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time?}}

{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?

2022-07-11T19:46:24Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?==
===The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s===

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

===In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality===

The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

===The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?

2022-07-11T19:43:10Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?==
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
===The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s===

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

===In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality===

The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

===The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?

2022-07-11T19:16:28Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy?==
===The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s===

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

* [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

===In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality===

The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

===The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done===

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

=== Academic freedom at BYU ===
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Understanding revelation

2022-05-31T17:24:53Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand prophetic revelation? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand prophetic revelation?==
{{Main|Holy Ghost/ Latter-day Saint Epistemology}}
Among the most pressing questions a Latter-day Saint can answer is that of the nature of divine revelation. Critical attacks on revelation demand that we develop a robust understanding of the nature of the Divine Disclosure and how it has come to us. Without a solid understanding of the nature of revelation, criticism will appear to threat or even undermine virtually everything we believe in given the centrality of the doctrine of revelation in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This article answers that question. To reduce circularity, it is always wisest to start with what the prophets actually say about revelation. Thus, this article will be centered on the scriptures and the statements of living prophets and apostles.
===First, who is God?===
It is important to first answer the question of who Latter-day Saints believe God to be since the nature of God influences all understanding of revelation. Revelation is the tool that he has given us to describe him best, his nature, and his law, even though at times his purposes and ways of working with his children can be inscrutable. To Latter-day Saints, he is also literally our Father in Heaven with a body of flesh and bone. He is of the same species that we are and because of this is able to communicate with us in a way that we understand through our own human processes. Since he is a man he knows how to communicate with humans. If we weren't of the same species, would it be possible to communicate with us? We understand him to work with us like a father—catering to our needs as he teaches us how to come closer to him. He works beyond "the veil". In other words, he is separated from us for a [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/plan-of-salvation?lang=eng time and a purpose]. He must now communicate his will to us, through agents known as "prophets", to the end of accomplishing that purpose. Latter-day Saints generally understand God to be maximally powerful, knows all ''that is able'' to be known, omnipresent but only by means of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints) Light of Christ] (since he is limited in space by virtue of having a body), benevolent, all-loving, all-good, capable of sin but without it, with a fixed past knowledge, immutable in character, passible since he is our father and has a body (though most wouldn't be sure how this is made manifest), and sovereign. This knowledge of who God is frames the way we understand all revelation.

===Purpose of Revelation===
Revelation for Latter-day Saint is given for the purpose of drawing all mankind into a community of believers, united by special promises made between them and God called covenants, and guided into one heart and mind to becoming like God. All scriptures, from the Holy Bible to the Book of Mormon, from the Doctrine and Covenants to the Pearl of Great Price, have testified that all mankind may be gathered together into Zion, the community of believers as said before, and unite them in a common purpose to make themselves become more like God by emulating his attributes and inviting others to do the same. God knew that not all people would be able to fulfill these demands. Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ effectuated the means by which a person could repent of their sins and be brought back to the covenant people in full fellowship. All revelation is given to show people what God's attributes are, invite them to live according to who God is, to invite those people to invite others to live by who God is, to bring people into that group, and to thus stand in one heart and mind in indwelling love and unity one with another by virtue of having one purpose and means of bringing about that purpose.

Since Latter-day Saints believe that the ultimate end to which God has called all humankind is to become like him, orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy; holiness over accuracy; person-truth over idea-truth. Revelation teaches Latter-day Saints much more how to act rather than what to believe. Those are obviously not mutually exclusive, and Latter-day Saints do have doctrines that teach them about their divine ontology and how that leads them to live the Law of Love more fully, but revelation for Latter-day Saints is more about getting people to act morally and to seek the holiness that God enjoys rather than getting them to believe in all the same things.

===Revelation comes through a variety of means or methods.===
As expressed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

<blockquote> TYPES OF REVELATION. A dispensation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a series of personal revelations from God. These revelations may be direct manifestations from God, as in the following typical cases:

1. theophanies (seeing God face-to-face), as in the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which came at the beginning of the present dispensation (JS-H 1:15-20)

2. revealed knowledge from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:13-17; see also Spirit of Prophecy)

3. visitations of angelic persons, such as the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 1:30-32)

4. revelations through the Urim and Thummim, by which means Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon

5. open visions, as when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were shown the kingdoms of the hereafter (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 76)

6. physically hearing the voice of God, as is recorded in 3 Nephi 11

7. receiving the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, as in the experience of Elijah (1 Kgs. 19);

8. receiving the gifts of the spirit (D&C 46)

9. having a burning in the bosom as an indication of the will of God, as in the explanation given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 9:8)

10. dreams (1 Ne. 8:2-32)

11. manifestations of the Light of Christ, by which all men know good from evil (Alma 12:31-32; D&C 84:46-48).

Such direct manifestations of the mind and will of God are known as gifts and are contrasted with signs. Gifts always have a spiritual component, even when they have a physical aspect. Signs are physical manifestations of the power of God and are a form of revelation from God, though they may be counterfeited and misinterpreted. Signs may show that God is at work, but spiritual gifts are required to know how one should respond.<ref> Chauncey R. Riddle, "Revelation," ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992 and 2007).</ref></blockquote>

===Revelation is received, interpreted, transmitted, and recalled through human systems and processes===
Revelation is inextricably tied to the human processes we all possess as children of God— most especially our aural, visual ( these perhaps more in the case of visions), sensory (in the case of peace, burning in the bosom, etc.), and cognitive systems and processes (perhaps more in the case of spiritual promptings, dreams, etc.). Since God, angels, and man are of the same species (3 Nephi 28:10; Moses 6:9), the Spirit of Revelation is given by the power of the Holy Ghost (Alma 5:46; Moroni 10:8, 13-14, 17-18), the Holy Ghost works through the Light of Christ (Doctrine and Covenants 84:45-53), the Light of Christ gives light and life to all things (Alma 28:14; Doctrine and Covenants 88:7-12), and our souls are composed of our spirit and our physical body intimately intertwined (D&C 88:15), it seems theologically unavoidable to say that revelation will come through these systems and processes. Thus, revelation will be received, interpreted, transmitted, and even recalled (e.g. [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts|The First Vision]]) through those systems and processes.

===Revelation is given in a particular historical context.===
No revelation occurs in a vacuum. That is, no revelation is given to a prophet without a historical context, and by the same token a particular set of needs, concerns, and pressing events on the prophet leading his people at any given time. This context is either described by the text (as with the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price) or by historical research (as it is generally in the Doctrine and Covenants). This historical context is crucial to understand since the authority of a particular revelation may have only been necessary during the historical context in question. Perhaps this is what is the Lord meant in D&C 46:15 when he states that he "[suits] his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men." This is why we can have doctrines that are revealed yet not ideal (i.e. something to be updated later) such as [[Mormonism and difficult Bible questions| the legal systems of the Old Testament]].

Since every revelation has a historical context and a particular language with which it is expressed , it becomes expedient for us to familiarize ourselves with the culture and language in which that revelation was produced (a specific injunction for which is found in D&C 88:77-79).

Revelation is also accommodated to the particular needs and immediate concerns of the ''agent'' receiving it as discussed before. As such the Lord has worked through diverse means to bring about particular outcomes. This means that some things that have been revealed have only been provisional or implemented in case of contingency (see below under "What can change through revelation?" for a fuller discussion of this). This does not mean that prophets cannot overcome their historical circumstances through revelation in at least some regards. They logically have to in order to provide us soteriological or eschatological knowledge. But the point is that even that revelation comes in a historical context.

As the Lord states in Doctrine and Covenants 56:4 —

"Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good...".

Latter-day Saint doctrine states that it is a spiritual gift to understand the "diversity of operations" of the Lord [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/46.16?lang=eng#15 D&C 46:16]

===Revelation is couched in the language and expression of the agent receiving it.===
Every revelation is couched within the language of the agent receiving it which is why we have Hebrew influence in the Old Testament, Hebrew and Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon, and Jacobean, 19th century English in the Doctrine and Covenants (2 Nephi 31:3).

===Revelation is also ''accommodated'' to language and the cultural context of the agent receiving it.===
Because revelation is trying to describe a perfect being with fallen language, revelation is also ''accommodated'' to the languagof the agent receiving it as well as that agent's current understanding of God. For instance, we learn that God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), yet how can he be jealous and perfect? The Doctrine and Covenants tells us to strip ourselves from jealousies (D&C 67:10).

This isn't to say that either scripture is "more correct" in how they portray God—only that they are expressing the character, will, and acts of a perfect being through imperfect language so that we can approach an understanding of him.

Another example is the Battle of Gideon in the tenth chapter of the Book of Joshua, Joshua asks God to stop the sun so that the day was lengthened and Israelites won the battle. Read literally, this story implies that the sun was moving and God made it stop moving. Today, we know that the earth orbits around the sun rather than the other way around. So what's going on? God is ''accommodating'' the Israelites geocentric view of our solar system to communicate a divine message/miracle. This is important: culture indeed is embedded into all revelation; but it does not fundamentally override the divine origin of that revelation nor the ability that revelation has to communicate accurate truths about God and the world around us.

A final example might be how Scripture consistently uses the word "man" to refer to "male and female"— typical of ordinary conversation then and now. This has understandably drawn some discomfort from female readers of the scriptures—feeling that this might be an example of soft sexism in Scripture. Of course, the scriptures do mean to include both males and females in their messages when saying "man" or "mankind", but typical linguistic conventions were used to communicate that divine message.

The Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that:
<blockquote>
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}}
</blockquote>

So since people can't learn all that there is to know about God in one revelation, God simply seeks to bring knowledge about himself to that person seeking revelation while not revealing all at once. He reveals himself "line upon line." Just as a teacher teaching 101 students cannot teach them 405 concepts without the 101 students being confused, so God must accommodate learning about him to the cultural context of the agent seeking knowledge about him through revelation.

===There is no one perfect way to express revelation===

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

<blockquote>
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 fullness. 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 fullness; 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>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=2|disc=47|title=The Kingdom Of God|date=8 July 1855|start=314}}</ref>
</blockquote>

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" way of expressing a revelation. (See {{s||DC|124|12-16}}.)

===Revelation is sometimes given "from the top, down."===
Revelation is sometimes given "from the top, down." God reveals things suddenly, out of the blue, indepedent of our own cognition. These things generally overcome our present knowledge to give us knowledge about the future, eschatology, soteriology, or knowledge about individuals that we wouldn’t otherwise have. He gives us gifts, he reveals sacred information through prayers or blessings, he gives miracles. This may properly be referred to as "top-down revelation" where the Lord is placing the agent receiving the revelation in the mental state that he/or she needs to be to accomplish a particular task. This type of revelation is most sacred to Latter-day Saints. It increases our confidence that revelation is not "all in our heads" so to speak.

If revelation like this didn't exist, nothing would be "revealed" in any traditional sense and could easily be construed as self-delusion or deception. It would make it so that no law could be given that could then be subsequently subverted with claims that revelation is simply men following the dictates of their own bias. It would undermine any type of authority from revelation which we need for crucial practices and doctrines such as commandments, obedience, and repentance.

===Revelation is sometimes a matter of going "from the bottom, up".===
Often revelation does require that we first study something out in our mind ([https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/9.8?lang=eng/ D&C 9:8]). As President Russell M. Nelson has recently stated

<blockquote> . . .I know that good inspiration is based upon good information. . .<ref> Russell M. Nelson, "[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=eng Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives]," ''General Conference'' (April 2018).</ref></blockquote>

Once we have studied an issue out in our mind, it is then up to the spirit to decide which will be the best for the future. Sometimes it will confirm what we have studied out and sometimes it will cause a "stupor of thought" (D&C 9:9)

Some more "progressive members" of the Church and other critics take "bottom-up revelation" to be something different. Usually it is thought that if one places enough public pressure on the Church that it will change it's doctrines. This should not be expected or practiced (see below under "common necessity, not common demand").

===All revelation is wisdom that is ''largely'' independent of the agent receiving it.===
All revelation, whether more "bottom, up" or "top, down" is wisdom that is largely independent of the agent receiving it. This simply means that God is primarily the one who chooses the symbols that revelation attaches itself to not the prophet. Were it not so, nothing would be "revealed" in any coherent sense and rather be closer to a concoction of bias and self-delusion that can change with any wind of opposition. We have prophets for the ''opposite'' reason — to ''not'' be swayed with every wind of doctrine and to come to a unity of faith (Ephesians 4:11-15). This does not mean that revelation doesn't have a human component to it — that it isn't couched in human language and expression, that it can't have [[Question: How can one view contradictions in Scripture in a faithful way?|tensions]], updates, etc. Only that, in the moment of revelation, if that revelation is faithfully received, interpreted, and recorded, that it should be authoritative for our lives.

===The authority/success of recorded revelation differs between books of scripture===
How successful revelation is depends entirely on the agent who receives it and how willing they are to receive, interpret, and record/transmit that revelation as faithfully as possible. Such is why the Book of Mormon so [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query=Preserve&facet=scriptures&subfacet=bofm&highlight=true&page=1 strongly emphasizes the need to keep good records of God's dealings with his children]. Joseph Smith [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/128.9?lang=eng wrote] to the Saints that:

<blockquote>
9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?</blockquote>

Thus, how authoritatively the Bible reads may be read differently than how, say, the Doctrine and Covenants reads — where the former relies primarily on oral tradition, memory, and preserved written records to do history that ''approaches'' the original revelation and the latter relies primarily on Joseph Smith simply dictating the words that he feels impressed to dictate and having a scribe record it in real-time. This [[Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes|does not mean]] that the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes "fax-from-God" revelation (i.e. infallibilism), but simply that it is read more authoritatively than the Bible. One will readily see, however, that the emendations to the Doctrine and Covenants do not change the core integrity/idea of the first revelation. If they do, then they remove knowledge that wouldn't be relevant to future Latter-day Saints.

Keep in mind as well that just because a revelation is not recorded nor included in the canon of scripture of the Latter-day Saints, that a revelation was not received. For example, the teachings of Alma to his son Corianton are not expressed in Alma 40 as a dictated revelation from God. Rather, it is clearly just items of instruction from Alma to his son. Just because a revelation is not recorded here nor included in the Book of Mormon, does not necessarily mean that Alma's teachings did not come from revelation. We thus need to be careful of not making the mistake that just because something is not expressed as a revelation that a revelation isn't behind those teachings. There may be no revelation behind such teachings but there may be one.

===Revelation is given to prophets "line upon line; precept upon precept"===

"Line upon line" has two features:

# It reveals core truths over time directly to the prophet.
# It makes small addenda to a few previous revelations without threatening the core integrity of the first revelation—immediately suggesting its sometimes corrective nature—and the original revelation being an accommodation to the first people receiving it. This is perhaps what the Lord meant to express in D&C 46:15 when he states that he "[suits] his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men."

An example of this is found in Doctrine and Covenants 19. It states:

<blockquote>
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my glory.

[. . .]

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore

11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.</blockquote>

====What can change through revelation?====
It becomes the question of some from time to time how we can know what is subject to change and what is not subject to change. To answer this question we should look at it theologically. We should ask ourselves and think logically about what God might want to reveal line upon line and "change" in our theology.

Things that Can Change Day to Day

As it regards hamartiological matters (theology dealing with sin and the nature of sin), these things can change from day to day. The things that God sees as pleasing and not pleasing can change how they like. The Lord tells us this in [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/56.4?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 56:4]:

<blockquote>4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.</blockquote>

Things That Could Change From Day to Day But Don't for a Reason

Ecclesiological matters (pertaining to Church organization) would logically be subject to change only when there is a particular need to change Church government. In Old Testament times there was a prophet and the immigrating people-nation of Israel. Under Christ, 12 apostles (or "disciples" depending on which Gospel you read) carried authority to preach the Gospel and administer the ordinances pertaining to that Gospel and 70 men were called to fulfill a similar call. In modern times, the early restored Church under Joseph Smith [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCde2ZHDxns started from something] slightly different from that and progressed to what was present in the ancient Church quickly. Today, having a First Presidency, Quorum of Twelve Apostles, Seventies, Teachers, Priests, Deacons, Bishops, and so forth acts as an identifier for those seeking the Lord's Church. Additionally, having a wide variety of offices ensures that the needs of a global church are met. Thus, it is unlikely that such offices will change. With a growing populace of members, it is more likely that more men and women will need to be called to provide leadership in those positions without the types of positions changing.

Ordinances necessary for salvation could also change dramatically in amount necessary, type performed, presentation of such ordinances, and so forth. These don't change as they act as effective identifiers for people to find the Lord's Church.

Things That Are (or should be) Revealed in a Linear, Upward Process and Become More Static with Time.

Soteriological matters (that relating to doctrine of afterlife and salvation) come line upon line, precept upon precept, and are crystallized with each subsequent revelation regarding them. The Lord has revealed one reason why we might not know everything about the afterlife right now. As Doctrine and Covenants 19:7 tells us, somethings are revealed as they are to "work upon the hearts of the children of men". Thus, the degree to which we understand the afterlife is contingent upon what will motivate us to repent and what we are prepared to receive. Here we don't have room for contradiction but much more room for adding to a proposition and developing it gradually to a crystallized view of the afterlife. Soteriology as it stands today in the Restored Church is fairly developed with only a few more questions such as [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Do_Mormons_believe_that_there_is_there_progression_between_the_three_degrees_of_glory%3F progression between kingdoms of glory].

Eschatological matters (relating to understanding of the end of times) really don't have room for contradictory understandings. The Lord has motivation to reveal more relating to eschatology as we progress closer and closer to eschatological times so that we are prepared for them. This is the general pattern followed by the scriptures and will likely continue.

Theogony (or the doctrine of the origin of God) may develop slightly. The only real question remaining is that of the [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Infinite_regress_of_Gods infinite regress of Gods].

Things That have No Reason to be Revealed More than Once or to Have an Ongoing, Crystallizing Understanding

Matters pertaining to cosmology, mariology (theology relating to the character and nature of Mary, mother of Jesus), anthropology (the nature of man in relation to God), angelology (theology regarding angels), christology (theology relating to the character and nature of Jesus Christ), demonology (theology relating to the character and nature of demons), pneumatology (theology relating to the character and nature of the Holy Ghost), the nature of the Godhead and so forth have little room for changing in understanding since they all pertain to the study of essential characteristics or behavior that is independent of all other individuals.

Along with the above, missiology (theology relating to the purpose and manner of performing missionary work) and [[Holy Ghost/ Latter-day Saint Epistemology| epistemology]] (the study of knowledge, its limits, and how it is characterized) in the Latter-day Saint tradition have no reason to change in understanding.

Generally speaking, we should be approaching a static ideal as we get closer to judgement day.

===A lot of revelation comes simply by treasuring up the words of God in our minds and having the spirit witness to us in the moment of need what to do or say===

We are commanded to treasure up the words of God in our minds. He promises us that they will tell us all things we might do or say in the moment of need (see 2 Nephi 32:3 and D&C 84:85). He promises also that as we study issues out in our mind and ask for confirmation that he will give it (D&C 9:7-9)

===Sometimes we are required to actively seek a revelation to receive it===

As taught in the Doctrine and Covenants "And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed." (D&C 1:26) We must all be active in our search for revelation on any given matter. God does intervene frequently however. The best way to understand under what circumstances is to read the scriptures and the [[Question: If every President of the Church is a prophet, seer, and revelator, why have so few revelations after Joseph Smith been added to the Doctrine and Covenants?|words of the prophets themselves]] and judge the matter for ourselves. It does seem that God is revealing new knowledge on a very frequent basis from reading their words.

===Many times, we do not need the Lord to command us in action— especially when what we are going to do or are doing is a good thing===

[https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.27?lang=eng#26 Doctrine and Covenants 58:27]

<blockquote>27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;</blockquote>

===Some things weren't meant to be made known in this life===
States the Apostle Paul:
"For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12).

Elder David A. Bednar [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTa15a3mp0&t=77s/ compares] this pattern of light to walking through fog on a sunny day (and also reveals other patterns of light), where we have just enough light to press into the darkness but not so much as to know ''exactly'' where we are going. Eventually, as the Doctrine of Covenants teaches, all will be revealed at the second coming (Doctrine and Covenants 101:32-34)--the light will grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day (Doctrine and Covenants 50:24).

===Revelation comes because of common necessity and not common demand.===
Revelation always comes at a time of common necessity and not common demand. We may demand that a particular thing bend to our political view or whim, however that is not how the Lord operates. As Alma [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/42.22?lang=eng#21 teaches]:

<blockquote>21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?</blockquote>

Some believe that if they put enough pressure on the Church that it will change its doctrines regarding things which do not conform to their particular political agenda. If such people actually wanted to build a Zion of "one heart and one mind" (Moses 7:18; Doctrine and Covenants 38:27) they would not seek to build strife in the kingdom and seek more compromise, more patience, and deeper study. They would not seek to subvert authority to follow the God of their own image (Doctrine and Covenants 1:16).

There are good examples of such "bottom-up revelation". However, they usually take the form of new policies and practices that come without ''any'' revelation. Such is easily fit into the definition of "being anxiously engaged in a good cause and doing things of our own free will" (Doctrine and Covenants 58:27-28).

We act in doctrine (D&C 101:78). We accept the light we have received now and receive whatever additional future light is given with gladness. If one does not act in accordance to the commandments of God, such is sin.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]

[[de:Frage: Wie verstehen Heilige der Letzten Tage Offenbarung?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo hacen los mormones entienden revelación profética?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como os Mórmons entendem as revelações proféticas?]]

Question: Was Moses a real person?

2022-04-12T00:52:48Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Biblical scholarship still holds the possibility of a Moses like figure in history */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Was Moses a real person?==
===Biblical scholarship still holds the possibility of a Moses-like figure in history, which is backed up by Latter-day Saint scripture===
Some have wondered, based upon findings from Biblical scholarship, if Moses is an actual person from history. Biblical scholarship doesn’t rule out the possibility of Moses’ existence or of a Moses-like figure in history—it only doubts that a lot of the miracles ascribed to him occurred (which is a natural skepticism). Biblical scholars generally see several things that can help affirm some sort of existence. Among these are his authentic Egyptian name (“moseh”) meaning “is born”, the evidence for some form of Israelite exodus, and so on. It has been said that even if none of the traditions of the Pentateuch originated from Moses, scholars would still have to posit his existence since Israelite religion seems a deliberate innovation, not a natural outgrowth.<ref>William H.C. Propp, “Moses” in ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 921–22. For more on the historicity of Moses see Richard Elliot Friedman, ''The Exodus'' (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2017); and William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2001).</ref>

As Latter-day Saints, we have further evidence of Moses in The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. He appeared in the Kirtland Temple and gave the keys of the priesthood he held to Joseph Smith in April 1836 (D&C 110).
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Was Moses a real person?

2022-04-12T00:51:51Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Biblical scholarship still holds the possibility of a Moses like figure in history */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Was Moses a real person?==
===Biblical scholarship still holds the possibility of a Moses like figure in history===
Some have wondered, based upon findings from Biblical scholarship, if Moses is an actual person from history. Biblical scholarship doesn’t rule out the possibility of Moses’ existence or of a Moses-like figure in history—it only doubts that a lot of the miracles ascribed to him occurred (which is a natural skepticism). Biblical scholars generally see several things that can help affirm some sort of existence. Among these are his authentic Egyptian name (“moseh”) meaning “is born”, the evidence for some form of Israelite exodus, and so on. It has been said that even if none of the traditions of the Pentateuch originated from Moses, scholars would still have to posit his existence since Israelite religion seems a deliberate innovation, not a natural outgrowth.<ref>William H.C. Propp, “Moses” in ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 921–22. For more on the historicity of Moses see Richard Elliot Friedman, ''The Exodus'' (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2017); and William G. Dever, ''What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2001).</ref>

As Latter-day Saints, we have further evidence of Moses in The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. He appeared in the Kirtland Temple and gave the keys of the priesthood he held to Joseph Smith in April 1836 (D&C 110).
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?

2022-04-04T23:46:33Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?==
===The Proclamation was already being written by Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks when the Hawaii case came up===
It is claimed by some that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage. This is clearly not the case:

<blockquote>During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based proclamation to set forth the Church’s doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft. Their work, for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received.

Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed proclamation under advisement and made needed amendments. Then on September 23, 1995, in the general Relief Society meeting held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and broadcast throughout the world, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” publicly for the first time.

During the period that the proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts….<ref>Richard E. Turley Jr., ''In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.</ref></blockquote>

===Boyd K. Packer gives additional context===

Boyd K. Packer gave further context to the Proclamation’s Origin:
<blockquote> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position.”<ref> Boyd K. Packer, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=180 The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character,]" CES Fireside (2 February 2003).</ref></blockquote>

===The doctrines have long been taught by the Church===
The doctrines contained within the Proclamation are doctrines long taught by the Church. We [[Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?| address this]] elsewhere on the wiki.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith

2022-04-03T03:41:12Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
{{H1
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven
|H=Response to ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''
|S=
|L1=
|T=Under the Banner of Heaven
|A=Jon Krakauer
|<=
|>=
}}

<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven
|H=Response to claims made in ''Under the Banner of Heaven'' by Jon Krakauer
|S=
|L1=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Prologue"
|L2=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 1: The City of the Saints"
|L3=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 4: Elizabeth and Ruby"
|L4=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 5: The Second Great Awakening"
|L5=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 6: Cumorah"
|L6=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 17: Exodus"
|L7=Response to claims made in Under the Banner of Heaven, "Chapter 18: For Water Will Not Do"
|L8="The Justin Wise Dialogues" by Ron Hellings
|L9=Craig L. Foster, "Doing Violence to Journalistic Integrity"
|L10=Paul McNabb, editor's introduction to Richard E. Turley, "Faulty History: A Review of Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith"
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Prologue}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 1}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 4}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 5}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 6}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 17}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/Chapter 18}}

==Reviews of this work==

{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Under the Banner of Heaven/The Justin Wise Dialogues}}

{{MaxwellInstituteBar
|link=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1579&context=msr
|title=Doing Violence to Journalistic Integrity
|author=Craig L. Foster
|publication=The FARMS Review
|vol=16
|num=1
|date=2004
|summary=The noted author Paul Fussell once commented, "If I didn't have writing, I'd be running down the street hurling grenades in people's faces."1 Perhaps the same could be said about Jon Krakauer. Both he and his works are complex, introspective, and, without doubt, "in your face" and controversial. Krakauer is fascinated by people who are on the edge physically and emotionally, those who push the limits to the extreme. His writing reflects this fascination as he tries to define for his reading audience what it is like to go to extremes. Krakauer has succeeded where many others have failed because he is, without argument, a gifted writer. His text flows seamlessly, creating a literary picture that touches a reader to the very core.
 
Krakauer has used his writing talents to look at the fringes of the Latter-day Saint community in his book Under the Banner of Heaven, in which he examines the double murders committed in 1984 by the ex-Mormon brothers Ron and Dan Lafferty and explores the fundamentalist communities of Colorado City-Hildale on the Utah-Arizona border and Bountiful in British Columbia.2 His accounts of murder and seduction are mixed with events and teachings in Latter-day Saint history in an attempt to portray these fringe elements as murderous and libidinous offspring of a religion steeped in its own history of violence and quirkiness.
}}

{{PerspectivesBar
|link=http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/turley-Krakauer.pdf
|title=Faulty History: A Review of ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith''
|author=Paul McNabb, editor's introduction to Richard E. Turley
|authorlink=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/turley-richard
|publication=FairMormon Papers
|summary=In July 2003, popular author Jon Krakauer released a book arguing that religious faith in general, and the faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular, often motivates violence in its believers. Since its organization in 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ has been the subject of many lurid and sensational publications, each purporting to reveal the true and sordid fact of the lives of Latter-day Saint leaders and members. Despite the claims of objectivity and historical accuracy, such publications consistently display the same pattern: an agenda-driven effort selectively drawing on rumor and half-truths, clothed in the trappings of historical scholarship.
 
Unfortunately for those wanting to know more about Latter-day Saint history or the possible relationship between religious belief and violence, Krakauer's ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith'' suffers from these same fatal flaws.
}}

* {{BYUS | author=Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp | article=Jon Krakauer. ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith'' (review)|vol=43|num=4|date=2004|start=157|end=160 }} {{pdflink|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/under-the-banner-of-heaven-a-story-of-violent-faith/}}

Response to Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith

2022-04-03T03:37:39Z

TrevorHolyoak:

Question: What is the "second anointing"?

2022-03-09T19:15:42Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: What is the "second anointing"? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the "second anointing"?==
===The second anointing is an ordinance performed in the temple. It is not regarded as an essential ordinance which one must receive in this life for exaltation===
{{templedisclaimer}}

FAIR occasionally receives questions about a temple ordinance called "the second anointing." The questions usually revolve around the following issues:
# "What is the second anointing?"
# "Is this account of the second anointing that I've seen accurate?"

The second anointing is an ordinance performed in the temple. It is not regarded as an essential ordinance which one must receive in this life for exaltation; but will be necessary in the next life. In the early Utah period, this ordinance was performed more openly than it is today.

Those who receive the second anointing and keep their temple covenants would never discuss the specifics in any public forum. Written accounts that purport to describe the second anointing should be viewed with extreme caution and skepticism.

FAIR is confident that no faithful Latter-day Saint would want to learn about such a sacred matter from unauthorized sources. Furthermore, no Latter-day Saint would wisely seek such information prematurely, any more than a parent would want a child to read an unauthorized transcript of the temple endowment prior to attending the temple for the first time.

Adequate, reliable, circumspect information can be found in recent Church publications on the subjects of "calling and election made sure," "fullness of the priesthood," and "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise." For an excellent example, see Bruce R. McConkie's article in the [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=6fffb8c96c89b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____ June 1978] ''New Era'', a publication sanctioned by the Brethren, entitled "Celestial Marriage":

<blockquote>
In order to get a proper marriage one must do this: first, search for and seek out celestial marriage—find the right ordinance; second, look for a legal administrator, someone who holds the sealing power—and that power is exercised only in the temples that the Lord has had built by the tithing and sacrifice of his people in our day; and third, so live in righteousness, uprightness, integrity, virtue, and morality that he is entitled to have the Holy Spirit of God ratify and seal and justify and approve, and in that event his marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and is binding in time and in eternity.
</blockquote>

===It is worthwhile to study what Joseph Smith and the apostles taught on these subjects while temple ordinances were being restored in Nauvoo===

It is worthwhile to study what Joseph Smith and the apostles taught on these subjects while temple ordinances were being restored in Nauvoo. Wilford Woodruff summarized one of Brigham Young's addresses in his journal which is cited in ''History of the Church'' (Vol. 5 p. 527):

<blockquote>
He also remarked that if any in the Church had the fullness of the Melchisedec Priesthood, he did not know it. For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest. A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England. A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom.
</blockquote>

We recommend reading respected Mormon historians {{BYUS|author=Ronald K. Esplin|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5475 Joseph, Brigham, and the Twelve: A succession of continuity]|vol=21|num=3|pages=301-342}} and {{RSR}} for further exposition and context for this teaching.

Heber C. Kimball noted that even being "sealed up to eternal lives" will do no good if one breaks their covenants,
<blockquote>
Some will come with great zeal and anxiety, saying, "I want my endowments; I want my washings and anointings; I want my blessings; I wish to be sealed up to eternal lives; I wish to have my wife sealed and my children sealed to me;" in short, "I desire this and I wish that." What good would all this do you, if you do not live up to your profession and practise your religion? Not as much good as for me to take a bag of sand and baptize it, lay hands upon it for the gift of the Holy Ghost, wash it and anoint, and then seal it up to eternal lives, for the sand will be saved, having filled the measure of its creation, but you will not, except through faith and obedience. Those little pebbles and particles of sand gather themselves together and are engaged, as with one heart and mind, to accomplish a purpose in nature. Do they not keep the mighty ocean in its place by one united exertion? And if we were fully united we could resist and overcome every evil principle there is on earth or in hell {{ea}}.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=3|disc=17|start=124}}</ref>
</blockquote>

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}



[[fr:Modèle:Templedisclaimer]]

Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?

2022-03-07T18:37:21Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* FAIR provides information and opinions, but does not speak for the Church */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?==
===FAIR provides information and opinions, but does not speak for the Church===

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? To whom can one turn for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

It is important to first recognize that FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FAIR is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. The FAIR [http://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/faq.html FAQ article] reads:

<blockquote>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

It is important to keep in mind that speaking ''as an authorized representative'' is not the same as speaking ''authoritatively.'' FAIR does not present itself as being authorized by the Church to speak on its behalf and declare or clarify points of doctrine and therefore is not an authorized representative of the Church. However, we do attempt to speak authoritatively by providing answers that use the most up-to-date information from LDS and non-LDS sources, and that reference the most authoritative statements from our leadership on a particular subject. As such, FAIR attempts to speak authoritatively on matters to the best of our ability but specifically disavows any claim of speaking on behalf of the Church.

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more common for the local members to ask Joseph Smith for his teachings on various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of many millions, and it is unreasonable to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements, but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . . <ref>{{s||DC|58|26-28}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Is it a mistake to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? We think not.

Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Many problems which members encounter often stem from the mistaken belief that what they have been told my someone in the Church is somehow ''the'' Church position, or an official stance of the Church. When they encounter problems, they assume that the Church is in error—in fact, the error may be in what others have ''presumed'' is the Church's official position—on many issues, the Church has no official position.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. <ref>{{s||DC|130|18-19}}</ref>
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply hoping someone else will tell us the answers to memorize.

Members of FAIR, teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have the latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

===But if I want an official answer, how do I get it?===

Interested parties should realize that for many issues, there simply ''is'' no official Church position. On questions of history, for example, the Church has very few official positions or perspectives. While the Church insists that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and Jesus Christ, did translate the Book of Mormon, and did receive the restored priesthood, it has no official doctrine or position on the historical details surrounding these events. The Church will, for example, insist that the priesthood was restored. The Church may not, by contrast, have an official position on where that restoration occurred, what led to it, or even upon which date it happened.

Official doctrine is usually easy to determine. When FAIR is aware of an official doctrine or position statement, we attempt to provide it, with references so interested readers can check the sources for themselves. In all other cases, we try to describe the spectrum of LDS thought on a given issue, while noting that more than one point of view is held by faithful members of the Church.

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?

2022-03-07T18:35:59Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Does FAIR provide "official" answers to questions?==
===FAIR provides information and opinions, but does not speak for the Church===

FAIR's articles, responses to [http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php "Ask the Apologist"] queries, etc., contain a disclaimer to the effect that FAIR volunteers and authors are not speaking authoritatively for the Church (or even for FAIR itself) but only giving their personal opinion or perspective on each issue or question.

Why should anyone listen to FAIR, then, if they can't speak with authority for the Church? To whom can one turn for the authorized, "final answer" on every topic?

FAIR need not speak with the authority of the Church itself, or be an official representative of the Church, in order to provide a useful resource for people to gain a better understanding of Latter-day Saint history and teachings. Further, it is not necessarily correct for us to expect to turn to our Church leaders, particularly the general authorities, for the answer to every single question on a gospel topic.

On many issues, there ''is'' no official Church position, and so there is nothing that an official Church response will provide. In such cases, members are encouraged to use their agency to "study it out in [their] mind" as they seek knowledge and revelation from human and divine sources.

It is important to first recognize that FAIR is an organization completely independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. FAIR is not owned or endorsed by the Church as an official mouthpiece, so FAIR ''cannot'' claim any official status. The FAIR [http://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/faq.html FAQ article] reads:

<blockquote>
We try very hard to not give the impression that we are speaking for the Church in any way. We are not affiliated with the Church. We therefore try to avoid doctrinal declarations. Most of the time it isn't an issue as we are discussing things from a historical or scholarly point of view. Occasionally we get into discussions of doctrine when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented. At those times the writers are speaking from their own experience and beliefs.
</blockquote>

This seems to raise two questions in our readers' minds from time to time, which we will address separately below.

===Of what value are FAIR's answers if they lack authority to speak for the Church?===

Only the Church's duly authorized agents can speak officially on behalf of the Church or give official pronouncements which establish doctrine that is binding upon the Church. However, is this necessarily a problem when considering answers coming from a group such as FAIR?

There are many questions that people have, and there is plenty of benefit to having brothers and sisters in the faith "reason together" and learn from one another, and not expect to simply look to someone to give the one, final answer to any question. In this author's opinion, the Lord and Church leaders are wise to leave us to the exercise of working out these things and developing our mental and spiritual capacities to gain more understanding.

While the responses to issues offered by FAIR volunteers are not official statements by the Church, we believe them to be consistent with the Church's official teachings and are given by faithful, active, believing LDS members. These responses need not carry an official endorsement to be true or helpful in answering questions.

It is important to keep in mind that speaking ''as an authorized representative'' is not the same as speaking ''authoritatively.'' FAIR does not present itself as being authorized by the Church to speak on its behalf and declare or clarify points of doctrine and therefore is not an authorized representative of the Church. However, we do attempt to speak authoritatively by providing answers that use the most up-to-date information from LDS and non-LDS sources, and that reference the most authoritative statements from our leadership on a particular subject. As such, FAIR attempts to speak authoritatively on matters to the best of our ability but specifically disavows any claim of speaking on behalf of the Church.

FAIR's main mission is to answer criticisms about the Church, and we can certainly do so based on what we know, can study, and reason, as well as what the Spirit guides us to say as we prayerfully consider these issues, without necessarily receiving this as an official calling or going to the First Presidency to speak on each and every issue.

===If FAIR is not an official voice for the Church, to whom do I turn for the official answer to my question?===

In the early days of the Church, it was more common for the local members to ask Joseph Smith for his teachings on various matters. Obviously, the logistics involved in running a church of 500 members is rather different than it is with a church of many millions, and it is unreasonable to expect the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve to be able to teach all the individual members who have questions. The Church, of course, ''does'' make official doctrinal statements, but generally only on significantly important "core" issues. There is much room for all of us to study and learn independently and in local groups.

Beyond that, we do not need a "thus saith the Lord" answer to every question. We at FAIR sustain and support the leaders of the Church and follow their direction in matters of doctrine and the operation of the Church, but that doesn't mean we ''must'' look to someone else to provide us with ''the'' answer to every question we have. The Lord Himself commanded us:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. . . . <ref>{{s||DC|58|26-28}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Is it a mistake to assume that at least some of these good works that we are to be engaged in include studying the gospel and striving to learn more through the scriptures, personal prayer, discussions with each other, and by reading the best books? We think not.

Along with not expecting us to remain idle until explicitly commanded to do something, the Lord expects us to seek knowledge and learn and grow without simply being told what to think about everything.

Many problems which members encounter often stem from the mistaken belief that what they have been told my someone in the Church is somehow ''the'' Church position, or an official stance of the Church. When they encounter problems, they assume that the Church is in error—in fact, the error may be in what others have ''presumed'' is the Church's official position—on many issues, the Church has no official position.

Further,
<blockquote>
Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. <ref>{{s||DC|130|18-19}}</ref>
</blockquote>
An important part of the process of gaining this knowledge and intelligence is working diligently to study and learn, and not simply hoping someone else will tell us the answers to memorize.

Members of FAIR, teachers among the membership of the Church, and even our Church leaders have the latitude to hold and express their best understanding of various topics, even to publish books (e.g., Elder Bruce R. McConkie's ''Mormon Doctrine''). Since none of these talks, lessons, papers, blogs, conversations, or books have been accepted into the canon, they are not binding as 'the official word of the Church itself.' Does that mean they are useless to help us gain more understanding? No, there's much we can learn from each other, even if we're imperfect in our understanding along the way.

===But if I want an official answer, how do I get it?===

Interested parties should realize that for many issues, there simply ''is'' no official Church position. On questions of history, for example, the Church has very few official positions or perspectives. While the Church insists that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and Jesus Christ, did translate the Book of Mormon, and did receive the restored priesthood, it has no official doctrine or position on the historical details surrounding these events. The Church will, for example, insist that the priesthood was restored. The Church may not, by contrast, have an official position on where that restoration occurred, what led to it, or even upon which date it happened.

Official doctrine is usually easy to determine. When FAIR is aware of an official doctrine or position statement, we attempt to provide it, with references so interested readers can check the sources for themselves. In all other cases, we try to describe the spectrum of LDS thought on a given issue, while noting that more than one point of view is held by faithful members of the Church.

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

2022-02-22T22:56:00Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Introduction to Question */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?==
===Introduction to Question===
[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] views the practice of masturbation to be sinful.<ref>Wikipedia has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_and_masturbation#Timeline_of_teachings_and_events pretty good timeline] documenting the Church's attitudes towards masturbation over time. There are some aspects of the article that may be misleading. Caution and discernment is advised in accepting some of the analysis presented.</ref> The Church's current handbook for leaders (2020; 2021) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number35 lists] abstaining from masturbation as among the standards of conduct placed on Church members. But it states that "a [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_membership_council church membership council] is not held for" it. "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&para=title_number108-p363#title_number108 However, a council may be necessary for intensive and compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family]," which usually is accompanied by masturbation. The rulebook for the Church's missionaries (2019) [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/missionary-standards-for-disciples-of-jesus-christ/3-missionary-conduct?lang=eng#title_number6 says] to "avoid any thought or action that would separate you from the Spirit of God. This includes but is not limited to adultery; fornication; same-sex activity; oral sex; arousing sexual feelings; inappropriate touching; sending or receiving messages, images, or videos that are immoral or sexual in nature; masturbation; and viewing or using pornography (see 7.5.3). See ''For the Strength of Youth'' (2011), 'Repentance,' 28–29, for additional information." The youth pamphlet [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng ''For the Strength of Youth''] (2011) has said to "not do anything…that arouses sexual
feelings" and to "not arouse [sexual] emotions in your own body."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf ''For the Strength of Youth''] (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2011), 36. While the pamphlet is more directly addressed to youth, it is clear from reading the actual pamphlet that Church leaders hope that youth will carry the attitudes and standards gleaned from the pamphlet into adulthood. Thus, the pamphlet should be viewed as a relevant text for Latter-day Saints of all ages.</ref> ''True to the Faith'' (2004), a doctrinal reference work written for Church members of all ages and approved by the First Presidency, tells members to “[d]etermine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body.”<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36863_eng.pdf?lang=fin ''True to the Faith''] (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004), 32.</ref> Church leaders have long been clear that masturbation should not be regarded nearly as bad as other sexual practices, but that it is bad enough to require sincere repentance.<ref>See, for instance, Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78. President Kimball makes comments about homosexuality as he perceived they relate to masturbation here. For info on this, see under "Causing Homosexuality?" in Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/?fbclid=IwAR1WXa2QthbFtucrlcAskS2OLg4KUs6xIQ0BXyFw52e2p6qFL14TWiWpA_I#section-h Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–15. One can also see our wiki article on it [[Question: Did Mormon leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation?|here]].</ref>

Many have wondered why the Church takes this stance. Much of the modern scientific community views the practice as normal in humans of all ages. Many benefits are associated with masturbation such as improved sleep, a better immune system, a better cardiovascular system, reduced stress, and reduced sexual tension—especially when a partner is not available, whether by their own choice or not, for sexual relations. Certain health professionals recommend masturbating to mitigate tension in relationships where one partner has a higher libido than the other and doesn’t want to demand intercourse of the lower libido partner (or the lower libido partner doesn’t want to accept demands). There are a number of health issues that can cause pain (aka “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyspareunia dyspareunia]”) for one or both partners during sex. A number of psychological issues can also limit someone from enjoying partnered sex such as trauma. For some of these conditions, there are certain health professionals that recommend masturbation as a form of treatment for the patient or as a release for their partner. Prior to marriage and after engagement, it is sometimes recommended that men and women masturbate in order to explore their bodies and determine what kind of touch they would like during intercourse. There is at least ''some'' evidence (though currently inconclusive) that more frequent ejaculation in men can result in reduced risk of prostate cancer.<ref>For a positive case, see R. Morgan Griffin, "Can Sex, Masturbation Affect Prostate Cancer Risk?" ''WebMD'', accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/ejaculation-prostate-cancer-risk. Literature reviews, however, have been inconclusive as to whether masturbation is the cause of reduced risk of prostate cancer. See Rui Miguel Costa, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20180610082922/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-012-9956-0 Masturbation is related to psychopathology and prostate dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)]," ''Archives of Sexual Behavior'' 41, no. 3 (2012): 539–540; Aboul-Enein, Basil H., Joshua Bernstein, and Michael W. Ross, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20210331093647/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2050052116000780 Evidence for Masturbation and Prostate Cancer Risk: Do We Have a Verdict?]" ''Sexual Medicine Reviews'' 4, no. 3 (2016): 229–234; Zhongyu Jian et al, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20201111201129/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609518310646 Sexual Activity and Risk of Prostate Cancer: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis]," ''The Journal of Sexual Medicine'' 15, no. 9 (September 2018), 1300–09.; Nathan P. Papa et al, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20201111215917/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1078143917301072 Ejaculatory frequency and the risk of aggressive prostate cancer: Findings from a case-control study]," ''Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations'' 35, no. 8 (August 2017): 530.e7–530.e13.</ref> Limited evidence suggests that orgasm might help females relieve pain from menstrual cramps and increase their pain threshold.<ref>Beverly Whipple et. al, “[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4000685/ Elevation of pain threshold by vaginal stimulation in women],” ''Pain'' 21, no. 4 (April 1985): 357–67.</ref> Orgasm has also been correlated with relief from headaches in some individuals.<ref>Colleen Doherty, “Can an Orgasm Cure My Headache?” ''VeryWell Health'', last updated September 7, 2021, https://www.verywellhealth.com/orgasm-headache-migraine-1718250.</ref> A 2008 study at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabriz_University_of_Medical_Sciences Tabriz University of Medical Sciences] in Iran found that ejaculation in men can help reduce swollen nasal blood vessels (nasal congestion).<ref>David Robson, “Masturbation could bring hay fever relief for men,” ''New Scientist'', April 1, 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men/?ignored=irrelevant.</ref> Masturbation is seen as having an evolutionary utility in that it flushes out low [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motility motility] sperm in men so that higher motility sperm will compete to more quickly reach a female egg and fertilize it. In earlier days of human evolutionary development, men competed for females to mate with. Women would be inseminated multiple times by different partners. Thus, evolution allegedly instilled in men a need to masturbate in order to have have agile sperm and get offspring before other men. For women, masturbation can change the state of the cervix, vagina, and uterus and make chances of conception more likely if climaxing one minute before [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insemination insemination] and 45 minutes after. It can increase acidic content in the cervical mucus as well as move debris out of the cervix to protect against cervical infection.

This article will explore why the Church might take the stance that it does on masturbation even given the potential benefits of it. Almost all of these points apply to a discussion about pornography. This article can thus be considered a response outlining the Church’s potential rationale against masturbation as well as pornography.

===Response to Question===
====Sexual Desire is a Fundamentally Good Thing====

Before we proceed with the rest of our response, it should be first noted and emphasized that our sexual desires are fundamentally good things, given to us by God to be used for “strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” and bringing children into this world.<ref>David A. Bednar, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/05/saturday-afternoon-session/we-believe-in-being-chaste.html?lang=eng#title1 We Believe in Being Chaste],” ''Ensign'' 43, no. 5 (May 2013): 42.</ref> As ''For the Strength of Youth'' says, "[p]hysical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf ''For the Strength of Youth''], 35. This same attitude about sexuality is reflected in the [https://issuu.com/vintageldspamphlets/docs/for-the-strength-of-youth-1990 1990] and [http://manmrk.net/tutorials/pda/b/PDF/Church/Youth/Books/ForStrengYouth.pdf 2001] editions of the pamphlet. Other editions of the pamphlet do not directly address sexual purity.</ref> Thus, sexual desire in and of itself should not be considered bad. Indeed, it should be celebrated.

As [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt Parley P. Pratt] once wrote:

<blockquote>Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are 'carnal, sensual, and devilish,' and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life … Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether.<ref>Peter L. Crawley, ed., ''The Essential Parley P. Pratt'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 124.</ref></blockquote>

All this said, since sexual desire has a proper use, it follows that it should be exercised or put to use for that purpose and that boundaries should be in place to guide us towards fulfilling that purpose. It is not a sin to have a sexual desire. It ''is'' sinful, however, to exercise that desire in illicit ways as defined by God. It is also sinful to begin to plan to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways.

====The Act is Bad. The Person is Not.====

Another thing to be emphasized is that the person that engages in masturbation is '''not''' a bad person. The ''act'' is bad. We are not "good people" and "bad people." We are ''people'' that '''''do''' good things and bad things''. It is true that Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and neither a bad tree, good fruit.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/7.15-20?lang=eng Matthew 7:15–20]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/3.11?lang=eng James 3:11]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.11?lang=eng Moroni 7:11].</ref> But, for Jesus, it is not who you are that will determine what you do; it is ''what you do'' that will determine ''who you are''. What you do creates proclivities and habits that become parts of you. Undoing one or more of those and becoming a different creature requires deliberate and sometimes ongoing self-restraint and change. This change ''can'' happen for everyone and Jesus lovingly invites us with open arms to make that change if those habits are not in line with God's will as outlined in prophetic teaching/revelation.

Jesus' view of identity is similar to that of Parable of the Two Wolves told here:

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=yWEiBIitfQM</embedvideo>

====The Scriptural Case Against Masturbation====

The scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.12,13,56,57,58,59,60?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60]</ref> Citing [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/4?lang=eng&id=17#p17 James 4:17], the Church argues on its website that "sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth[.]"<ref>"Sin," ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', accessed November 26, 2021, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/sin?lang=eng.</ref> It is logical, therefore, that if we wish to establish something as sinful, that we make our best scriptural case—since scripture contains revealed truths from God—for it actually being such. We will generally examine passages in the order they appear in the canon of scripture. Only those passages that the author believes have relevance to the question of the morality of masturbation will be cited and discussed.

'''The sexually relational telos of men and women.''' The great Greek philosopher [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle Aristotle] considered all things to have a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telos ''telos''] or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their ''telos''. Telic thinking (aka "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology teleology]") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics virtue ethics]”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their ''telos'' to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/gen/2.21-24?lang=eng&clang=eng#p21 Genesis 2:21–24]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19.3-9?lang=eng#p5#5 Matthew 19:3–9]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 49:15–17]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/3.21-24?lang=eng#p24#24 Moses 3:21–24]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/5.14-18?lang=eng#p18#18 Abraham 5:14–18]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/the-family-a-proclamation?lang=eng The Family: A Proclamation to the World]. Some may not believe that the Family Proclamation constitutes an official pronouncement of the church, but several facts contradict this view. See [[Question: Is the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" official doctrine?|this page]] for more info. Another way to argue for this ''telos'' is to cite [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.21?lang=eng Jacob 2:21] which teaches that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17] teaches that we are commanded to be married and become one flesh with our spouses.</ref> Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “''telos''.” Sexuality is thus a ''relational'' (rather than ''isolated'') act between married men and women for Latter-day Saints.<ref>It may be important to mention the differences that Latter-day Saints have with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Catholics] in views of the human sexual ''telos''. The Catholic Church's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation#Roman_Catholicism view] of human sexuality makes almost no separation between the ''unitive'' purpose of sex (bring men and women together) and the ''procreative'' purpose of it (being open to the possibility of children resulting from the sexual act). This is why the Catholic Church formally opposes all birth control besides the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods rhythm method]. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control believes] that sex should be used for at times procreative ends and at times unitive ends. When to have children and when to make use of birth control—as well as what method of birth control to use (besides elective abortion, which is generally condemned)—is between the couple and God through prayer.</ref> Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as immoral by the Church. This understanding of men and women's sexually relational telos will pervade much of the rest of our response.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis C.S. Lewis] wrote:

<blockquote>For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.<ref>C.S. Lewis, ''Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis'' (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 292–93.</ref></blockquote>

'''Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her.''' There are two verses that have been used most frequently to justify abstaining from masturbation and they are Jesus' in [https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/5.27-28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 Matthew 5:27–28]:
:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

These verses are echoed in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12.28?lang=eng&clang=eng#p28 3 Nephi 12:28], [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.23?lang=eng&clang=eng#p23 Doctrine and Covenants 42:23], and [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/63.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p16 Doctrine and Covenants 63:16].

Jason Staples, an assistant teaching professor in philosophy and religious studies at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_State_University North Carolina State University], has argued persuasively that Jesus is not condemning sexual desire in and of itself here. Rather, he is condemning ''planning to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways'' and "''fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own''." Furthermore, according to Staples, "lust" is better translated as “covet.” So, if you are making plans to engage in unlawful sexual activity (without actually engaging in that activity) with someone while either you or they are still married (or both are married to other people), you are, according to Jesus, committing adultery in your heart.<ref>Jason A. Staples, "'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1," ''Jason A. Staples'', August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.</ref> It's the difference between feeling a sexual desire towards another, on the one hand, and saying in one's mind "I should go talk to her/him and flirt with her/him to see if she'll/he’ll be turned on by it enough and come home with me" on the other. This passage, though, doesn't seem to clearly address the question of whether or not masturbation is an appropriate outlet for desire. Is someone who is married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone besides their spouse? Is someone who is not married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone who is married? Dr. Staples says this:

<blockquote>While I don’t think the Bible condemns masturbation (the usual interpretation of the Onan story doesn’t get it right), it also doesn’t seem that masturbation is “one of the proper outlets,” either. Actually, Matthew putting “and if your right hand causes you to stumble” [Matthew 5:30] immediately after this statement about coveting a woman may be seen as an indirect reference to masturbation. It’s not entirely clear, but it’s the closest thing in [the Bible] you’ll find to a statement about masturbation. Given the general outlook on sex in [the Bible], though, I’d say masturbation would not be included among the “proper outlets,” which are limited to heterosexual marital relations whenever discussed.<ref>Jason Staples, May 22, 2012 1:20pm, "Comment on," Jason Staples, “'Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust': Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1” ''Jason A. Staples'' (blog), August 20, 2009, https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/.</ref></blockquote>

A few notes regarding this comment by Dr. Staples:
#Regarding Jesus' words about the right hand causing us to stumble, Dr. Will Deming, a professor in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology theology] at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Portland University of Portland], makes a lengthy and compelling case for interpreting this passage as referring to ancient [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi rabbinic] commentaries on the Old Testament (specifically the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah Mishnah]) that discuss how one could commit adultery by masturbating.<ref>Will Deming, "[https://pilotscholars.up.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=the_facpubs Mark 9:42-10:12, Matthew 5:27-32, and b. Nid.13b: A First Century Discussion of Male Sexuality]," ''New Testament Studies'' 36 (1990): 130–41.</ref>
#If masturbation is a form of adultery, then it follows naturally that it can be an example of fornication as well.
#Biblical scholar Lyn M. Bechtel confirms Dr. Staples’ understanding of biblical (more specifically on the Old Testament; but the Old Testament's outlook is reflected in the New Testament as well as modern Restoration scripture) sexuality in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible''. In her words:

<blockquote>In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., Deut. 22:28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 23-24). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual.<ref>Lyn M. Bechtel, “Sex,” in ''Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible'', ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1192–93.</ref></blockquote>
:Masturbation, since it doesn't build the community and does not create marital or family bonding (and more especially for those that do it while single) is outside the biblical outlook on proper sexuality.

'''A New Testament case study from Corinthians.''' Here's another example that we can point to that gives good evidence that masturbation is not seen as proper. 1 Corinthians 7 opens with Paul talking about the sexual immorality of the Corinthians. He recognizes that cases of sexual immorality had taken place among them. In order to ameliorate this problem of sexual immorality, what does he do? He tells the Corinthians that they should marry and have sexual relations with their spouse. Paul does not encourage self-stimulation. He encourages monogamy and fidelity within marriage (cf. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-thes/4.3-5?lang=eng 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5]). It's not absolutely probative; but highly suggestive.

'''Masturbation and love of others.''' Masturbation most often affects the way that you look at others similar to how pornography does—even if only temporarily. When masturbating, one makes use of others or the image of them as the object of their own self-gratification. With repeated masturbation and over time, this can condition you to regularly see others as potential objects of your own pleasure. Especially with porn, pornographic actors and actresses allow others to objectify them. Using others as merely a means to an end and treating them as an object—as well as viewing them as mere objects (even when they facilitate that objectification)—is contrary to the Lord's command to love our neighbor as ourselves.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/22?lang=eng Matthew 22:34–40]</ref> While you’re only using people in your mind, masturbation still requires that someone be an ''object'' of your passion instead of a full ''subject''; a full person. It “requires conjuring a pseudo-relational stimulus, replacing a real human being with a fantasized sexual fragment.” <ref name="butlerandcrawford">Mark H. Butler and Misha D. Crawford, “How Could Avoiding ‘Sexual Soloing’ Be a Good Thing?” ''Public Square Magazine'', September 20, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/how-could-avoiding-sexual-soloing-be-a-good-thing/. </ref> You must abandon, even temporarily, the ''attitudinal'' aspect of love: seeing the beloved individual as of merely ''instrumental'' rather than ''intrinsic'' and ''absolute'' value. [[Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|As we know]], love is ''both'' an ''attitudinal'' and an ''active'' virtue. Abandoning one or both halves of this is engaging in an inherently ''unloving'' act. In this way, it isn’t virtuous. God and Christ, through their prophets, have taught us that thought is the birthplace of virtue.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/12?lang=eng&id=14#p14 Alma 12:14]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng&id=45#p45 Doctrine and Covenants 121:45]</ref> Virtues such as charity must be practiced in our thoughts as well as our actions.

Some may believe that you can have masturbation without inner mental fantasy, or masturbation without pornography, or pornography without masturbation; but as Dr. Mark H. Butler—a professor in the school of family life and addiction specialist at Brigham Young University—and Misha D. Crawford—a master’s student in the marriage, family, and human development program at BYU— have observed "[w]e cannot decontextualize or ignore the stimulus–response linkage between sexual soloing and pornographic images, scripting, and fantasizing. Sexual arousal and experience do not exist in some pristine isolation but in an increasingly tightly bound stimulus-response (S–R) equation."<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref>

'''Masturbation and love of self.''' We've established above that men and women have a sexually relational ''telos''. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.21?lang=eng Jacob 2:21], for instance, tells us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments and glorifying him forever. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49.15-17?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17] tells us that one of God's commandments, one of his laws, is for us to be married and become "one flesh" as husband and wife. Well, Christ also tells us that revealed law is grounded in teaching us how to love God and love one another as ourselves in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/22.34-40?lang=eng&clang=eng#p34 Matthew 22:34-40]. Therefore, any commandment is going to be some instruction in the meaning and proper exercise of love. We've argued [[Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|elsewhere on the FAIR site]] that part of the definition of love is to use something according to the purpose it was designed for. Loving ourself would then, arguably, include not masturbating since masturbation is not adhering to your ''telos'' of keeping God's command to be one flesh. It would be, definitionally, an unloving act towards yourself.

It will be important to adhere to this ''telos'' of becoming one flesh and not only for the fact that not masturbating facilitates greater marital unity with a future or current spouse, but also because masturbating can have a debilitating psychological impact on ''us''. We can start to view ourselves as slaves to our passions and out of control. We can feel like an entirely impersonal force is overcoming our agency. We can feel like our sexuality isn't an integral part of our personhood that we get to choose when to express and exercise. This can cause great anxiety and depression. Being placed over our desires and mastering them can help us embody a fuller self concept and make us feel like the divine beings we are and meant to become. ''We'' can start to feel like an object of passion just as much as we make others the objects of our passion while we masturbate. As the Book of Mormon says, the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the fall of Adam. The only way to overcome this is by listening to the enticings of the Spirit and putting off the natural man. We can’t engage in recreational, indulgent masturbation and consider ourselves as putting off the natural man. We are indeed distancing ourselves from the Spirit and the joy we feel when close to it.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/3.19 Mosiah 3:19]</ref>

'''Masturbation as part of the definition of other words in scripture.''' The scriptures contain a constellation of words that describe unlawful sexual activity. Among those that are perhaps most relevant to this discussion (including their derivatives) are "adultery," "carnal," "chastity," "concupiscence," "fornication," "lasciviousness," "lewdness," "lust," and "sensual." An exhaustive scriptural [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordance_(publishing) concordance] of these words and their derivatives have been placed in Appendix 2 of this article. Readers are encouraged to read each occurrence in their original scriptural contexts (preferably following [[Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?|this approach]] articulated in another article on the FAIR wiki). Given that the scriptural outlook on proper sexuality (as discussed above) includes only marital relationships between husband and wife, any sexuality that falls outside of those bounds (including masturbation) is likely being condemned in scripture. Masturbation likely falls under the definition of any one of these words. If it does, then it is condemned in scripture and we are bound to follow those injunctions to abstain from it (seeing as how scripture is the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the Church established above).

As an example, "lasciviousness" is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascivious_behavior defined] as “sexual behavior or conduct that is considered crude and offensive, or contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior.” [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 1:24] states that God gives commandments to his prophets after the manner of their language so that they can come to understanding. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary (which records the definitions of words as they would have been understood by Joseph Smith and thus the intended meaning behind many words in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) [http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lasciviousness defines] lasciviousness as "[l]ooseness; irregular indulgence of animal desires; wantonness; lustfulness." If masturbation falls under this category of lasciviousness (and it likely does) then masturbation is condemned scripturally.

'''Other scriptures that may justify refraining.''' Other scriptural injunctions that may support abstaining from masturbation include being able to bridle your body and passions as taught by Alma and the author of James,<ref> [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/3.2?lang=eng#p2#2 James 3:2]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/38.12?lang=eng#p12#12 Alma 38:12]. The author of this article says "the author" of James since it is not known whether James actually wrote James, someone else wrote James and then attributed it to him, or someone who was a close follower of James reworked material originally written by him into Greek literary style and form. See Timothy B. Cargal, "The Letter of James," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 2165. Some may believe that the Alma passage has no relevance to masturbation, but the scripture comes right before Alma's letter to his son Corianton which, at the very least, has a lot to do with sexual restraint.</ref> being a peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/14.2?lang=eng&clang=eng#p2 Deuteronomy 14:2]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/deut/26.18?lang=eng&clang=eng#p2 26:18]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ps/135.4?lang=eng Psalms 135:4]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/titus/2.14?lang=eng Titus 2:14]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-pet/2.9?lang=eng 1 Peter 2:9]</ref> to keep unspotted from the world,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/james/1.27?lang=eng James 1:27]; [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/59.9?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 59:9]</ref> to abstain from all appearance of evil,<ref>[https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-thes/5.22?lang=eng&clang=eng#p22 1 Thessalonians 5:22]. The Greek word translated as "appearance" is better translated as "form." So the scripture is not saying to not do anything that might ''appear'' evil, but to abstain from doing anything that is ''actually'' evil.</ref> practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have implored us to abstain,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/7.44?lang=eng Moroni 7:44]</ref> following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/21.4-5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5]</ref> being anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation,<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.27-29?lang=eng&clang=eng#p27 Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29]</ref> and ridding ourselves of "inordinate affection" (πάθος "vile passion") as encouraged by the author of Colossians.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/col/3.5?lang=eng&clang=eng#p5 Colossians 3:5]. The author of this article says "the author of Colossians" since it remains in debate whether Paul wrote Colossians, someone else wrote it and attributed it to him, or one of his followers adapted material that he had taught and/or written for the audience. Wikipedia has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians#Authorship decent discussion] of the relevant issues.</ref>

'''A note on likelihood.''' In the foregoing discussion on scripture and masturbation, we have used the word "likely" a lot in order to establish interpretation. Some may be tempted to think that just because we have used this word, that we don't know for certain and can't know for certain whether masturbation is condemned scripturally. This is not true. Academic disciplines like history and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis scriptural exegesis] are most often not in the business of telling us what is absolutely the case but what is most likely the case. What is most likely the case is taken as what is the case and translated to religious practice. We believe that we have established that masturbation is most likely condemned in scripture.

If nothing else, choosing to masturbate when the prophets have repeatedly implored us to abstain and called it a sin is going against the revealed commandment of being meek and easy to be entreated.

'''Personal revelation justifying practice of masturbation.''' It’s possible that some feel like they’ve received personal revelation telling them that masturbation is okay; but such revelation, [[Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?|given prophetic teaching and revelation on the subject]], is almost certainly coming from false spirits. There are some scenarios that may rightly necessitate the use of personal revelation to determine what is right. We discuss those below.

Some have argued that masturbation is not unchaste given that it doesn't fall under the Church's definition of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_chastity Law of Chastity]. In its handbook for leaders, the Church [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number102 defines] the Law of Chastity as merely (1) abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law, and (2) fidelity within marriage. Given the scriptural outlook on sexuality as we've outlined in the foregoing sections, those that make this argument may want to reconsider their stance.

====How Masturbation Might Take Away from Marriage====

An [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction addiction] is a behavior you knowingly and compulsively engage in that both causes harm to you and interferes with other objectives you wish to accomplish in life. So, if you masturbate enough that you lose your job because of it or your grades suffer because you're losing too much time with it, or if you lose a healthy relationship with your spouse because of masturbation, and you know that this harm is being inflicted but you engage in the behavior anyway, it is likely that you have an addiction.

While masturbation does appear by most metrics to be harmless when done sparingly, it does have the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to become addictive or at least compulsive.<ref>The existence of an addiction to porn and/or masturbation is debated in academia. Masturbation addiction is not listed in the DSM-5. It is more widely agreed that masturbation compulsion exists. For information on recovery from excessive masturbation, see Matt Glowiak and Trishanna Sookdeo, “Masturbation Addiction: Signs, Symptoms, and Treatments,” ''Choosing Therapy'', July 14, 2021, https://www.choosingtherapy.com/masturbation-addiction/. The author believes masturbation and pornography addiction exists. For persuasive commentary and research on the reality of masturbation and pornography addiction, see Gary Wilson, "Research," ''Your Brain on Porn'', accessed September 11, 2021, https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/research/. For a succinct summary of
what Wilson's website uncovers, see Jacob Z. Hess, "There's One More Atheist in Heaven," ''Public Square Magazine'', May 22, 2021, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/theres-one-more-atheist-in-heaven/.</ref> When turning addictive (or compulsive), masturbation can quickly become a deterrent from having normal sexual relations with a spouse. It can become more pleasurable to the person engaging in it over other relationships. Taking away sexual relations from a spouse can cause deep dissatisfaction and distrust in the relationship—thus potentially leading to the breakup of marriages and families.

Donald L. Hilton, a Latter-day Saint neurosurgeon based in Texas, relates how, during any stimulation of the genitals and orgasm, chemicals such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine dopamine], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin vasopressin], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin oxytocin] are released in the brain. Oxytocin and vasopressin in particular have been linked to emotional bonding mechanisms in humans and other animals. When oxytocin was selectively blocked in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vole voles], for example, it was observed that they don't mate for life or bond.<ref>Karen L. Bales, Julie A. Westerhuyzen, Antoniah D. Lewis-Reese, Nathaniel D. Grotte, Jalene A. Lanter, C. Sue Carter, "[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17553502/ Oxytocin has Dose-dependent Developmental Effects on Pair-bonding and Alloparental Care in Female Prairie Voles]," ''Hormones and Behavior'' 52, no. 2 (August 2007): 274–79. Cited in Donald L. Hilton, ''He Restoreth My Soul: Understanding and Breaking the Chemical and Spiritual Chains of Pornography Addiction Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ'' (San Antonio: Forward Press Publishing, 2009), 57.</ref> Hilton cites American counselor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Carnes Patrick Carnes] who says that one stage of recovery from addiction is ''grief'' where the person says "goodbye" to their addiction. Hilton writes that "[i]t may be a combination of craving for dopamine and yearning for oxytocin-bonded pornography, among other things, that pushes a person to act out and view pornography."<ref>Hilton, ''He Restoreth My Soul'', 58.</ref> Thus, according to Hilton, you can ''actually develop an emotional attachment'' to your masturbation/pornography problem. If he's right about this, we'd do well to ask "why don't we do more to keep sexual stimulation within marriage so that we can direct our oxytocin and vasopressin-driven emotional bonding towards our spouse and thus more fully recognize and adhere to our sexually relational ‘''telos''’?"

====Masturbation and Escalation====
The highs that one gets from masturbation and the ensuing addiction that might follow from it ''can'' result in escalation of that sexual behavior to include viewing pornography, attending strip clubs, requesting various forms of local prostitution, and even forced sexual advances on the unwilling.

Some will be tempted to immediately apply the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope slippery slope fallacy] to this argument. “Masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation of sexual behavior.” The author would respond with applying the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy fallacist’s fallacy]. While it is true that masturbation doesn’t ''necessarily'' lead to escalation, the argument is that it ''can'' lead to escalation; that it has the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to lead to escalation.

====Deriving the Benefits of Masturbation Elsewhere====

But what about the many benefits of masturbation? Shouldn’t one care about the risk of prostate cancer at least? The problem is that the benefits of masturbation can be derived elsewhere and there is no net detriment to one's health while abstaining from masturbation. Indeed, masturbation is not even among the top things typically recommended by professionals when wanting to derive most of these benefits. We can take the potential benefits one by one and see what is recommended to reap them to demonstrate.

#'''Improved Sleep:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic The Mayo Clinic] suggests six things to improve one’s sleep. These include sticking to a set sleep schedule, paying attention to what you eat and drink, creating a restful environment, limiting daytime naps, including physical activity in one's daytime routine, and managing one's worries.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “6 steps to better sleep,” ''Mayo Clinic'', April 17, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/sleep/art-20048379.</ref>
#'''Improved Cardiovascular System:''' Heather Shannon of UC Irvine Health recommends that one exercise, quit smoking, lose weight, eat heart-healthy foods such as guacamole and vegetables, have some chocolate in moderation, not overeat, and manage stress in order to have a healthy heart.<ref>Heather Shannon, “7 powerful ways you can strengthen your heart,” ''UCI Health'', February 9, 2017, https://www.ucihealth.org/blog/2017/02/how-to-strengthen-heart.</ref>
#'''Improved Immune System:''' Harvard Health recommends that one not smoke, eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, maintain a healthy weight, get adequate sleep, wash hands frequently, minimize stress, and keep with current vaccines in order to maintain and improve one’s immune system.<ref>”How to boost your immune system,” ''Harvard Health Publishing'', February 15, 2021, https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-to-boost-your-immune-system.</ref>
#'''Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends that one keep a healthy diet (such as doing a low-fat diet, increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables you eat each day, and reducing the amount of dairy products you eat each day), maintain a healthy weight, and exercise most days of the week to reduce risk of prostate cancer.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Prostate cancer prevention: Ways to reduce your risk,” ''Mayo Clinic'', September 24, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer/in-depth/prostate-cancer-prevention/art-20045641.</ref>
#'''Sexual Tension/Differing Libidos:''' This is a question that is best left between the couple and God through prayer (and ''maybe'' the local bishop or stake president). That said, if one is struggling with something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality hypersexuality] and truly trying to lower their libido, Janet Brito and Daniel Yetman recommend focusing on your diet, getting medication, focusing on relationships, and stopping illegal drug use.<ref>Daniel Yetman, "How to Decrease Libido," ''Healthline'', October 28, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-decrease-libido.</ref>
#'''Dyspareunia/Psychological Impediments:''' Approaching treatment for any case of dyspareunia and/or other psychological impediments to partnered sex are best left between husband, wife, God, qualified, reputable medical professionals, and maybe local leaders. More information on treatment options that fit with your values can be found online or by contacting your local doctor.
#'''Menstrual Cramps:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends taking pain relievers like ibuprofen, looking into hormonal birth control, getting surgery, exercising regularly, using heating pads, using dietary supplements, reducing stress, acupuncture, acupressure, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and herbal medicine as potential treatments for menstrual cramps.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Menstrual cramps,” ''Mayo Clinic'', April 8, 2020, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menstrual-cramps/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20374944.</ref>
#'''Headaches:''' The Mayo Clinic recommends (among many other things) using pain relievers, using hot or cold compresses, resting in dark and quiet rooms, and other stress-reducing therapies for treating headaches.<ref>Mayo Clinic Staff, “Headaches: Treatment depends on your diagnosis and symptoms,” ''Mayo Clinic'', May 10, 2019, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-daily-headaches/in-depth/headaches/art-20047375.</ref>
#'''Nasal Congestion:''' R. Morgan Griffin and Carmelita Swiner recommend using a humidifier, taking steamy showers, drinking lots of fluids, using saline nasal spray, using a neti pot, putting warm and wet towels on your face, avoiding chlorinated pools (while symptoms persist), propping yourself up on more pillows while you sleep, and using decongestants, antihistamines, and pain relievers for treating nasal congestion.<ref>R. Morgan Griffin, “How to Treat Nasal Congestion and Sinus Pressure,” ''WebMD'', accessed January 24, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-congestion.</ref>
#'''Low Motility Sperm:''' Atli Arnason and Jillian Jubala recommend taking Vitamin C supplements, getting Vitamin D, incorporating maca root and ashwaganda into your diet, and taking D-aspartic acid supplements to improve sperm motility.<ref>Atli Arnason, “10 Ways to Boost Male Fertility and Increase Sperm Count,” ''Healthline'', May 18, 2020, https://www.healthline.com/health/boost-male-fertility-sperm-count.</ref> Since, in a monogamous marriage, males are not competing for females like the earliest humans did in the evolutionary scheme, you don’t have to have the most agile sperm in order to conceive your own child.
#'''Preventing Cervical Infection''': Menstrual cycles and orgasms during sleep/dreams have the same evolutionary utility for women. The vagina and cervix are self-cleaning organs. Douches can also be helpful but should be used with caution as these can sometimes increase chances of infection. Brenda Goodman and Traci C. Johnson recommend using condoms during sex (when not trying to conceive), limiting the number of people you have sex with, not having sex with a partner who has genital sores or penile discharge, making sure both you and your partner have been treated adequately for sexually-transmitted diseases, not using feminine hygiene products, and taking good control of your blood sugar if you have diabetes to lower your risk of getting cervicitis.<ref>Brenda Goodman, "Cervicitis," ''WedMD'', accessed February 7, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/cervicitis.</ref>
#'''Exploring Body''': This aspect of sexuality can certainly be discovered by husband and wife during partnered sexual activity with good communication as well as patient trial and error. Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford have an excellent discussion of this in their article cited above. Click the blue endnote to the right of this sentence to jump to a link to their article.<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref> The discussion of sexual discovery is had under the subtitle "In the Married Years."
#'''Facilitating Conception''': These benefits can obviously be derived in partnered sexual activity.<ref>It should be clear that when the author says "partnered sexual activity", they do not mean that the only form of appropriate sexual activity is penis-in-vagina penetrative sex. It merely means sexual activity between husband and wife.</ref>
#'''Increasing Pain Threshold:''' Jacquelyn Cafasso and Elaine K. Luo recommend doing yoga, performing aerobic exercise, vocalization (saying "ow" when you experience pain), using mental imagery to shrink the pain, and biofeedback in order to increase someone's pain threshold.<ref>Jacquelyn Cafasso, "How to Test and Increase Your Pain Tolerance," ''Healthline'', last updated June 12, 2018, https://www.healthline.com/health/high-pain-tolerance.</ref>

All the potential nuances/exceptions to the general prohibition most likely come when fostering or nourishing the relational, tender, committed, married, and man-woman sexuality outlined in scripture and/or as ''specifically'' prescribed by a qualified, reputable professional for a particular health reason. We should approximate this ideal as much as possible.

====Benefits of Not Masturbating====
But are there benefits for not engaging in masturbation? We've expressed many so far, but it may be helpful to restate them clearly and in one place.

#You are able to have a more unified relationship with your current or future spouse
#You get to embody a fuller self concept by mastering your desires and making your sexuality an integral part of your agency and personhood
#You avoid any addiction or get to heal from it
#You get to learn something crucial and important about love
#You can avoid any guilt, embarassment, or cognitive dissonance that comes from not living within your values and those of your faith

Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford enumerate the following benefits in their article:

#Avoiding sexual soloing helps impressionable youth and adults alike stay away from pornography use and habituation, steering clear of pornography’s fetishization of anti-relational, toxic sexual imagery, scripts, and fantasizing as the basis of sexual arousal. Avoiding sexual soloing helps hold that “flight” from takeoff until the “copilot” is on board, preventing the sexual arousal template (SAT, conditioned patterns of sexual arousal) from veering off course.
#Avoiding sexual soloing promotes healthy social development before marriage, laying the groundwork for relationship and sexual well-being in marriage.
#Avoiding sexual soloing can promote a relational sexual template and lead to strengthening marriage relationships, both sexually and generally.
#Avoiding sexual soloing helps ensure that the sexual flight is copiloted safely and surely in marriage toward its relational destination.
#Avoiding sexual soloing makes it easier to stay away from, habituate to, or fetishize toxic sexual fantasizing. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents an inherently relational flight from lurching off course toward sexual fetishization.
#Avoiding sexual soloing holds open space for a relational sexual template and the development of holistic marriage relationships that are deeply aware and caring, strengthening marriage both sexually and generally.
#Avoiding sexual soloing and practicing sexual restraint promotes the development of positive coping strategies.
#Avoiding sexual soloing can promote sexual self-mastery, a competence crucial to couple relationship and sexual well-being.
#Avoiding sexual soloing prevents mapping sexuality to a distorted hedonistic template, or at worst the anti-relational, anti-attachment pornographic template.
#Avoiding sexual soloing confirms and strengthens a relational and attachment-oriented sexual arousal template (SAT) anchored in “being for the other.”<ref name="butlerandcrawford"></ref>

====Is there something within us that biologically determines us to masturbate?====

Some people construct an identity around the practice of masturbation. People say that “we’re sexual beings” (which is mostly true) and “masturbation is a part of our natural development.” What these people often mean is that “engaging in masturbation is a behavior that is biologically determined and thus prohibiting it goes against who and what we are. It serves as a net detriment to our well-being.” We often construct these identities to justify bad behavior and protest against certain standards that go against these identities. Thus, the imposition of a prohibition on masturbation starts to feel like an assault to our personhood. This is one reason that General Authorities of the Church so often stress that our fundamental identity is that of children of God: if we construct identities around sinful behaviors, we will quickly embroil ourselves in habits that are contrary to the will of God and his nature and feel that any call to repentance is a crusade against ''us''. We can thus squeeze ourselves out of faith and find ourselves in rebellion to the Lord's anointed. If we center our thinking about our essential identity in the fact that we are infinitely beloved, spirit sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents, then we will be much more open to changing our behavior so as to foster closer relationships with them and the rest of their creation. Identity construction is one of our most common forms of denial as human beings. We need be careful in how we construct our identity.

The truth is that we are not merely “sexual” beings. We are ''marital'' beings. Again, we are built with the purpose of being joined maritally and, after marriage, sexually as man and woman; husband and wife. We were designed for a relational, tender, married man-woman sexuality and we should create our norms to funnel us towards that as stipulated by scripture.

There actually ''is'' one biologically determined function that both men and women experience that serves the purpose people might think masturbation serves: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturnal_emission nocturnal emission]. We don’t need masturbation to pull double duty.

====But what harm does one really do when engaged in isolated sexual acts?====

But do isolated sexual acts really hurt anyone else? The foregoing analysis should be sufficient to demonstrate that masturbation can very likely have adverse effects on others. However, another point to make here is that, as humans, we are remarkably bad at creating and being faithful to norms that are based on the ''delayed'' consequences of our actions. We are really good at creating and abiding by norms that are based off of the ''immediate, obvious'' consequences of our actions. For example, all of us agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent person. We would do well to ponder more about how we can create and more diligently abide by (still important) norms based on delayed, less-obvious, and even unseen consequences of our actions.

====What do I do if I'm struggling with masturbation?====
[[File:Jesus Christ open arms.png|250px|thumb|right|Christ lovingly and with open arms invites all who are struggling with pornography and masturbation to come unto him.]]
If you're struggling with masturbation, there is always help and hope for you. The first thing to do will be to disclose your struggles to those you love and trust most. It may also be a good idea to speak with your local ecclesiastical leaders. You should thoroughly discuss the prospect of whether or not you actually have an addiction. Many people unfortunately are diagnosed as having an addiction wrongly and end up spending a lot of money unnecessarily on professional help. If you have trouble diagnosing the problem on your own, it may be helpful to seek professional counsel. There will very likely be many wonderful, qualified professionals in your area that will be eager to help you. These might include marriage and family therapists, sex therapists, and addiction recovery specialists.

The Church [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/addressing-pornography/?lang=eng provides] addiction recovery programs for individuals interested in overcoming addiction. There are some resources available online by Latter-day Saint individuals that help with recovery from pornography addiction including [https://www.sarabrewer.com/ Sara Brewer], [https://www.dannypoelman.com/ Danny Poelman], and psychologist [https://www.lifeafterpornography.com/sales-page33509805?fbclid=IwAR3e5Jm83bLwlbtEMPMwVOX4qalZjW31xA_Y3zJWiApLqIK0tQmFXPPc_0I Cameron Staley].<ref>These individuals may have different beliefs about whether masturbation and pornography addiction exist and whether masturbation is sinful. Notably, Cameron Staley's dissertation advisor, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Prause Nicole Prause], is one of the most vocal proponents of the view that masturbation and pornography addiction do not exist. Discretion is advised if seeking for a professional that affirms your view. Regardless, any number of therapeutic modalities may be helpful in eliminating unwanted masturbation and pornography use, and for that reason all of these individuals are included here for selection of the reader.</ref> Any good addiction recovery specialist is going to help you on addressing limiting core beliefs that keep you from recovery, understanding the brain science behind addiction, and setting daily boundaries that help address your core emotional, physical, and spiritual needs as well as take away about 80% of potential relapses.

Any good marriage and family and/or sex therapist is going to help you address your problems according to the objectives that you set. So if you go in with the firm and explicit objective of not engaging in recreational, indulgent masturbation, they are obligated by their professional ethics (of allowing individual self-determination) to provide you the best therapies that help you accomplish those goals and are conducive to your ultimate well-being. If they don't help you move towards those objectives, then they are not acting ethically and you should consider seeking other help.

===Conclusion===
While masturbation is not an avenue of sexual exploration or expression that will be wholly endorsed by the Church, it is still encouraged that parents have open discussions with their children about the beautiful, sacred nature of human sexuality, that everyone read out of the best of books about how to have more fulfilling sexual relationships with their partner (future or current), and that, generally, we make sexuality a topic of open discussion among those that we love and trust most. We often spend too much time in church talking about ''illicit'' sexual behavior that we often neglect defining and discussing what ''healthy'', ''righteous'' sexuality is and how we can engage in it. That’s not always a bad thing. Talking about all the minutiae of sexuality is most often not going to be tasteful in Sunday School and other public church meetings. That said, among our families and others that we love and trust most, it can and should be much more comfortable. Sexuality is a topic that everyone should become an expert of at the right time so that we can all better understand how to reach and live in accordance with our divine destiny and identity.<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20]</ref>

There may be those that still doubt the conclusions of this article. Your best testimony of this principle will be gained as you experience the benefits of not masturbating for yourself again. The author echoes the words of Jesus: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/7.17?lang=eng John 7:17]</ref>

It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a point of hope for those that would like to discontinue masturbation and remain in line with the Church, as a point of clarity on the Church's stance of masturbation for those that are confused about it, and as a source of great insight to those that are generally looking to understand the utterly sacred and beautiful nature of human sexuality.

{{Seealso|Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?| Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?|Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?}}

===APPENDIX 1: Additional Content===
*Steve Densley, "[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation Fair Questions 4: What’s Wrong with Masturbation?]" ''FAIR Blog'', January 2, 2013.
*Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford, "[https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/how-could-avoiding-sexual-soloing-be-a-good-thing/ How Could 'Sexual Soloing' Be a Good Thing?]" ''Public Square Magazine'', September 20, 2021.

===APPENDIX 2: Scriptural Concordance of Words Referring to Unlawful Sexual Conduct and Relevant to Considerations About Masturbation===
'''Adulterer'''
*Leviticus 20:10
*Job 24:15
*Isaiah 57:3

'''Adulterers'''
*Psalm 50:18
*Jeremiah 9:2
*Jeremiah 23:10
*Hosea 7:4
*Malachi 3:5
*Luke 18:11
*1 Corinthians 6:9
*Hebrews 13:4
*James 4:4
*3 Nephi 24:5
*Doctrine and Covenants 63:14
*Doctrine and Covenants 76:103

'''Adulteress'''
*Leviticus 20:10
*Proverbs 6:26
*Hosea 3:1
*Romans 7:3

'''Adulteresses'''
*Ezekiel 23:43
*Hosea 2:2
*Matthew 15:19
*Mark 7:21
*Doctrine and Covenants 63:14

'''Adulteries'''
*Jeremiah 12:27
*Ezekiel 23:43
*Hosea 2:2
*Matthew 15:19
*Mark 7:21

'''Adulterous'''
*Proverbs 30:20
*Matthew 12:39
*Matthew 16:4
*Mark 7:21

'''Adultery'''
*Exodus 20:14
*Leviticus 20:10
*Leviticus 20:10
*Deuteronomy 5:18
*Proverbs 6:32
*Jeremiah 3:8
*Jeremiah 3:9
*Jeremiah 5:7
*Jeremiah 7:9
*Jeremiah 23:14
*Jeremiah 29:23
*Ezekiel 16:32
*Ezekiel 23:37
*Ezekiel 23:37
*Hosea 4:2
*Hosea 4:13
*Hosea 4:14
*Matthew 5:27
*Matthew 5:28
*Matthew 5:32
*Matthew 19:9
*Matthew 19:9
*Matthew 19:18
*Mark 10:11
*Mark 10:12
*Mark 10:19
*Luke 16:18
*Luke 16:18
*Luke 18:20
*John 8:3
*John 8:4
*Romans 2:22
*Romans 2:22
*Romans 13:9
*Galatians 5:19
*James 2:11
*James 2:11
*2 Peter 2:14
*Revelation 2:22
*Mosiah 2:13
*Mosiah 13:22
*Alma 16:18
*Alma 23:3
*Alma 30:10
*Helaman 4:12
*Helaman 7:5
*3 Nephi 12:27
*3 Nephi 12:28
*3 Nephi 12:32
*3 Nephi 12:32
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:24
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:24
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:25
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:75
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:80
*Doctrine and Covenants 59:6
*Doctrine and Covenants 63:16
*Doctrine and Covenants 66:10
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:41
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:41
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:42
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:43
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:44
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:44
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:61
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:61
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:62
*Doctrine and Covenants 132:63

'''Carnal'''
*Romans 7:14
*Romans 8:7
*Romans 15:27
*1 Corinthians 3:1
*1 Corinthians 3:3
*1 Corinthians 3:3
*1 Corinthians 3:4
*1 Corinthians 9:11
*2 Corinthians 10:4
*Hebrews 7:16
*Hebrews 9:10
*2 Nephi 28:21
*Mosiah 4:2
*Mosiah 16:3
*Mosiah 16:3
*Mosiah 16:5
*Mosiah 16:12
*Mosiah 26:4
*Mosiah 27:25
*Alma 22:13
*Alma 30:53
*Alma 36:4
*Alma 41:11
*Alma 41:13
*Alma 41:13
*Alma 42:10
*Doctrine and Covenants 3:4
*Doctrine and Covenants 29:35
*Doctrine and Covenants 67:10
*Doctrine and Covenants 67:12
*Doctrine and Covenants 84:27
*Moses 5:13
*Moses 6:49

'''Carnally'''
*Leviticus 18:20
*Leviticus 19:20
*Numbers 5:13
*Romans 8:6

'''Carnally-Minded'''
*2 Nephi 9:39

'''Chaste'''
*2 Corinthians 11:2
*Philippians 4:4
*Titus 2:5
*1 Peter 3:2
*Jacob 2:7
*Articles of Faith 1:13

'''Chastity'''
*Jacob 2:28
*Moroni 9:9

'''Concupiscence'''
*Romans 7:8
*JST Romans 7:8
*Colossians 3:5
*1 Thessalonians 4:5

'''Fornication'''
*Ezekiel 16:26
*Ezekiel 16:29
*Isaiah 23:17
*2 Chronicles 21:11
*Matthew 5:32
*Matthew 15:19
*Matthew 19:9
*Mark 7:21
*John 8:41
*Acts 15:20
*Acts 15:29
*Acts 21:25
*Romans 1:29
*1 Corinthians 5:1
*1 Corinthians 5:1
*1 Corinthians 6:13
*1 Corinthians 6:18
*1 Corinthians 7:2
*1 Corinthians 10:8
*2 Corinthians 12:21
*Galatians 5:19
*Ephesians 5:3
*Colossians 3:5
*1 Thessalonians 4:3
*Jude 1:7
*Revelation 2:14
*Revelation 2:20
*Revelation 2:21
*Revelation 9:21
*Revelation 14:8
*Revelation 19:2
*Jacob 3:12
*3 Nephi 12:32
*Helaman 8:26
*Doctrine and Covenants 35:11
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:74
*Doctrine and Covenants 88:94
*Doctrine and Covenants 88:105

'''Fornications'''
*Ezekiel 16:15

'''Lasciviousness'''
*Mark 7:22
*2 Corinthians 12:21
*Galatians 5:19
*Ephesians 4:19
*1 Peter 4:3
*Jude 1:4
*Jacob 3:12
*Alma 16:18
*Alma 45:12
*Alma 47:36
*4 Nephi 1:16

'''Lewd'''
*Ezekiel 16:27
*Ezekiel 23:44
*Acts 17:5

'''Lewdly'''
*Ezekiel 22:11

'''Lewdness'''
*Judges 20:6
*Jeremiah 11:15
*Jeremiah 13:27
*Ezekiel 16:43
*Ezekiel 16:58
*Ezekiel 22:9
*Ezekiel 23:21
*Ezekiel 23:27
*Ezekiel 23:29
*Ezekiel 23:35
*Ezekiel 23:48
*Ezekiel 23:48
*Ezekiel 23:49
*Ezekiel 24:13
*Hosea 2:10
*Hosea 6:9
*Acts 18:14

'''Lust'''
*Exodus 15:9
*Psalms 78:18
*Psalms 78:30
*Psalms 81:12
*Proverbs 6:25
*Matthew 5:28
*Romans 1:27
*Romans 7:7
*1 Corinthians 10:6
*Galatians 5:16
*1 Thessalonians 4:5
*James 1:14
*James 1:15
*James 4:2
*2 Peter 1:4
*2 Peter 2:10
*1 John 2:16
*1 John 2:17
*1 Nephi 3:25
*3 Nephi 12:28
*Doctrine and Covenants 42:23
*Doctrine and Covenants 63:16

'''Lusted'''
*Numbers 11:34
*Psalms 106:14
*1 Corinthians 10:6
*Revelations 18:14

'''Lusteth'''
*Deuteronomy 12:15
*Deuteronomy 14:26
*Galatians 5:17
*James 4:5

'''Lustful'''
*Doctrine and Covenants 88:121
*Doctrine and Covenants 101:6

'''Lusting'''
*Numbers 11:4

'''Lusts'''
*Mark 4:19
*John 8:44
*Romans 1:24
*Romans 6:12
*Romans 13:14
*Galatians 5:24
*Ephesians 2:3
*Ephesians 4:22
*1 Timothy 6:9
*2 Timothy 2:22
*2 Timothy 3:6
*2 Timothy 4:3
*Titus 2:12
*Titus 3:3
*James 4:1
*James 4:3
*1 Peter 1:14
*1 Peter 2:11
*1 Peter 4:2
*1 Peter 4:3
*2 Peter 2:18
*2 Peter 3:3
*Jude 1:16
*Jude 1:18
*1 Nephi 22:23
*Alma 39:9
*Mormon 9:28
*Doctrine and Covenants 46:9

'''Sensual'''
*James 3:15
*Jude 1:19
*Mosiah 16:3
*Alma 42:10
*Doctrine and Covenants 20:20
*Doctrine and Covenants 29:35
*Moses 5:13
*Moses 6:49

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: In the spirit world after this life, will those who lived in President Hinckley's time will be bowed to?

2022-02-05T22:52:05Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* This claim is false, and has been repeatedly disavowed by the Church */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: In the spirit world after this life, will those who lived in President Hinckley's time will be bowed to?==
===This claim is false, and has been repeatedly disavowed by the Church===

Boyd K. Packer and other Church leaders are quoted in a persistent chain email as having said to a group of LDS youth:

<blockquote>
You were in the War in Heaven and one day when you are in the spirit world you will be enthralled with those who you are associated with. You will ask someone in which time period he lived in and you might hear, "I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea," or "I helped build the pyramids," or "I fought with Captain Moroni." And as you are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to you and ask, "Which prophet time did you live in?" And when you say "Gordon B. Hinckley," a hush will fall over every hall, every corridor in heaven and all in attendance will bow at your presence. You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous. Are you still? Remember who you are!
</blockquote>

This claim is false, and has been repeatedly disavowed by the Church. A letter of 25 February 2008 reads:

<blockquote>
A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and [someone will] ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence.”

'''This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine.''' At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement.

Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” ''Church Handbook of Instructions'', Book 1 (2006), 173. [Emphasis present in original]

- Office of the First Presidency, Notice, "Subject: False Statement," (25 February 2008). This statement was printed in ''Deseret News'' on [https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/2008-03-08/first-presidency-releases-statement-77588 8 March 2008].
</blockquote>
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Template:Templedisclaimer

2022-01-21T18:16:16Z

TrevorHolyoak:

'''Important note: '''Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum.

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Robert Ritner

2022-01-14T00:20:07Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Claims about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Robert Ritner
|H=A review of claims made in Dr. Robert Ritner's three-episode interview with John Dehlin
|S=On July 31, 2020, critic John Dehlin was joined by Dr. Robert Ritner, an egyptologist at the University of Chicago and long-time critic of the Book of Abraham, to discuss the Book of Abraham and its authenticity. Dehlin and Dr. Ritner spent over twelve hours discussing different aspects of the Book of Abraham. This page was created as an index to all the major arguments made and to provide responses to claims that FAIR already had written material for. More responses will be forthcoming. Ritner spends most of his time criticizing the Book of Abraham generally but attempts character assassinations on Dr. John Gee of BYU and Michael Rhodes—former professor at BYU—and their scholarship on the Book of Abraham. This response will focus specifically on claims made about the Book of Abraham.

Thus we are reviewing the claims made in the following three episodes of Mormon Stories podcast:
*Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
*Mormon Stories #1340: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 2
*Mormon Stories #1341: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 3
|L1=
|T=
|A=
|<=
|>=
}}
</onlyinclude>
=Claims about the Book of Abraham Generally=
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 75:19-84:51 - When considering when Abraham would have lived, if he existed at all, it would have been long before the time when the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, so 1) could not have been “written by his own hand.”
}}
{{misinformation|It is surprising that Professor Ritner would make this argument since the beginning textbook he taught out of for years says that "by the hand of" means "with, from, by, through" and he himself used to teach that it was not always to be taken literally.<ref>Janet H. Johnson, ''Thus Wrote Onchsheshonqy: An Introductory Grammar of Demotic'', 2nd ed. (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1991), 31, 107.</ref> The dictionary that he helped edit says that it can mean "by, from the hand of, to, in(to) the hand of, in the possession of; in, near, with, from, by, to, for; in the hand, control of; in the possession of; into the presence of, beside; because of, concerning; through, because of; from, with regard to; by." (CDD D, 63-64). In titles of Egyptian texts, this phrase always indicates the author.<ref>John Gee, "Literary Titles from the Greco-Roman Period," in ''En detail: Philologie und Archäologie im Diskurs'' (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019), 1:344-45 and examples [42], [43], [72], [73], [75], [76], [77], [78].</ref>
}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 92:16-92:25 - These fragments date between the third century BCE and the first century BCE long after Abraham lived.
}}
{{information|The surviving fragments of the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession and from which he may have translated the Book of Abraham date to anywhere between the third century BCE and the first century AD. But this is irrelevant, since what is important is who authored the text, not when this particular copy of that text was created. Abraham’s authorship of the text is not called into question by the fact that the text was copied by a scribe many years later.
}}
{{:Question: Since the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated date to the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, does this mean that the events recorded in the Book of Abraham cannot be historical?}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 92:37-95:05 - The Church's own Book of Abraham essay says none of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the Book of Abraham. Mormon and Non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the Book of Abraham.
}}
{{information|The Church's essay indeed does say that. Little is known with certitude about the exact relationship between the papyri from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham and the translated text canonized in the Pearl of Great Price today. Three theories have emerged to try and explain this relationship. To become acquainted with these theories, we recommend the reader see [https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-relationship-between-the-book-of-abraham-and-the-joseph-smith-papyri/ this essay] by Pearl of Great Price Central on the topic.
}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1340: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 2
|claim= Ep. 2: 5:20-6:16 - If there were post-biblical traditions of Abraham, you would expect to find a reflex of that in the continuing cultures in the Near East. They haven't forgotten everything. And the Abraham story is not only alive and kicking, it's predominant, it is more important than Moses in the current world of Egypt. And yet there is not one trace, not a scintilla, not any reflection of the Book of Abraham tradition, whereas the biblical tradition is extremely predominant. So one has to wonder, if there were a second story, why is it that it is not enshrined in living testimony when Abrahamic lore is so strong?
}}
{{disinformation|There is extra-biblical lore that supports many elements unique to the Book of Abraham. This is made clear by following the links to the two articles below}}
{{:Book of Abraham/Plagiarism accusations/Genesis}}

=Claims about the Translation Process=
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=101:59-102:25 Part of the Book of Abraham was sort of translated in 1835, up through Abraham chapter 2 verse 18, and the balance was translated in early 1842 in Nauvoo and then it was printed in the church newspaper starting I think in March of 1842.
}}
{{propaganda|There is no consensus on the timing of the translation of the Book of Abraham as of this moment. For some different views of the timing of translation, see the citation.<ref>For differing views on translation chronology see Kerry Muhelstein and Megan Hansen “The Work of Translating: The Book of Abraham’s Translation Chronology," ''Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life’s Work of Robert L. Millet'', J. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top, eds. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: 2016), 139–62; John Gee, ''An Introduction to the Book of Abraham'' (Deseret Book: Salt Lake City, UT, 2018), 15–16; Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, ''The Joseph Smith Papers Revelations and Translations Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts'' (Church Historian's Press: Salt Lake City, UT, 2018), Introduction. The reason for the discrepancy is disagreement over validity of W.W. Phelps' letter of July 1835 indicating that they had begun translation, textual evidence that shows by October 1835 the translated Egyptian term "Shinehah" was found in Abraham 3:13, and the presence of Hebrew terminology in early manuscripts of the Book of Abraham which suggests that some revision was done to Abraham 3 based on revelatory insights to Joseph.</ref>
}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1340: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 2
|claim=1:26:05-1:26:52 Some try and say that this is a revelation instead of a translation. But if you look in the actual scriptures that we have in the Pearl of Great Price Book of Abraham under the explanations, facsimile number two, you will find, it goes through all these different figures. In the bottom, it says this, "The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time." It is very difficult, if not impossible, to try and characterize what Joseph Smith presented as doing here as anything other than a translation. That's exactly what he calls it there. So Joseph and his scribes clearly call this a translation in their work.
}}
{{propaganda|As any scholar of Joseph Smith's translation projects knows, Joseph Smith used the word "translate" in many different ways. Sometimes this means receiving the text by revelation alone like with the Adamic Language. Sometimes it means doing more mechanical translations as was the case with the Kinderhook Plates. What Dr. Ritner's distinction fails to take account for is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always said that the translation of the Book of Abraham came by revelation. It does not make a big difference that they call it a revelation or if they call it a translation.
}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1341: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 3
|claim=Ep. 3: 1:31:45-1:39:20 Joseph Smith pretended to speak Egyptian in his address to the Green Mountain Boys.
}}
{{disinformation|Joseph Smith did not write the ''Appeal to the Freemen of the State of Vermont, the "Brave Green Mountain Boys," and Honest Men''. This was ghostwritten by W.W. Phelps. That Dr. Ritner is not aware of this is shocking given that this point has been settled in Latter-day Saint scholarship since at least 1992 in Bruce Van Orden's ''BYU Studies'' paper "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/william-w-phelpss-service-in-nauvoo-as-joseph-smiths-political-clerk/ William W. Phelps's Service in Nauvoo as Joseph Smith's Political Clerk]."}}
{{:Question: Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?}}

=Claims about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers=
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1341: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 3
|claim=The KEP show that Joseph Smith thought he was translating characters from Fragment XI into the text of the Book of Abraham. Warren Parrish said, “I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of heaven.” Also, Egyptian is more difficult to write than Hebrew, despite what the Book of Mormon claims.
}}
{{disinformation|The KEP do not have this type of a relationship with the Book of Abraham. Tim Barker and Kerry Muhelstein have provided excellent evidence of that.
}}

{{PerspectivesBar
|link=https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads
|title=Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads
|author=Tim Barker
|authorlink=https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference#barker
|date=5 August 2020
|publication=Proceedings of the 2020 FairMormon Conference
|summary=Not everybody listening to this presentation may be fluent or even familiar with the controversies regarding The Book of Abraham. I will not attempt to summarize every criticism leveled against The Book of Abraham here, of course, but I will be addressing the primary argument that has been used against the translation of The Book of Abraham for over fifty years now. The substance of this argument has not changed nor has it been materially improved upon since it was put forth by Grant Heward and Jerald Tanner in 1968. The only noticeable changes to this argument since 1968 has been with respect to the aesthetics in presentation.
}}

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=nWz-E-ZJcxI</embedvideo>

=Claims about Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham=

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 87:07-89:09 “There are two proposals for Ur. One is way south and another is much further north. at the height of Egyptian political control under the native pharaohs, Egypt never controlled beyond the Orontes river which is to say you are basically south of modern Antakya ancient Antioch which was in Syria but it's now politically in Turkey. Haran is higher up way north of that and out of that territory. They never got there. Even under the Ptolemaic army where Egyptian control was a little broader it never had Iran so at no time at no time did the Egyptian state control Iran. So no matter where you put Ur, either north or south, the Book of Abraham would be incorrect.”
}}
{{disinformation|There is evidence of an Egyptian presence in the city Ur during a time that would have been plausible for Abraham to have lived.}}
{{:Book of Abraham/Anachronisms/Ur of the Chaldees}}

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 86:11-86:19 Egyptians did not perform human sacrifices.
}}
{{disinformation|It is surprising that Ritner would say this since Ritner was the Egyptologist that established that Egyptians did perform human sacrifices. He devotes an entire section to "human sacrifice," concluding that the Mergissa deposit "provides the first indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt."<ref>Robert K. Ritner, ''The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice'' (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1993), 162-180.</ref>}}
{{:Muhlestein and Gee: "It is now apparent that human sacrifice did indeed occur in ancient Egypt"}}

=Claims about Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham=
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 2
|claim=Ep. 2: 2:10:30-2:13:57 Shinehah which is the sun: There is a collection of Egyptian words that if you put them together would sound similar. It would be Shin Ne Eh. [Sp?] It would mean "circuit of eternity" and that would seem to be a real hit. I asked one of my colleagues to search in the thesaurus [foreign language 00:08:48], otherwise known as the TLA, our reference work that includes all of the published Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions. So he did a global search for the number of times that the words Shin Ne Eh. [Sp?] are put next to each other. Then he did a search to see the number of times that they are closer than 10 words apart. The number of hits he got was zero. What I'm saying is there is not a single case of where Shin Ne Eh. [Sp?] occurs as a combination, not one. There's not even a case where Shin is 10 words next to Ne Eh. [Sp?] , so the combination of Ne Eh. [Sp?] to represent the sun or anything else is a total fabrication. It's an accidental coincidence of sounds, but it's unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
}}
{{misinformation|There has been some recently recovered evidence that Shinehah is an authentic Egyptian name. See [https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/shinehah-the-sun/ this] publication from Pearl of Great Price Central.}}

=Claims about Facsimile 1 Generally=
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep.1: 114:14-117:53 Facsimile 1, properly reconstructed, would have actually had a jackal head rather than a human head, his arm would be extended, but not holding a knife, a bird would have been where the knife is, and the figure on the couch would have been using his left hand to hold his erect penis.
}}
{{misinformation|Dr. Ritner is using scholarship from Charles Larson that has been addressed multiple times now. Even if the figure in facsimile 1 was a jackal head, this would not invalidate Joseph Smith's interpretation of it as a priest. We can't know whether or not the figure would be holding a knife. Thus there's no rational reason for this to be of concern to people. The Larson restoration adds a phallus on the reclining figure, something that is never seen on a clothed Osiris figure.}}
{{:Question: Does Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 show a hand, or does it show the wing of a second bird?}}
{{:Bell: "the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand"}}
{{:Question: Should the restoration of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 include a phallus?}}
{{:Bell: "there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis"}}
{{:Question: Was the original head of the priest in Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 actually the jackal head of Anubis?}}
{{:Question: Was the priest depicted in Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 holding a knife or was it some other object?}}

=Claims about Specific Figures in Facsimile 1=
Dr. Ritner makes several assertions about there being no evidence to support Joseph Smith's interpretations of Facsimile 1. Below is an article that gives the best Latter-day Saint commentary on Facsimile 1 and the evidence we can use from antiquity to support it.

{{:Question: Do any of Joseph's explanations of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 agree with what Egyptologists say about the figures?}}

=Claims about Facsimile 2 Generally=

{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=Mormon Stories #1339: Dr. Robert Ritner - An Expert Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham Pt 1
|claim=Ep. 1: 60:35-74:14 It is possible that the basic concepts behind the endowment ceremony of giving keywords and tokens in order to pass by angels through a gateway were inspired by, not only the masons but also by the illustrations on Facsimile 2 that Joseph Smith had. Ritner: “I can hand that to a … third grader and say what's going on there and they can say it's a person having a conversation with some weird spirit at a gateway this would be immediately recognizable to anyone of any intelligence level.” (68:38-68:51)
}}
{{propaganda|If the temple ceremony was inspired by Facsimile 2, it was by virtue of revelation, not because it is obvious from looking at Facsimile 2.}}

=Claims about Specific Figures in Facsimile 2=
Dr. Ritner makes several assertions about there being no evidence to support Joseph Smith's interpretations of Facsimile 2. Below is an article that gives the best Latter-day Saint commentary on Facsimile 2 and the evidence we can use from antiquity to support it.

{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith identify any elements of Facsimile 2 that are in agreement with what Egyptologists say they represent?}}

=Claims about Specific Figures in Facsimile 3=
Dr. Ritner makes several assertions about there being no evidence to support Joseph Smith's interpretations of Facsimile 3. Below is an article that gives the best Latter-day Saint commentary on Facsimile 3 and the evidence we can use from antiquity to support it.

{{:Question: Are there any known parallels between elements of Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 3 with other ancient texts?}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

2022-01-13T16:07:23Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Introduction to Question */

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

2022-01-13T16:06:47Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Introduction to Question */

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

2022-01-13T16:03:47Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Introduction to Question */

Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?

2021-12-20T21:13:05Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* It seems that it is true that these legal concerns played a role but it does not appear that they played the only role. */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?==
===The Proclamation was already being written by Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks when the Hawaii case came up===
It is claimed by some that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage. This is clearly not the case:

<blockquote>During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based proclamation to set forth the Church’s doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft. Their work, for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received.

Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed proclamation under advisement and made needed amendments. Then on September 23, 1995, in the general Relief Society meeting held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and broadcast throughout the world, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” publicly for the first time.

During the period that the proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts….<ref>Richard E. Turley Jr., "In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks" (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2021), 215.</ref></blockquote>

===Boyd K. Packer gives additional context===

Boyd K. Packer gave further context to the Proclamation’s Origin:
<blockquote> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a proclamation on the family. I can tell you how that came about. They had a world conference on the family sponsored by the United Nations in Beijing, China. We sent representatives. It was not pleasant what they heard. They called another one in Cairo. Some of our people were there. I read the proceedings of that. The word marriage was not mentioned. It was at a conference on the family, but marriage was not even mentioned.

It was then they announced that they were going to have such a conference here in Salt Lake City. Some of us made the recommendation: "They are coming here. We had better proclaim our position.”<ref> Boyd K. Packer, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=180 The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character,]" CES Fireside (2 February 2003).</ref></blockquote>

===The doctrines have long been taught by the Church===
The doctrines contained within the Proclamation are doctrines long taught by the Church. We [[Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?| address this]] elsewhere on the wiki.

===Many of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants started out as similar documents===
Some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants started out as (1) council minutes, (2) official statements of church policy written by lawyers like Oliver Cowdery, (3) letters written by Joseph Smith, (4) excerpts from peoples’ notes recording things that Joseph Smith taught. Examples include D&C 130 and 134. More may be found by reading the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/title-page?clang=eng&lang=eng headings of the revelations].
Those who are bothered by a revelation or doctrinal disquisition being first drafted by others may be comforted knowing that many revelations have been ratified in similar ways.
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Sarah Allen CES Response Posts

2021-12-17T21:52:20Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H1
|L=Sarah Allen CES Response Posts
|H=Sarah Allen's Response to the ''CES Letter''
|S=Sarah Allen is brand new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. A voracious reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises and began sharing what she learned through her studies. Sarah originally started posting these rebuttals to the ''CES Letter '' on the faithful Latter-day Saint subreddit and was invited to repost those thoughts here on the FAIR website. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience. This page is a compilation of links to each of her posts (reposted serially on a weekly basis on the FAIR Blog) responding to the ''CES Letter''.
}}
</onlyinclude>
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/25/ces-rebuttal-part-1-extended-version The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 1: Manipulations and Dishonesty in the CES Letter]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/26/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-2 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 2: Book of Mormon Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/27/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-3 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 3: Book of Mormon Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-4 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 4: Book of Mormon Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/03/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-5 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 5: Book of Mormon Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-6 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 6: Book of Mormon Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-7 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 7: Book of Mormon Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/15/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-8 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 8: Book of Mormon Translation Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-9 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 9: First Vision Questions]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/22/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-10 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 10: Book of Abraham Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-11 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 11: Book of Abraham Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/09/29/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-12 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 12: Book of Abraham Questions, Section C]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-13?fbclid=IwAR2zo2y3xRH_D-IfOGn68CsQgYS4F_M846mbeAXwms1F3DpsqAHSv2Fjj3Y The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 13: Book of Abraham Questions, Section D]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/06/29447?fbclid=IwAR0_8M4ysQXN96IiyDZHR52GXshvH7xpW-AgYCq8gBe_spXRVF8FHuIWXhU The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 14: Book of Abraham Questions, Section E]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/08/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-15 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 15: Book of Abraham Questions, Section F]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/13/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-16?fbclid=IwAR0zRxdtzzfWA3UBBBQkfeD4J-LjnmwQXXQGrWUpC-3pcVW5k7xWD306RWk The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 16: Book of Abraham Questions, Section G]
# [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/15/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-17 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 17: Book of Abraham Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/20/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-18 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 18: Book of Abraham Questions, Section I]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/22/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-19 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 19: Book of Abraham Questions, Section J]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/27/part-20-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-a The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 20: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/10/29/part-21-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-b The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 21: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/03/part-22-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-c The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 22: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/05/part-23-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-d The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 23: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/10/part-24-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-e The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 24: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/12/part-25-ces-letter-polygamy-polyandry-questions-section-f The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 25: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/17/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-26 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 26: Polygamy & Polyandry Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/19/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-27 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 27: Prophet Questions, Section A]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/24/29901 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 28: Prophet Questions, Section B]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/11/26/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-29 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 29: Prophet Questions, Section C]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/01/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-30 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 30: Prophet Questions, Section D]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/03/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-31 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 31: Prophet Questions, Section E]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/08/29951 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 32: Prophet Questions, Section F]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/10/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-33 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 33: Prophet Questions, Section G]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/15/29961 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 34: Prophet Questions, Section H]
#[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/12/17/29963 The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 35: Prophet Questions, Section I]
#To be continued…

Sarah Allen CES Response Posts

2021-12-08T23:36:07Z

TrevorHolyoak:

Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

2021-09-16T19:58:42Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* The Adam Clarke Commentary Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments was a 19th century commentary on the Bible. */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===The Adam Clarke Commentary ''Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments'' was a 19th century commentary on the Bible.===

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. In a summary of their research, Professor Wayment and his undergraduate research assistant Haley Wilson-Lemmón wrote:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.
 
Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref></blockquote>

That notice in BYU's ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' was followed by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon publishing the most detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU Professor Dr. Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Dr. Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Dr. Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Professor Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, “[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision],” ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

===In Professor Wayment’s view, the claimed parallels did nothing to Joseph’s claim of revelation since the longer revisions never rely on the Clarke commentary. The similarities are shorter, 1-6 word revisions.===

Professor Wayment outline in more detail what he and Haley Wilson found:

<blockquote>What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, “Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment,” <https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Professor Wayment addressed the accusation of plagiarism directly.===

In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Professor Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.
 
To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.
 
The reality of what happened is inspiring.
 
Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.
 
I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, “10 Questions with Thomas Wayment,” <https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory.===
Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 in a journal article published with ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory. Jackson concluded that "none of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means." Readers are encouraged to read Dr. Jackson's paper at the link cited.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 40 (2020): 15–60.</ref>

==Further Reading==
*Kurt Manwaring, [https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/ “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”].
*LDS Perspectives, [https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/ Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment] .
*Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “[http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation]".
*Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]"

{{Main|Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

2021-09-16T19:53:52Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory. */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===The Adam Clarke Commentary ''Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments'' was a 19th century commentary on the Bible.===

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. In a summary of their research, Professor Wayment and his undergraduate research assistant Haley Wilson-Lemmón wrote:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.
 
Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref></blockquote>

That notice in BYU's ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' was followed by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon publishing the most detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU Professor Dr. Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Dr. Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Dr. Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Professor Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, “[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision],” ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

With the publication of the new narrative history of the Church ''Saints'', the Church produced a short ''Church History Topic'' essay on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in which it is stated:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith did not employ Hebrew and Greek sources, lexicons, or a knowledge of biblical languages to render a new English text. Rather, he used a copy of the King James Bible as the starting point for his translation, dictating inspired changes and additions to scribes who recorded them first on paper and later as notes in the margins of the Bible itself. His revisions fall into several categories. His early work on the translation resulted in long revealed passages that Joseph dictated to his scribes, much as he did when receiving the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. These passages sometimes dramatically expanded the biblical text. The best-known example of this type of revision is found today in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith also made many smaller changes that improved grammar, modernized language, corrected points of doctrine, or alleviated inconsistencies. As he worked on these changes, he appears in many instances to have consulted respected commentaries by biblical scholars, studying them out in his mind as a part of the revelatory process.<ref>"[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]," ''Church History Topics'' (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

The original notice in the ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' published by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon is cited in connection to the claim in bold.

===In Professor Wayment’s view, the claimed parallels did nothing to Joseph’s claim of revelation since the longer revisions never rely on the Clarke commentary. The similarities are shorter, 1-6 word revisions.===

Professor Wayment outline in more detail what he and Haley Wilson found:

<blockquote>What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, “Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment,” <https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Professor Wayment addressed the accusation of plagiarism directly.===

In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Professor Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.
 
To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.
 
The reality of what happened is inspiring.
 
Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.
 
I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, “10 Questions with Thomas Wayment,” <https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory.===
Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 in a journal article published with ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory. Jackson concluded that "none of the examples they provide can be traced to Clarke’s commentary, and almost all of them can be explained easily by other means." Readers are encouraged to read Dr. Jackson's paper at the link cited.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 40 (2020): 15–60.</ref>

==Further Reading==
*Kurt Manwaring, [https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/ “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”].
*LDS Perspectives, [https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/ Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment] .
*Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “[http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation]".
*Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]"

{{Main|Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

2021-09-16T19:49:45Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Further Reading */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===The Adam Clarke Commentary ''Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments'' was a 19th century commentary on the Bible.===

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. In a summary of their research, Professor Wayment and his undergraduate research assistant Haley Wilson-Lemmón wrote:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.
 
Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref></blockquote>

That notice in BYU's ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' was followed by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon publishing the most detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU Professor Dr. Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Dr. Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Dr. Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Professor Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, “[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision],” ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

With the publication of the new narrative history of the Church ''Saints'', the Church produced a short ''Church History Topic'' essay on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in which it is stated:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith did not employ Hebrew and Greek sources, lexicons, or a knowledge of biblical languages to render a new English text. Rather, he used a copy of the King James Bible as the starting point for his translation, dictating inspired changes and additions to scribes who recorded them first on paper and later as notes in the margins of the Bible itself. His revisions fall into several categories. His early work on the translation resulted in long revealed passages that Joseph dictated to his scribes, much as he did when receiving the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. These passages sometimes dramatically expanded the biblical text. The best-known example of this type of revision is found today in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith also made many smaller changes that improved grammar, modernized language, corrected points of doctrine, or alleviated inconsistencies. As he worked on these changes, he appears in many instances to have consulted respected commentaries by biblical scholars, studying them out in his mind as a part of the revelatory process.<ref>"[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]," ''Church History Topics'' (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

The original notice in the ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' published by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon is cited in connection to the claim in bold.

===In Professor Wayment’s view, the claimed parallels did nothing to Joseph’s claim of revelation since the longer revisions never rely on the Clarke commentary. The similarities are shorter, 1-6 word revisions.===

Professor Wayment outline in more detail what he and Haley Wilson found:

<blockquote>What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, “Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment,” <https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Professor Wayment addressed the accusation of plagiarism directly.===

In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Professor Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.
 
To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.
 
The reality of what happened is inspiring.
 
Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.
 
I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, “10 Questions with Thomas Wayment,” <https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory.===
Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 in a journal article published with ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory. Jackson had actually previously agreed with Wayment's conclusions and wrote in ''Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion'' (2017) that for the revisions in the JST, Joseph was "sometimes drawing ideas for those changes from a popular Bible commentary."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible,” in ''Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion'', ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 187.</ref> Readers are encouraged to read Dr. Jackson's paper at the link cited.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 40 (2020): 15–60.</ref>

==Further Reading==
*Kurt Manwaring, [https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/ “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”].
*LDS Perspectives, [https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/ Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment] .
*Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “[http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation]".
*Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]"

{{Main|Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

2021-09-16T19:46:49Z

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: What is the Adam Clarke Commentary and what do critics of Mormonism claim about it as it regards the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?==
===The Adam Clarke Commentary ''Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments'' was a 19th century commentary on the Bible.===

In March 2017, Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University, published a paper in BYU’s ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' titled “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation”. In a summary of their research, Professor Wayment and his undergraduate research assistant Haley Wilson-Lemmón wrote:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible has attracted significant attention in recent decades, drawing the interest of a wide variety of academics and those who affirm its nearly canonical status in the LDS scriptural canon. More recently, in conducting new research into the origins of Smith’s Bible translation, we uncovered evidence that Smith and his associates used a readily available Bible commentary while compiling a new Bible translation, or more properly a revision of the King James Bible. The commentary, Adam Clarke’s famous Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, was a mainstay for Methodist theologians and biblical scholars alike, and was one of the most widely available commentaries in the mid-1820s and 1830s in America. Direct borrowing from this source has not previously been connected to Smith’s translation efforts, and the fundamental question of what Smith meant by the term “translation” with respect to his efforts to rework the biblical text can now be reconsidered in light of this new evidence. What is noteworthy in detailing the usage of this source is that Adam Clarke’s textual emendations come through Smith’s translation as inspired changes to the text. Moreover, the question of what Smith meant by the term translation should be broadened to include what now appears to have been an academic interest to update the text of the Bible. This new evidence effectively forces a reconsideration of Smith’s translation projects, particularly his Bible project, and how he used academic sources while simultaneously melding his own prophetic inspiration into the resulting text. In presenting the evidence for Smith’s usage of Clarke, our paper also addressed the larger question of what it means for Smith to have used an academic/theological Bible commentary in the process of producing a text that he subsequently defined as a translation. In doing so, we first presented the evidence for Smith’s reliance upon Adam Clarke to establish the nature of Smith’s usage of Clarke. Following that discussion, we engaged the question of how Smith approached the question of the quality of the King James Bible (hereafter KJV) translation that he was using in 1830 and what the term translation meant to both Smith and his close associates. Finally, we offered a suggestion as to how Smith came to use Clarke, as well as assessing the overall question of what these findings suggest regarding Smith as a translator and his various translation projects.
 
Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.<ref>Haley Wilson and Thomas Wayment, “A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' (March 2017) {{link|url=http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296}}</ref></blockquote>

That notice in BYU's ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' was followed by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon publishing the most detailed account of their findings together in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'' (2020) edited by BYU Professor Dr. Michael Hubbard MacKay, ''Joseph Smith Papers'' researcher Dr. Mark Ashurst-McGee, and former BYU professor Dr. Brian M. Hauglid.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon, “A Recovered Resource: The Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary in Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation,” in ''Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity'', eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 262–84.</ref> Professor Wayment then published an additional article on the subject in the July 2020 issue of the ''Journal of Mormon History''.<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, “[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.3.0001#metadata_info_tab_contents Joseph Smith, Adam Clarke, and the Making of a Bible Revision],” ''Journal of Mormon History'' 46, no. 3 (July 2020): 1–22.</ref>

With the publication of the new narrative history of the Church ''Saints'', the Church produced a short ''Church History Topic'' essay on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible in which it is stated:

<blockquote> Joseph Smith did not employ Hebrew and Greek sources, lexicons, or a knowledge of biblical languages to render a new English text. Rather, he used a copy of the King James Bible as the starting point for his translation, dictating inspired changes and additions to scribes who recorded them first on paper and later as notes in the margins of the Bible itself. His revisions fall into several categories. His early work on the translation resulted in long revealed passages that Joseph dictated to his scribes, much as he did when receiving the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. These passages sometimes dramatically expanded the biblical text. The best-known example of this type of revision is found today in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith also made many smaller changes that improved grammar, modernized language, corrected points of doctrine, or alleviated inconsistencies. As he worked on these changes, he appears in many instances to have consulted respected commentaries by biblical scholars, studying them out in his mind as a part of the revelatory process.<ref>"[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]," ''Church History Topics'' (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

The original notice in the ''Journal of Undergraduate Research'' published by Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon is cited in connection to the claim in bold.

===In Professor Wayment’s view, the claimed parallels did nothing to Joseph’s claim of revelation since the longer revisions never rely on the Clarke commentary. The similarities are shorter, 1-6 word revisions.===

Professor Wayment outline in more detail what he and Haley Wilson found:

<blockquote>What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night.
We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.<ref>Transcript of Laura Harris Hales, “Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment,” <https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Professor Wayment addressed the accusation of plagiarism directly.===

In another interview with Kurt Manwaring, Professor Wayment addressed the charge of plagiarism directly:

<blockquote>When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.
 
To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible.
I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works.
 
The reality of what happened is inspiring.
 
Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church.
 
I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.<ref>Kurt Manwaring, “10 Questions with Thomas Wayment,” <https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/> (23 June 2019).</ref></blockquote>

===Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory.===
Kent P. Jackson, Emeritus Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, responded to Wayment's and Wilson-Lemmon's work on October 2, 2020 in a journal article published with ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' with criticisms that revealed devastating weaknesses in their theory. Jackson had actually previously agreed with Wayment's conclusions and wrote in ''Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion'' (2017) that for the revisions in the JST, Joseph was "sometimes drawing ideas for those changes from a popular Bible commentary."<ref>Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible,” in ''Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion'', ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 187.</ref> Readers are encouraged to read Dr. Jackson's paper at the link cited.<ref>Kent P. Jackson, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/some-notes-on-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke/ Some Notes on Joseph Smith and Adam Clarke]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 40 (2020): 15–60.</ref>

==Further Reading==
*Kurt Manwaring, [https://www.fromthedesk.org/10-questions-thomas-wayment/ “10 questions with Thomas Wayment”].
*LDS Perspectives, [https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/09/26/jst-adam-clarke-commentary/ Joseph Smith's Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations - Thomas A. Wayment] .
*Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson, “[http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296 A Recently Recovered Source: Rethinking Joseph Smith’s Bible Translation]".

{{Main|Mormonism and the Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As a restoration of the original Bible text}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}

Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?

2021-06-28T17:32:16Z

TrevorHolyoak: /* Question: Have the doctrines in the Mormon document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church? */

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: Have the doctrines in the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" long been taught in the Church?==
===Yes, the doctrines contained within the "Proclamation" are longstanding doctrines within the Church===

President Hinckley observed, on introducing the ''Proclamation'':

<blockquote>
With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation....<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World]|date=November 1995|pages=98}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The doctrines taught are, then, longstanding ones in the Church.

This article reviews each line of the ''Proclamation'' and presents a sample of past teachings on the same subject.

==="marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"===
* "Marriage is ordained of God. It is a necessary and delightful condition. It is the only true state, and the failure of many marriages does not change the rightness of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "It is my purpose to endorse and to favor, to encourage and defend marriage. Many regard it nowadays as being, at best, semiprecious, and by some it is thought to be worth nothing at all. I have seen and heard, as you have seen and heard, the signals all about us, carefully orchestrated to convince us that marriage is out of date and in the way."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."===
* Many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us....There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence....We of all people, brothers and sisters, should not be taken in by the specious arguments that the family unit is somehow tied to a particular phase of development a moral society is going through. We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism. We know the family to be eternal."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

* "The work of the adversary may be likened to loading guns in opposition to the work of God. Salvos containing germs of contention are aimed and fired at strategic targets essential to that holy work. These vital targets include—in addition to the individual—the family, leaders of the Church, and divine doctrine."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/the-canker-of-contention?lang=eng The Canker of Contention]|date=May 1989}}</ref>

* "In this marriage relationship comes the greatest of exaltation and the greatest experiences of life. You will come to know that most of what you know that is worth knowing you learn from your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

* "I desire to emphasize this. I want the young men of Zion to realize that this institution of marriage is not a man-made institution. It is of God. It is honorable, and no man who is of marriageable age is living his religion who remains single. It is not simply devised for the convenience alone of man, to suit his own notions, and his own ideas; to marry and then divorce, to adopt and then to discard, just as he pleases. There are great consequences connected with it, consequences which reach beyond this present time, into all eternity, for thereby souls are begotten into the world, and men and women obtain their being in the world. Marriage is the preserver of the human race. Without it, the purposes of God would be frustrated; virtue would be destroyed to give place to vice and corruption, and the earth would be void and empty."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

* "the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/05/to-the-single-adult-brethren-of-the-church?lang=eng To the Single Adult Brethren of the Church]|date=May 1988|page=52}}</ref>

* "Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=906 Family Perspectives]," BYU Devotional, 15 January 1974</ref>

==="All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God."===

* "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" ({{b||Genesis|1|27}}).
* "Seest thou that ye are created after mine [Christ's] own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh ({{s||Ether|3|15-16}}).
* "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all" ({{s||Moses|1|6}}).
* "God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=272}}</ref>

==="Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."===
* "We are begotten in the similitude of Christ himself. We dwelt with the Father and with the Son in the beginning, as the sons and daughters of God; and at the time appointed, we came to this earth to take upon ourselves tabernacles, that we might become conformed to the likeness and image of Jesus Christ and become like him; that we might have a tabernacle, that we might pass through death as he has passed through death, that we might rise again from the dead as he has risen from the dead."<ref>{{Book:Smith:Gospel Doctrine|pages=428}}</ref>
* "The gospel teaches us that we are the spirit children of heavenly parents. Before our mortal birth we had “a pre-existent, spiritual personality, as the sons and daughters of the Eternal Father” (statement of the First Presidency, ''Improvement Era'', Mar. 1912, p. 417; also see Jer. 1:5). We were placed here on earth to progress toward our destiny of eternal life. These truths give us a unique perspective and different values to guide our decisions from those who doubt the existence of God and believe that life is the result of random processes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p2?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."===
* "When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co–operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."<ref>James E. Talmage, "The Eternity of Sex," ''Young Woman's Journal'' 25 (October 1914), 602–3 as found in Joseph Smith, ''The Words of Joseph Smith'', comp. and ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 137 n. 4.</ref>
* "Some people are ignorant or vicious and apparently attempting to destroy the concept of masculinity and femininity. More and more girls dress, groom, and act like men. More and more men dress, groom, and act like women. The high purposes of life are damaged and destroyed by the growing unisex theory. God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker...."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Dear brethren and sisters, the scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles and prophets speak of us in premortal life as sons and daughters, spirit children of God. Gender existed before, and did not begin at mortal birth."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=November 1993|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity.p1 For Time and All Eternty]}}</ref>

==="In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father"===
* "The spirits of men and women are eternal (see D&C 93:29-31; see also Joseph Smith, Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 158, 208). All are sons and daughters of God and lived in a premortal life as his spirit children (see Numbers 16:22; Hebrews 12:9, D&C 76:24). The spirit of each individual is in the likeness of the person in mortality, male and female (see D&C 77:2; 132:63; Moses 6:9-10; Abraham 4:27). All are in the image of heavenly parents."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "[https://si.lds.org/library/talks/general/the-play-and-the-plan?lang=eng The Play and the Plan]," CES Fireside, 7 May 1995, Kirkland, Washington.</ref>

==="accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life."===

* And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he [Jesus Christ] said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever ({{s||Abraham|3|24-26}}).

==="The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave."===
* "There is another dimension to marriage that we know of in the Church. It came by revelation. This glorious, supernal truth teaches us that marriage is meant to be eternal. There are covenants we can make if we are willing, and bounds we can seal if we are worthy, that will keep marriage safe and intact beyond the veil of death."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God"===

==="and for families to be united eternally."===
* "Oh, brothers and sisters, ''families can be forever''! Do not let the lures of the moment draw you away from them! ''Divinity, eternity,'' and ''family''—they go together, hand in hand, and so must we! {{io}}<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife."===
* "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...." ({{b||Genesis|1|28}}).
* "Before leaving our discussion of unchanging plans, however, we need to remember that the adversary sponsors a cunning plan of his own. 34 It invariably attacks God’s first commandment for husband and wife to beget children. It tempts with tactics that include infidelity, unchastity, and other abuses of procreative power. Satan’s band would trumpet choice, but mute accountability. Nevertheless, his capacity has long been limited, “for he knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6)."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/constancy-amid-change.p32 Constancy Amid Change]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."===
* "There seems to be a growing trend against marriage from degenerate areas of the world and a very strong trend toward marriage without children. Naturally the next question is, “Why marry?” And the “antimarriage revolution” comes into focus. Arguments are given that children are a burden, a tie, a responsibility. Many have convinced themselves that education, freedom from restraint and responsibility—that is the life. And unfortunately this benighted and destructive idea is taking hold of some of our own people."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

==="the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."===

====General statements====
* The voice of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unmistakable terms warns:

:“… sexual sin—the illicit sexual relations of men and women—stands, in its enormity, next to murder. The Lord has drawn no essential distinctions between fornication, adultery, and harlotry or prostitution. Each has fallen under his solemn and awful condemnation. … [Such cannot] … escape the punishments and the judgments which the Lord has declared against this sin. The day of reckoning will come just as certainly as night follows day.”

:Then speaking of those who condone and justify evil whether from press or microphone or pulpit, they continue:

::“They who would palliate this crime and say that such indulgence is but a sinless gratification of a normal desire, like appeasing hunger and thirst, speak filthiness with their lips. Their counsel leads to destruction; their wisdom comes from the father of lies.” (Message of the First Presidency to the Church, ''Improvement Era'', November 1942, page 686.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|date=May 1971|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/voices-of-the-past-of-the-present-of-the-future.p71 Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future]}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>
* "There is a practice, now quite prevalent, for unmarried couples to live together, a counterfeit of marriage. They suppose that they shall have all that marriage can offer without the obligations connected with it. They are wrong! However much they hope to find in a relationship of that kind, they will lose more. Living together without marriage destroys something inside all who participate. Virtue, self-esteem, and refinement of character wither away. Claiming that it will not happen does not prevent the loss; and these virtues, once lost, are not easily reclaimed."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "God Himself decreed that the physical expression of love, that union of male and female which has power to generate life, is authorized only in marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
* "Whether we like it or not, so many of the difficulties which beset the family today stem from the breaking of the seventh commandment (see Ex. 20:14). Total chastity before marriage and total fidelity after are still the standard from which there can be no deviation without sin, misery, and unhappiness. The breaking of the seventh commandment usually means the breaking of one or more homes."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

====Premarital sexual relations forbidden====
* "Let every youth keep himself from the compromising approaches and then with great control save himself from the degrading and life-damaging experience of sexual impurity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

====Adulterous sexual relations forbidden====
* "Now the lust of the heart and the lust of the eyes and the lust of the body bring us to the major sin. Let every man remain at home with his affections. Let every woman sustain her husband and keep her heart where it belongs—at home with her family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "And now a word of warning. One who destroys a marriage takes upon himself a very great responsibility indeed. Marriage is sacred! To willfully destroy a marriage, either your own or that of another couple, is to offend our God. Such a thing will not be lightly considered in the judgments of the Almighty and in the eternal scheme of things will not easily be forgiven. Do not threaten nor break up a marriage. Do not translate some disenchantment with your own marriage partner or an attraction for someone else into justification for any conduct that would destroy a marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

====Homosexual relations forbidden====
* "Every form of homosexuality is sin....May we repeat: Sex perversions of men and women can never replenish the earth and are definitely sin without excuse, and rationalizations are very weak; God will not tolerate it."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "A modern prophet, President Spencer W. Kimball, has warned us:... . when toleration for sin increases, the outlook is bleak and Sodom and Gomorrah days are certain to return." His predecessor, President Harold B. Lee, warned of the growing social acceptance of "that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah... adultery: and beside this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world... " Many today are as indecisive about the evils emerging around us—are as reluctant to renounce fully a wrong way of life—as was Lot's wife. Perhaps in this respect, as well as in the indicators of corruption of which sexual immorality is but one indicator, our present parallels are most poignant and disturbing. It was Jesus himself who said, "Remember Lot's wife." Indeed we should—and remember too all that the Savior implied with those three powerful words."<ref>{{Book:Maxwell:Look Back At Sodom}}</ref>

*In this day of the “new morality” as sex permissiveness is sometimes called, we should be made aware of the Lord’s concern about immorality and the seriousness of sex sins of all kinds.

:We have come far in material progress in this century, but the sins of the ancients increasingly afflict the hearts of men today. Can we not learn by the experiences of others? Must we also defile our bodies, corrupt our souls, and reap destruction as have peoples and nations before us?

:God will not be mocked. His laws are immutable. True repentance is rewarded by forgiveness, but sin brings the sting of death.

:We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.

:It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/10/the-foundations-of-righteousness.p36 The Foundations of Righteousness]|date=November 1977}}</ref>

==="We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."===
* We are appalled at the conscious effort of many of the people in this world to take it upon themselves, presumptive, to change the properly established patterns of social behavior established by the Lord, especially with regard to marriage, sex life, family life. We must say: “The wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.” (See Isa. 29:14.)<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say.p75 Why Call Me Lord, Lord and Do Not the Things Which I Say?]|date=May 1975}}</ref>
* "The expression of our procreative powers is pleasing to God, but he has commanded that this be confined within the relationship of marriage."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/the-great-plan-of-happiness.p22?lang=eng The Great Plan of Happiness]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
* "...in the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love."<ref>{{Book:Kimball:Teachings|pages=311}}</ref>

==="We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan."===
* “Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.” ({{s||D&C|49|15–16}})<ref>Cited in this context, for example, in {{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "Eternal love, eternal marriage, eternal increase! This ideal, which is new to many, when thoughtfully considered, can keep a marriage strong and safe. No relationship has more potential to exalt a man and a woman than the marriage covenant. No obligation in society or in the Church supersedes it in importance."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children."===
* "Make sure, young man, that you treat your wife with reverence and with respect. Treat her as your sweetheart, your loving companion, the mother of your children."<ref>Boyd K. Packer, ''The Things of the Soul'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 228 [Address given to Brigham Young University student body 14 April 1970.]</ref>

==="Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness"===

==="to provide for their physical and spiritual needs...to teach them...to observe the commandments of God"===
* And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents ({{s||D&C|68|25}}).

==="to teach them to love and serve one another"===
* And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness. But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another ({{s||Mosiah|4|14-15}}).

==="to teach them...to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live"===
* "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" ({{s||Articles of Faith|1|12}}).

* "The desirability of this country will persist so long as its citizenry are a God–fearing people with the integrity to obey the law of the land. This includes the laws we do not like as well as the laws we do like."<ref>James E. Faust, "The Integrity of Obeying the Law," Freedom Festival Fireside, Provo, Utah, 2 July 1995; cited in James P. Bell and James E. Faust, "Citizenship" in In The Strength Of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999), 274.</ref>

* "Let our citizenship be spirited but always appropriate and befitting who we are."<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=1050 All Hell Is Moved]," BYU Devotional (8 November 1977).</ref>

* "Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship.p6 A More Determined Discipleship]|date=February 1979}}</ref>

==="Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony"===
* A higher and higher percentage of children grow up with only one parent. This is certainly not the way of the Lord. He expected for a father and a mother to rear their children. Certainly any who deprive their children of a parent will have some very stiff questions to answer. The Lord used parents in the plural and said if children were not properly trained “the sin be upon the heads of the parents.” (D&C 68:25.) That makes it a bit hard to justify broken homes. Numerous of the divorces are the result of selfishness. The day of judgment is approaching, and parents who abandon their families will find that excuses and rationalizations will hardly satisfy the Great Judge.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

==="and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity"===
* "Once marriage vows are taken, absolute fidelity is essential—to the Lord and to one’s companion."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/children-of-the-covenant?lang=eng Children of the Covenant]|date=May 1995}{</ref>

==="Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ"===
* "The ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home and that the family can continue through eternity. All Christian doctrine is formulated to protect the individual, the home, and the family."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>

==="Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities."===

* "... the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences. The families worked together, played together, and worshiped God together."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>
* "We hope our parents are using the added time that has come from the consolidated schedule in order to be with, teach, love, and nurture their children. We hope you have not forgotten the need for family activity and recreation, for which time is also provided. Let your love of each member of your family be unconditional. Where there are challenges, you fail only if you fail to keep trying!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness"===
* "Brethren, as patriarchs in your homes, be worthy watchmen."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng Strengthening the Family, the Basic Unit of the Church]|date=May 1978}}</ref>
* "It is the will of the Lord to strengthen and preserve the family unit. We plead with fathers to take their rightful place as the head of the house. We ask mothers to sustain and support their husbands and to be lights to their children."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Joseph Fielding Smith|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/counsel-to-the-saints-and-to-the-world?lang=eng Counsel to the Saints and to the World]|date=July 1972|pages=27}}</ref>

==="and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"===
* "Both men and women are to serve their families and others, but the specific ways in which they do so are sometimes different. For example, God has revealed through his prophets that men are to receive the priesthood, become fathers, and with gentleness and pure, unfeigned love they are to lead and nurture their families in righteousness as the Savior leads the Church (see Eph. 5:23 ). They have been given the primary responsibility for the temporal and physical needs of the family (see DNC 83:2)."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children"===
* "Women have the power to bring children into the world and have been given the primary duty and opportunity as mothers to lead, nurture, and teach them in a loving, spiritual environment."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

==="fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners"===
* Most of what men and women must do to qualify for an exalted family life together is based on shared responsibilities and objectives. Many of the requirements are exactly the same for men and women. For example, obedience to the laws of God should be the same for men and women. Men and women should pray in the same way. They both have the same privilege of receiving answers to their prayers and thereby obtaining personal revelation for their own spiritual development....In this divine partnership, husbands and wives support one another in their God-given capacities. By appointing different accountabilities to men and women, Heavenly Father provides the greatest opportunity for growth, service, and progress. He did not give different tasks to men and women simply to perpetuate the idea of a family; rather, He did so to ensure that the family can continue forever, the ultimate goal of our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan.<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>

* "The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth. The first fundamental, then, is to work toward righteous unity."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Ezra Taft Benson|article=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/10/fundamentals-of-enduring-family-relationships.p32 Fundamentals of Enduring Family Relationships]|date=November 1982}}</ref>

==="Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."===
* "We need to recognize the hard mortal realities in all of this and must use common sense and guidance by personal revelation. Some will not marry in this life. Some marriages will fail. Some will not have children. Some children will choose not to respond to even the most devoted and careful nurturing by loving parents. In some cases, health and faith may falter. Some who would rather remain at home may have to work. Let us not judge others, because we do not know their situation nor do we know what common sense and personal revelation have led them to do. We do know that throughout mortality, women and men will face challenges and tests of their commitment to God’s plan for them. We need to remember that trials and temptations are an important part of our lives. We should not criticize others for the way they choose to exercise their moral agency when faced with adversity or affliction."<ref>{{Ensign|author=M. Russell Ballard|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/equality-through-diversity.p10 Equality Through Diversity]|date=November 1993}}</ref>
==="Extended families should lend support when needed."===

==="We warn that individuals...will one day stand accountable before God" [if they]===

* "God bless you, our beloved people. Listen to the words of heaven. God is true. He is just. He is a righteous judge, but justice must come before sympathy and forgiveness and mercy. Remember, God is in his heavens. He knew what he was doing when he organized the earth. He knows what he is doing now. Those of us who break his commandments will regret and suffer in remorse and pain. God will not be mocked. Man has his free agency, it is sure, but remember, GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED. (See {{s||D&C|63|58}}.)"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "That society which puts low value on marriage sows the wind and, in time, will reap the whirlwind—and thereafter, unless they repent, bring upon themselves a holocaust!"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/04/marriage?lang=eng Marriage]|date=May 1981}}</ref>
===="violate covenants of chastity"====

See [[#"the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."|above]].

===="abuse spouse or offspring"====

* Spouse abuse
** CITE
** CITE

* Child abuse
** Cite
** CITE

===="fail to fulfill family responsibilities"====
* "There is no lack of clarity in what the Lord has told us. We cannot shirk. He has placed the responsibility directly where it belongs, and he holds us accountable with regard to the duties of parents to teach their children correct principles and of the need to walk uprightly before the Lord—and there is no substitute for teaching our children by the eloquence of example."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets"===

* Why do we take our destiny in our own hands? From the building of the first colonial cabin, the home and family have been the center of true civilization. Any distortion of the God-given program will bring dire consequences....Could it be possible that many of us, like a cork in a stream, have been swept off our destiny line by false concepts, perilous ways, and doctrines of devils? By whom are we enticed? Have we accepted the easy way and veered off from the “strait and narrow” way to the easy and comfortable way and the broad way which leads to sorrowful ends?<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]|date=November 1974}}</ref>

* "As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home…"<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1979/04/fortify-your-homes-against-evil?lang=eng Fortify Your Homes Against Evil]|date=May 1979}}</ref>

* "Society without basic family life is without foundation and will disintegrate into nothingness."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

==="We call upon" all "to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family"===
* "Furthermore, many of the social restraints which in the past have helped to reinforce and to shore up the family are dissolving and disappearing. The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us. Whether from inadvertence, ignorance, or other causes, the efforts governments often make (ostensibly to help the family) sometimes only hurt the family more. There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define it out of existence. The more governments try in vain to take the place of the family, the less effective governments will be in performing the traditional and basic roles for which governments are formed in the first place."<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng Families Can Be Eternal]|date=November 1980}}</ref>

</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}


[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las doctrinas en el documento mormón "La Familia: Una Proclamación para el Mundo" han sido enseñadas durante mucho tiempo en la Iglesia?]]

Question: At the Reed Smoot Senate hearings, did Joseph F. Smith tesify that he never received revelation?

2021-04-12T00:48:57Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
==Question: At the Reed Smoot Senate hearings, did Joseph F. Smith testify that he never received revelation?==
===President Smith denied presenting any revelation for sustaining vote at general conference, which was true as of that date, but he did not deny receiving other forms of revelation===

To read the original documents of the Smoot hearings, see [http://nboman.people.wm.edu/smoot.php here].

Those who make this claim do not disclose that the Smoot hearings were an antagonistic proceeding in which LDS apostle Reed Smoot was being investigated to see if he should be able to take his seat in the U.S. Senate.

During this exchange, then, Joseph F. Smith was essentially being examined as a "hostile witness." President Smith was not likely to "cast pearls before swine," by discussing the revelatory process, and the legal requirements of the situation likely made him reply as little as possible to the questions posed.

Any attempt to judge Joseph F. Smith's complete beliefs and experiences about revelation from these hearings are, then, doomed to being incomplete.

Despite these limitations, the cited material make it absolutely clear that President Smith's reference to revelation was in the sense of revelation "has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by the conference through the upholding of hands?" (p. 483). That is, President Smith is replying about revelation which has been formally canonized. Although obviously reluctant to speak about the details of other revelation, he insists that he has it (see images of Smoot hearings on the right).

[[Image:Smoot_Hearing_Vol_1_p_483.PNG|frame|center|Smoot Hearings, Vol. 1, p. 483 (Entire Smoot hearings are on-line [http://nboman.people.wm.edu/smoot.php here].)]]
[[Image:Smoot_Hearing_Vol_1_p_484.PNG|frame|center|Smoot Hearings, Vol. 1, p. 484 (Entire Smoot hearings are on-line [http://nboman.people.wm.edu/smoot.php here].)]]
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]

Mormonism/Atheism/Epistemic Responsibility

2021-03-21T18:39:41Z

TrevorHolyoak:

{{FairMormon}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Mormonism/Atheism/Epistemic Responsibility
|H=The Latter-day Saint Response to W.K. Clifford on Epistemic Responsibility
|S=This article gives an overview of English mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford's contribution of epistemic responsibility within the philosophy of religion, ethics, and epistemology as well as the Latter-day Saint response to it.
|L1=Question: What might be the Latter-day Saint response to criticism from epistemic responsibility?
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Question: What might be the Latter-day Saint response to criticism from epistemic responsibility?}}
{{endnotes sources}}