FAIR - User contributions [en]

Book of Mormon geography/Models/Limited/Meldrum 2003/Section 4:Promised Land

2014-01-21T01:14:22Z

TylerLivingston: /* Claims made in section 4: Promised Land */

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

===Claims made in section 4: Promised Land===
{{BeginClaimsTable}}
|
====DVD 4-1:29====
||
*Missouri is the New Jerusalem.
||
*This is correct.
||
*{{s||DC|42|61}}
*{{s||DC|84|}}
|-
|

====DVD 4-3:05====
||
*The narrator claims that the New Jerusalem is Zion.
||
*{{FalseStatement}}: '''What did Joseph Smith have to say about this?''' The narrator attempts to equate Zion ''exclusively'' with the location of the New Jerusalem, but this contradicts the words of Joseph Smith:
<blockquote>
...speaking of the '''Land of Zion, It consists of all N[orth] & S[outh] America''' but that any place where the Saints gather is Zion which every righteous man will build up for a place of safety for his children...'''The redemption of Zion is the redemption of all N[orth] & S[outh] America.'''" {{ea}} {{ref|coray1}}
</blockquote>
*Other latter-day prophets have declared that North and South America constitute the land of Zion: see [[Location of Zion]].
||
*{{s||A+of+F|1|10}}
|-
|

====DVD 4-2:47====
||
*Missouri is the only "Land of Promise" in the Western Hemisphere.
||
*{{FalseStatement}}: The prophets and apostles have clearly stated that Missouri is not the ''only'' land of promise, nor the only area to which Book of Mormon promises apply.
*For example, Wilford Woodruff said:
<blockquote>
'''This land, North and South America''', is the land of Zion; it is a '''choice land-the land that was given by promise''' from old father Jacob to his grandson and his descendants, the land on which the Zion of God should be established in the latter days. {{ea}} {{ref|JoD.15:279}}
</blockquote>
* See also: [http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG04F.html more examples].
||
*{{s||DC|57|1-3}}
|-
|

====DVD 4-3:35, IBME====
||
*The New Jerusalem will be upon "this land," meaning exactly where the Book of Mormon prophet was standing when he made that statement.
*The ''Introduction to Book of Mormon Evidences'' seminar offers a strict interpretation of the words "this" and "that" as used in the scriptures. The word "this" is interpreted to mean the very spot upon which the statement is made.
||
*And how does the narrator know where the Book of Mormon prophet was standing when he made that statement? He simply assumes that Ether was standing in North America, and then uses Ether's own words to "prove" this!
||
*{{s||Ether|13|6}}
|-
|

====DVD 4-4:40====
||
*The Land of Promise is a "choice land," interpreted by the narrator to be "a land where people would choose to live."
||
*The term "land of promise" refers to whatever land the Lord has granted to His people, and upon which they are commanded to gather.
* See also: [http://www.fairlds.org/DNA_Evidence_for_Book_of_Mormon_Geography/DEBMG04F.html more detail].
||
*{{s|2|Nephi|1|5}}
|-
|

====DVD 4-5:34====
||
*The choice land will be lifted up by God above all other nations because God approves of the political system ("nation") on the choice land.
||
||
*{{s|1|Nephi|13|30-31}}
|-
|
====DVD====
||
*It is claimed that the gentiles mentioned in 1 Nephi 13 are Joseph Smith's ancestors (American colonists) because he brought the book forth.
|-
|
====DVD====
||
*Where the Book of Mormon comes forth will be a land of liberty with no kings, fortified against all other nations, and God will be the King of the people of the land.
||
||
*{{s|2|Nephi|10|11-14}}
{{EndClaimsTable}}
<videoflash>0n687gFW-kg</videoflash>

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|coray1}}Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, [edited by Dean C. Jessee], "Joseph Smith's July 19, 1840 Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 19/ 3 (Spring 1979): 392.
#{{note|JoD.15:279}}{{JDfairwiki|author=Wilford Woodruff|disc=35|vol=15|start=279}}
----
{{HeartlandGeographyTables}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Mormon geography/Models/Limited/Meldrum 2003/Section 4:Promised Land]]

Bible passages in the Book of Mormon

2014-01-12T04:36:02Z

TylerLivingston: /* */

Primary sources regarding Church leaders' statements about organic evolution

2014-01-11T22:01:06Z

TylerLivingston: /* James E. Talmage */

Atheism

2014-01-11T22:01:00Z

TylerLivingston: /* LDS works */

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious activity in the Palmyra area in 1820

2014-01-11T21:51:40Z

TylerLivingston: /* Conflation? */

Joseph Smith/Seer stones

2014-01-11T21:49:18Z

TylerLivingston: /* Has the Church tried to hide Joseph's use of a seer stone? */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{Resource Title|What is the relationship between Joseph's seer stone and the Urim and Thummim?}}
{{JosephSmithPortal}}
== ==
{{Criticism label}}

*What role did Joseph's seer stone play during the Book of Mormon translation?
*What is the relation between the seer stone and the "Urim and Thummim"?
*Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon?

{{CriticalSources}}

== ==
{{ChurchResponseBar
|link=http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng
|title=Book of Mormon Translation
|publication=Gospel Topics (lds.org)
|date=2013
|summary=These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumin[at]ed. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.
}}
== ==
{{ChurchResponseBar
|summary=Joseph Smith invited Orson Pratt and John Whitmer upstairs into the chamber where Joseph had earlier completed the translation of the Book of Mormon.8 In this more private space, Joseph asked Pratt if he would be willing to write the revelation down as he spoke it. “Being then young and timid and feeling his unworthiness,” Pratt asked if John Whitmer might act as scribe in his place. Joseph Smith agreed, and “produced a small stone called a seer stone, and putting it into a Hat soon commenced speaking.
|title=Orson Pratt's Call to Serve: D&C 34
|publication=Revelations in Context
|date=21 December 2012
|author=Matthew S. McBride
|link=http://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-orson-pratt?lang=eng
}}

== ==
{{Conclusion label}}

*Joseph used both the Nephite interpreters and his seer stone during the translation process. The use of the seer stone is mentioned in a number of Church publications, such as the ''Ensign''.
*Both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone were referred to as the "Urim and Thummim" several years ''after'' the Book of Mormon translation was completed, but not during the period of translation.
*Joseph placed his seer stone in his hat in order to block out the light. Joseph used this method while he was translating the Book of Mormon.

== ==
{{PerspectivesBar
|link=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-joseph-the-seer-or-why-did-he-translate-with-a-rock-in-his-hat
|author=Brant A. Gardner
|authorlink=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/gardner-brant
|title=Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?
|publication=Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference
|date=August 2009
|summary="The manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi,[sic] he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on till he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up." (Truman Coe, Presbyterian Minister living among the Saints in Kirtland, 1836)
 
"I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his [face in his] hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read] to his scribe the words as they appeared before him." (Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Oliver Cowdery’s wife, 1870)
 
These two descriptions of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates paint radically different pictures of the same event. It easy to accept the finger-on-the-plates translation, but the rock-in-the-hat feels completely foreign. Nevertheless, it is a much better attested description of the process than the first.
 
Why do we have both of these pictures if the second better fits the majority of descriptions? To answer that question, there are two stories that must be told: first–why would anyone think of translating with a rock in a hat?–and second–why we are so surprised at that?
}}
== ==
{{InterpreterBar
|author=Roger Nicholson
|authorlink=http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/rogern/
|title=The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation
|link=http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/
|vol=5
|start=121
|end=190
|date=June 7, 2013
|summary=This essay seeks to examine the Book of Mormon translation method from the perspective of a regular, nonscholarly, believing member in the twenty-first century, by taking into account both what is learned in Church and what can be learned from historical records that are now easily available. What do we know? What should we know? How can a believing Latter-day Saint reconcile apparently conflicting accounts of the translation process? An examination of the historical sources is used to provide us with a fuller and more complete understanding of the complexity that exists in the early events of the Restoration. These accounts come from both believing and nonbelieving sources, and some skepticism ought to be employed in choosing to accept some of the interpretations offered by some of these sources as fact. However, an examination of these sources provides a larger picture, and the answers to these questions provide an enlightening look into Church history and the evolution of the translation story. This essay focuses primarily on the methods and instruments used in the translation process and how a faithful Latter-day Saint might view these as further evidence of truthfulness of the restored Gospel.
}}
== ==
{{Subarticles label}}

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Interpreter source statements
|summary=Statements related to the Nephite interpreters, seer stones and Urim and Thummim
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method
|subject=Book of Mormon translation method source quotes
|summary=A listing of quotes from both friendly and hostile primary sources, by date, discussing the translation process
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Joseph Smith/Seer stones/"Rock in hat" used for Book of Mormon translation
|subject="Rock in hat" used for Book of Mormon translation
|summary=Joseph was given a set of Nephite interpreters along with the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was produced. In addition, Joseph already possessed and utilized several seer stones. Although Joseph began translating the Book of Mormon using the Nephite interpreters, he later switched to using one of his seer stones to complete the translation. Critics (typically those who reject Mormonism but still believe in God) reject the idea that God would approve the use of an instrument for translation that had previously been used for "money digging."
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and history/Censorship and revision/Hiding the facts
|subject=Hiding the facts in plain sight using Church publications
|summary=Quite a few items that are claimed to have been hidden by the Church were actually published in Church magazines such as the ''New Era'', the ''Ensign'' and the ''Friend''.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Translation of the Book of Mormon/Source quotes without commentary
|subject=Critical website MormonThink's "Translation of the Book of Mormon" page source quotes without critical commentary
|summary=The critical website "MormonThink" also has numerous source quotes related to the translation method. We provide here the "no spin" version: All of the complete primary and secondary source quotes while removing all of the anti-Mormon commentary.
}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{Epigraph|In the stone box containing the gold plates, Joseph found what Book of Mormon prophets referred to as “interpreters,” or a “stone, . . . . He described the instrument as “spectacles” and referred to it using an Old Testament term, Urim and Thummim. . . . He also sometimes applied the term to other stones he possessed, called “seer stones” because they aided him in receiving revelations as a seer. The Prophet received some early revelations through the use of these seer stones. — "Great and Marvelous Are the Revelations of God," ''Ensign'', (January 2013). {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god?lang=eng}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|"Martin Harris related of the seer stone: 'Sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin'" —Neal A. Maxwell, “‘By the Gift and Power of God’,” ''Ensign'', (January 1997), 36 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/01/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|"David Whitmer wrote: ' Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.'" —Russell M. Nelson, “A Treasured Testament,” ''Ensign'', (July 1993), 61. {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|"There he gave his most detailed view of 'the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated': “Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light." —{{Ensign1|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|article=‘By the Gift and Power of God’|date=Sep 1977|start=79, emphasis added}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{Epigraph|To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. — “A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', (September 1974), 7 {{Link|url=http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart}}}}

===Joseph as the village seer===
Brant Gardner clarifies the role that Joseph and his stone played within the community of Palmyra,
<blockquote>
Young Joseph Smith was a member of a specialized sub-community with ties to these very old and very respected practices, though by the early 1800s they were respected only by a marginalized segment of society. He exhibited a talent parallel to others in similar communities. Even in Palmyra he was not unique. In D. Michael Quinn's words: "Until the Book of Mormon thrust young Smith into prominence, Palmyra's most notable seer was Sally Chase, who used a greenish-colored stone. William Stafford also had a seer stone, and Joshua Stafford had a 'peepstone which looked like white marble and had a hole through the center.'" [9] Richard Bushman adds Chauncy Hart, and an unnamed man in Susquehanna County, both of whom had stones with which they found lost objects. [10] {{ref|gardner1}}
</blockquote>

During his tenure as a "village seer," Joseph acquired several seer stones. Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably that belonging to Palmyra seer Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.{{ref|mcgee1}}

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The second seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

<blockquote>
In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.{{ref|chase1}}
</blockquote>

Gardner continues,
<blockquote>
Joseph Smith, long before golden plates complicated his position as a local seer, appears to have functioned just as Sally Chase did. Quinn reports that: "E. W. Vanderhoof [writing in 1905] remembered that his Dutch grandfather once paid Smith seventy-five cents to look into his 'whitish, glossy, and opaque' stone to locate a stolen mare. The grandfather soon 'recovered his beast, which Joe said was somewhere on the lake shore and [was] about to be run over to Canada.' Vanderhoof groused that 'anybody could have told him that, as it was invariably the way a horse thief would take to dispose of a stolen animal in those days.'"13 While Vanderhoof reported a positive result of the consultation, it is interesting that his statement includes a qualifier that has the same intent as those added by the Saunders' brothers. By the end of the century, one wouldn't want to actually credit a village seer when describing their activities. Nevertheless, it isn't the effectiveness that is important—it is the nature of the consultation. Sally Chase's clients consulted her to find things which were lost, and Joseph Smith had at least one client who did the same. {{ref|gardner2}}
</blockquote>

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

:: I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.{{ref|pin}}

===How many seer stones were there?===

Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819–1820, and he obtained his first seer stone in about 1821–1822.{{ref|mcgee1}}

Joseph then used this first stone to find a second stone (a white one). The color and sequence of obtaining these stones has often been confused,{{ref|confused1}} and readers interested in an in-depth treatment are referred to the endnotes.{{ref|mcgee2}}

Joseph would later discover at least two more seers stones in Nauvoo, on the banks of the Mississippi. These stones seem to have been collected more for their appearance, and there is little evidence of Joseph using them at that late date in his prophetic career.{{ref|mcgee3}}

===How did Joseph obtain his second seer stone?===

The seer stone was reportedly found on the property of William Chase in 1822 as Chase described it:

:In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.{{ref|chase1}}

Martin Harris and Wilford Woodruff were to later confirm this account after Joseph's death.{{ref|chaseconfirm}}

===What did the stones look like?===
One witness reported (of the first, brown stone), from 1826:

:It was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket.{{ref|stonesize}}

The second stone:

: [the] Seer Stone was the shape of an egg though not quite so large, of a gray cast something like granite but with white stripes running around it. It was transparent but had no holes, neither on the end or in the sides.{{ref|secondstoneappear}}

===For what purpose(s) did Joseph use the stones prior to the restoration?===

As noted above, Joseph used the first stone to find the second.

Martin Harris recounted that Joseph could find lost objects with the second, white stone:

:: I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it. Joseph and Northrop Sweet also did the same. We could not find it. I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him--I said, "Take your stone." I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat--the old white hat--and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look to one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me. I know he did not look out of the hat until after he had picked up the pin.{{ref|pin}}

Joseph's mother also indicated that Joseph was sought out by some, including Josiah Stoal, to use the stone to find hidden valuables. He

:came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.{{ref|lucymack1}}

Joseph referred to this incident in {{scripture||JS-H|1|55-56}}.

Stoal eventually joined the Church; some of his family, however, charged Joseph in court for events related to this treasure seeking. Stoal testified in Joseph's defense.

Joseph Knight also said that, at the command of the angel Moroni, Joseph looked into his seer stone to learn who he should marry. He "looked in his glass and found it was Emma Hale."{{ref|marryemma1}}

{{Detail|Joseph Smith/Legal trials/1826 glasslooking trial|l1=Joseph's 1826 glasslooking trial}}

===How were the stone(s) involved in the translation of the Book of Mormon?===

There is considerable evidence that the location of the plates and Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were revealed to Joseph via his second, white seer stone. In 1859, Martin Harris recalled that "Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase...It was by means of this stone he first discovered the plates."{{ref|stoneplates1}}

Some critics have sought to create a contradiction here, since Joseph's history reported that Moroni revealed the plates to him ({{s||JS-H|1|34-35,42}}). This is an example of a false dichotomy: Moroni could easily have told Joseph about the plates and interpreters. The vision to Joseph may well have then come through the seer stone, as some of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (e.g., Section X) would later be revealed. One account matches this theory well:

:I had a conversation with [Joseph], and asked him where he found them [the plates] and how he come to know where they were. he said he had a revelation from God that told him they were hid in a certain hill and he looked in his [seer] stone and saw them in the place of deposit."{{ref|henryharris1}}

Joseph Knight recalled that Joseph was more excited about the Nephite interpreters than the gold plates:

:After breakfast Joseph called me into the other room, set his foot on the bed, and leaned his head on his hand and said, "Well I am disappointed."
:"Well, I said, "I am sorry."
:"Well, he said, "I am greatly disappointed. It is ten times better than I expected."
:Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But, he seemed to think more of the glasses or the Urim and Thummim than he did of the plate for, said he, "I can see anything. They are marvelous."{{ref|knight1}}

Martin Harris later described the Nephite interpreters as

:about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre.... They were joined by a round bar of diver, about three-eights of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which with the two stones, would make eight inches.{{ref|harris1}}

Despite having the Nephite interpreters, Joseph Smith often used the seer stone to translate. This led to an episode in which Martin tested the veracity of Joseph's claim to use the second, white stone to translate:{{ref|harriswhite1}}

:Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.” Martin then confessed that he wished to “stop the mouths of fools” who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.{{ref|mouthoffools}}

Joseph also seems to have sometimes removed the Nephite stones from the "silver bows" which held them like spectacles, and used them as individual seer stones. Joseph used his white seer stone sometimes "for convenience" during the translation of the 116 pages with Martin Harris; later witnesses reported him using his brown seer stone.{{ref|variousstones1}}

{{Detail|/"Rock in hat" used for Book of Mormon translation|l1=Why would Joseph use the "rock in the hat" for the Book of Mormon translation that he previously used for "money digging?"}}

===Did Joseph lose the seer stone(s) and/or the Urim and Thummim?===

Following the loss of the 116 pages, the Lord told Joseph:

:1 NOW, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.
:2 And you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened.
:3 Nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again; therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun.
:4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end. ({{s||DC|10|1-4}})

Thus, "it" (Joseph's gift) was restored to him, but there is no indication that the Nephite interpreters (Urim and Thummim) were also returned, Joseph having also lost "them." That is, after repenting, Joseph would recover his seer stones, but apparently not the Urim and Thummim. Some Church sources have seen this as the point at which Joseph received the seer stone for the first time, but this is likely incorrect:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated.{{ref|hr1}}

This source is clearly somewhat confused, since it sees Joseph as getting his dark stone ''after'' the 116 pages, when it likely dates to 1822 at the latest (see above).

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

:With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.{{ref|sh1}}

Joseph also used the seer stone to keep himself and the plates safe, as his mother recorded:

:That of which I spoke, which Joseph termed a key, was indeed, nothing more nor less than the Urim and Thummim, and it was by this that the angel showed him many things which he saw in vision; by which also he could ascertain, at any time, the approach of danger, either to himself or the Record, and on account of which he always kept the Urim and Thummim about his person.{{ref|lucymack2}}

We see here the tendency to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to Joseph's seer stone (or to the Nephite interpreters, which would have been too large for Joseph to carry on his person undetected). This lack of precision in terminology has, on occasion, confused some members who have not understood that either or both may be referred to by early LDS authors as "Urim and Thummim." To Joseph and his contemporaries, they were all the same type of thing, and merely differed in the strength of their power and ability. Clearly, devices from the Lord when directed by an angelic messenger (such as the Nephite interpreters) would outrank a seer stone found on one's own.

===What is the relation between Urim and Thummim and seer stones?===

As seen above, members of the Church tended to conflate the seer stone with the Nephite interpreters (never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application).

The Book of Mormon makes reference to a stone that likely has reference to Joseph Smith's seer stone (as distinct from the Nephite interpreters):

: And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.{{s||Alma|37|23}}

Joseph Smith's "code name," used for the publication of some sections of the Doctrine and Covenants to hide the recipients from their enemies, was "Gazelem." And, at his funeral, W.W. Phelps also applied this name to Joseph.{{ref|gazalem1}}

Alma's account then goes on to speak of the Nephite interpreters:

:24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:
:25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.{{s||Alma|37|24-25}}

Thus, "stone" (singular) may well be distinct from the "interpreters" (plural) possessed by the Nephites. The Book of Mosiah makes clear that the interpreters consisted of "two stones":

: 13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
:14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.{{s||Mosiah|8|13-14}}
:…
:13 And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.
:14 Now these things were prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages;
:15 And they have been kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he should discover to every creature who should possess the land the iniquities and abominations of his people;
:16 And whosoever has these things is called seer, after the manner of old times. .{{s||Mosiah|28|13-16}}

The first use in print of "Urim and Thummim" to refer to the interpreters was in January 1833:

:[The Book of Mormon] was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles--(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim).{{ref|wwphelps1}}

Members of the Church seem to have used the term interchangeably on many occasions.{{ref|interchange1}}

===Why did Joseph tend to use the seer stone more than the Nephite interpreters?===

The size of the interpreters may have been a significant barrier to their use. William Smith, Joseph's brother, described the Nephite instruments as

:too large for Joseph's eyes; they must have been used by larger men.{{ref|williamsmith1}}

Charles Anthon agreed when he later recalled Martin Harris' description and wrote:

:These spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face.{{ref|anthon1}}

===Why did use of the seer stones subside?===

These Urim and Thummim were the means of receiving most of the formal revelations until June 1829. That was the time of completing the Book of Mormon, which was translated through the Nephite interpreters and also Joseph's other seer stone(s). After this, seer stones were generally not used while receiving revelation or translation. (The JST and the Book of Abraham translations both began with seer stone usage, but Joseph soon quit using them.{{ref|JSTandBoA}}) Following his baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood, Joseph seems have felt far less need to resort to the stones.{{ref|priesthood1}} He had learned, through divine tutoring, how to receive unmediated revelation—the Lord had taken him "line upon line" from where he was (surrounded with beliefs about seeing and divining) and brought him to further light, knowledge, and power.

This perspective was reinforced by Orson Pratt, who watched the New Testament revision (JST) and wondered why the use of seer stones/interpreters (as with the Book of Mormon) was not continued:

:While this thought passed through the speaker's mind, Joseph, as if he read his thoughts, looked up and explained that the Lord gave him the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced in the Spirit of inspiration. But now he had advanced so far that he understood the operations of that Spirit and did not need the assistance of that instrument.{{ref|prattuandt}}

===Are there any Biblical parallels to Joseph's seer stone understanding?===

The idea of sacred stones acting as revelators to believers is present in the Bible, and Joseph Smith embraced a decidedly "non-magical" and "pro-religious" view of them:

:In Revelation, John incorporates past religious symbols into his message. Thus the most internally consistent interpretation of the "white stone" combines with the book's assurance that the faithful will become "kings and priests" to the Most High (Rev. 1:6). These eternal priests will be in tune with God's will, like the High Priest with the breastplate of shining stones and the Urim. In Hebrew that term means "light," corresponding to the "white" stone of John's Revelation. This correlation should be obvious, but Joseph Smith is virtually alone in confidence that John sees the redeemed as full High Priests: "Then the white stone mentioned in Rev. 2:17 is the Urim and Thummim, whereby all things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms, even all kingdoms, will be made know." As for genuine religion, Joseph Smith perceived the stone of John's vision not as a stone of chance but as a conduit of enlightenment and a reward of worthiness of character.{{ref|revelationjohn1}}

===What happened to the seer stones?===

As noted above, the Nephite interpreters were apparently reclaimed by Moroni following the loss of the 116 pages, and were only seen again by the Three Witnesses ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss Testimony of Three]).

Van Wagoner and Walker write:
: David Whitmer indicated that the seer stone was later given to Oliver Cowdery: "After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished early in the spring of 1830 before April 6th, Joseph gave the Stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the Stone anymore.” Whitmer, who was Cowdery's brother-in-law, stated that on Oliver's death in 1848, another brother-in-law, "Phineas Young, a brother of Brigham Young, and an old-time and once intimate friend of the Cowdery family came out from Salt Lake City, and during his visit he contrived to get the stone from its hiding place, through a little deceptive sophistry, extended upon the grief-stricken widow. When he returned to Utah he carried it in triumph to the apostles of Brigham Young's 'lion house.'"...

[Van Wagoner and Walker here confuse the two seer stones, so this section is not included here, given that better information has since come to light.]

:...Joseph Fielding Smith, as an apostle, made clear that "the Seer Stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days . . . is now in the possession of the Church." Elder Joseph Anderson, Assistant to the Council of the Twelve and long-time secretary to the First Presidency, clarified in 1971 that the "Seer Stone that Joseph Smith used in the early days of the Church is in possession of the Church and is kept in a safe in Joseph Fielding Smith's office.... [The stone is] slightly smaller than a chicken egg, oval, chocolate in color."{{ref|fatestone}} (This would be Joseph's first, "shoe-shaped stone," which was given to Oliver Cowdery, and then to his brother-in-law Phineas Young, brother of Brigham Young.{{ref|fatestone1}})

Joseph's second (white) stone is also in the possession of the LDS First Presidency.{{ref|2ndstonefate}}

===Has the Church tried to hide Joseph's use of a seer stone?===

The stone is mentioned occasionally in Church publications, but is rarely (if ever) discussed in the 21st century in venues such as Sunday School, nor is it portrayed in any Church-related artwork. Part of the reason for this is the conflation of the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone under the name "Urim and Thummim." In church, we discuss the Urim and Thummim with the assumption that it is always the instrument that Joseph recovered with the plates. Only those familiar with the sources will realize that there was more than one translation instrument.

That said, the Church has been very frank about the seer stone's use, though the ''product'' of the translation of the Book of Mormon is usually given much more attention that the ''process''. Note the mention of the stone in the official children's magazine, ''The Friend'' (available online at lds.org):

<blockquote>
"To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.” '''Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone.'''" —“A Peaceful Heart,” ''Friend'', Sep 1974, 7 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart}}
</blockquote>

Text translated with the Nephite interpreters was lost with the 116 pages given to Martin Harris—see {{s||DC|3||}}. The Church's ''Historical Record'' records Joseph's use of the seer stone to translate all of our current Book of Mormon text:

:As a chastisement for this carelessness [loss of the 116 pages], the Urim and Thummim was taken from Smith. But by humbling himself, he again found favor with the Lord and was presented a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg, but more flat which it was promised should answer the same purpose. With this stone all the present book was translated. [Note that the chronology of Joseph's acquisition of the stone is here somewhat confused. The use of the stone, however, is clearly indicated.]{{ref|hr1}}

References to the stone are not confined to the distant past. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Twelve Apostles described the process clearly in an ''Ensign'' article:

:Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.{{ref|nelson1}}

It would be strange to try to hide something by having an apostle talk about it, and then send the account to every LDS home in the official magazine!

<videoflash>6LZG2qqwL3o</videoflash>

====Other mentions in Church materials====
Similar material is also found in other Church publications, some of which are included below:

* {{Ensign1|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|article=‘By the Gift and Power of God’|date=September 1977|start=79}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5a921f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* Hyrum Andrus, ''Joseph Smith, the Man, the Seer'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1960), 102. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/815}}
* {{FR-6-1-14}}
* {{BYUS|author=Marvin S. Hill|article=Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: An Interpretative Suggestion|vol=24|num=4|date=Fall 1984|start=?|end=??}}{{GL|url=http://gospelink.com/library/document/90430}}
* {{IE1|author=Francis W. Kirkham|article=The Manner of Translating The BOOK of MORMON|date=1939}} {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/document/68715}}
* Joseph Fielding McConkie, Craig J. Ostler, ''Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2000), D&C 9. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/contents/1199}}
* {{JBMS-2-2-14}}
* {{DFS1|article=A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon|vol=1|start=350}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=205446}}
* {{BYUS1|author=Royal Skousen|article=Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon|start=52|date=Winter 1990|vol=30|num=1}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/document/90737}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|gardner1}}Brant A. Gardner, [http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-joseph-the-seer-or-why-did-he-translate-with-a-rock-in-his-hat Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?], 2009 FAIR Conference presentation. Gardner references [9] D. Michael Quinn, ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), 38.'' and [10] Richard L. Bushman, ''Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 70.
#{{note|mcgee1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=215}}
#{{note|chase1}} Eber Dudley Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 241-242; cited in {{Dialogue|author=Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker|article=Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing|vol=15|num=2|date=Summer 1982|start=48|end=68}}
#{{note|gardner2}}Gardner, ''Joseph the Seer...''
#{{note|pin}} Joel Tiffany, ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 164;cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 55.

#{{note|mcgee1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=215}}
#{{note|confused1}} See, for example, {{CHC1|vol=1|start=129}}; Roberts was followed by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Dan Vogel, Ogden Kraut, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and D. Michael Quinn. See discussion in Ashurst-McGee, 247n317.
#{{note|mcgee2}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=283}}
#{{note|mcgee3}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=200|end=201}}

#{{note|chase1}} Eber Dudley Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 241-242; cited in {{Dialogue|author=Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker|article=Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing|vol=15|num=2|date=Summer 1982|start=48|end=68}}
#{{note|chaseconfirm}} See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.

#{{note|stonesize}} W. D. Purple, ''The Chenango Union'' (3 May 1877); cited in {{NewWitnessForChrist1|vol=2|start=365}} (See Van Wagoner and Walker, 54.)
#{{note|secondstoneappear}} Richard Marcellas Robinson, "The History of a Nephite Coin," manuscript, 20 December 1834, LDS Church archives; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=264}}

#{{note|pin}} Joel Tiffany, ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 164;cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 55.
#{{note|lucymack1}} {{biosketch|start=91|end=92}}
#{{note|marryemma1}} {{BYUS1|author=Dean C. Jessee|article=Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History|vol=17|date=August 1976|num=1|page=31}}; cited in {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis1|start=281}}

#{{note|stoneplates1}} Mormonism—II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 163, see also 169; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 286.
#{{note|henryharris1}} Henry Harris, statement in E.D. Howe ''Mormonism Unvailed'' (1833), 252; cited in Ashurst-McGee (2000), 290.
#{{note|knight1}} Joseph Knight, cited in Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, ''Saints Without Halos: The Human Side of Mormon History'' (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1981), 6. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized. The original text reads: "After Brackfist Joseph Cald me in to the other Room and he sit his foot on the Bed and leaned his head on his hand and says, well I am Dissopented. Well, say I, I am sorrey. Well, says he, I am grateley Dissopnted. It is ten times Better then I expected. Then he went on to tell the length and width and thickness of the plates and, said he, they appear to be gold. But he seamed to think more of the glasses or the urim and thummim than he Did of the plates for says he, I can see anything. They are Marvelous."
#{{note|harris1}} Joel Tiffany, "Mormonism—No. II," ''Tiffany's Monthly'' (June 1859): 165–166; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|harriswhite1}} Tiffany, 163.
#{{note|mouthoffools}} Told in ''Millennial Star'' 44:87; quotation from {{Ensign1|author=Kenneth W. Godfrey|article=A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon|date=January 1988|start=6}}{{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20january%201988.htm/a%20new%20prophet%20and%20a%20new%20scripture%20the%20coming%20forth%20of%20the%20book%20of%20mormon.htm}}
#{{note|variousstones1}} See {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=320|end=326}}

#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'', (LDS Church Archives), 632,; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 54. Note that Van Wagoner and Walker contain inaccurate information about the stones, their provenance, and order of discovery.

#{{note|sh1}} ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (15 November 1879): 341.
#{{note|lucymack2}} {{biosketch|start=91|end=92}}

#{{note|gazalem1}} The material on "gazelem" is derived from Van Wagoner and Walker, 56.
#{{note|wwphelps1}} {{EMS1|vol=1|num=8|date=January 1833|author=William W. Phelps (uncredited)|article=The Book of Mormon|start=58}}; cited in Van Wagoner and Walker, 53. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/NCMP1820-1846,5765}}
#{{note|interchange1}} See discussion in Van Wagoner and Walker, 59–63.

# {{note|williamsmith1}} William Smith interview by J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, 4 July 1891, reported in ''The Rod of Iron'' 3 (February 1924): 6-7; ''Saints' Herald'' 79 (9 March 1932): 238; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.
#{{note|anthon1}} Charles Anthon letter to E. D. Howe, 17 Feb. 1834, published in E.D. Howe, ''Mormonism Unvailed'', 17; cited in VanWagoner and Walker, footnote 27.

#{{note|JSTandBoA}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=334|end=337}}
#{{note|priesthood1}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=332|end=333}}
#{{note|prattuandt}} {{MatureJS}} ; citing Orson Pratt, "Discourse at Brigham City," 27 June 1874, Ogden (Utah) Junction, cited in {{MS|author=Orson Pratt|article=Two Days´ Meeting at Brigham City|vol=36|date=11 August 1874|start=498|end=499}}

#{{note|revelationjohn1}} {{MatureJS}}

#{{note|fatestone}} Van Wagoner and Walker, 58–59 (citations removed).
#{{note|fatestone}} {{Ashurst-McGee-Thesis|start=230|231}}
#{{note|2ndstonefate}} Quinn, ''Early Mormonism and the Magic World View'' 242–247.
#{{note|hr1}} ''The Historical Record. Devoted Exclusively to Historical, Biographical, Chronological and Statistical Matters'' (LDS Church Archives), 632.
#{{note|nelson1}} David Whitmer, ''An Address to All Believers in Christ'' (Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887), 12; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=A Treasured Testament|date=July 1993|start=61}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=05169209df38b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

{{FurtherReading}}

[[de:Joseph Smith und Sehersteine]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Joseph Smith/Seer stones]]

Book of Mormon anachronisms/Chariots and Wheels

2014-01-11T21:46:47Z

TylerLivingston: /* Wheels */

Book of Mormon/Warfare/Weapons/Swords

2014-01-11T21:43:56Z

TylerLivingston: /* Book of Mormon examples */

Book of Mormon/Warfare/Weapons/Swords

2014-01-11T21:43:06Z

TylerLivingston: /* Book of Mormon examples */

Plants in the Book of Mormon

2014-01-11T21:41:54Z

TylerLivingston: /* Video */

Elephants in the Book of Mormon

2014-01-11T21:40:02Z

TylerLivingston: /* Other elephants */

Book of Abraham facsimiles/Facsimile 1

2013-04-07T01:03:52Z

TylerLivingston: /* Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene */

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

=Facsimile 1: The "lion couch" scene=
[[Image:facsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham]]

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics make the following claims regarding Facsimile 1:
*That facsimile 1 is simply a typical funerary scene and there are many other papyri showing the same basic scene.
*It is claimed that the missing portions of the drawing were incorrectly restored:
**The head of the priest should have been that of Anubis.
**The priest should not have been holding a knife.
**The portion portrayed as Abraham's second hand should have been the wing of a second bird.
*It is claimed that Abraham has never been associated with the lion couch vignette such as that portrayed in Facsimile #1 of the Book of Abraham.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===What does the lion couch scene normally represent?===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]
The papyrus with the illustration represented in Facsimile 1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 view]) is the only recovered item that has any connection to the text of the Book of Abraham.

This vignette is called a "lion couch scene" by Egyptologists. It usually represents the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial. However, this particular lion couch scene represents the resurrection of Hor (figure 2), aided by the Egyptian god Anubis (3).{{ref|rhodes1}}

[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12] and the notes to Facsimile 1 identify it as representing Abraham being sacrificed by the priest of Elkenah in Ur.

===Is Joseph Smith papyri Facsimile 1 common and similar to other such scenes?===
[[Image:Lion.couch.louvre.JPG|thumb|400px|left|Photograph of "lion couch" carving displayed at the Louvre in Paris. Note that there is only a single bird shown. (click to enlarge)]]
Although many similar lion couch scenes exist, this one has quite a few unique features:
*No other lion couch scene shows the figure on the couch (Osiris) with both hands raised. (There is a dispute regarding whether or not two hands are represented. See below)
*No other lion couch scenes show the figure lying on the couch clothed in the manner shown in Facsimile 1. In most other lion couch scenes, the reclining figure is either completely nude or fully wrapped like a mummy. There is one known scene in which the figure is wearing a loin cloth. None to date show the type of clothing being worn by the figure in Facsimile 1.
*No other lion couch scenes to date have shown the reclining figure wearing anklets or foot coverings.
*No other lion couch scenes show a crocodile beneath the couch.
*The original of Facsimile 1 shows the couch ''behind'' the priest's legs, and the reclining figure's legs are shown in ''front'' of the priest's. When the figure was transferred on to the woodcut prior to publication in the ''Times and Seasons'', this odd perspective was corrected.
*No other such scenes have hatched lines such as those designated as "Expanse" or "Firmament" in Facsimile 1.
*No other such scenes are known to have the twelve gates or pillars of heaven or anything like them.
*No other such scenes show a lotus and an offering table. These items are common in ''other'' Egyptian scenes, but do not appear in the lion couch scene.

===Was the head of the priest incorrectly restored?===
[[Image:Priest.knife.1.jpg|left|Closeup of missing area in which the head and knife have been added. Note that in the final woodcut, the knife appeared in the left hand rather than the right]]

Joseph interpreted this figure to be "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice." This figure is normally represented in lion couch scenes as having the jackal head of Anubis. If the portion of the priests head was indeed missing at the time that the facsimile was copied prior to its publication in the Times and Seasons, it may have been restored simply by copying the head of the figure lying on the lion couch. Unlike standards that would be following in publishing today, it was not considered acceptable at that time to publish a figure with missing gaps.

Joseph correctly interpreted the figure as a priest. Whether the priest has a human head or is wearing the mask of Anubis makes no difference to the interpretation.

===Is there one bird or two?===

Critics insist that this scene should contain two birds. However, not all lion couch images contain two birds.

====Hand versus wing====
[[Image:Gee.hand.wing.jpg|left|Dr. John Gee's representation of the disputed partial figure which critics claim is the wing of a second bird. (click to enlarge)]]
With relation to the claim that a missing portion of Facsimile 1 contained a second bird, the partial figure interpreted as Abraham's second hand is claimed to actually be a portion of the wing of this bird.

[[File:Hand.wing.1.jpg|left|Closeup of original Facsimile 1 detail showing hands and wing.]]

Compare the disputed figure with the wing of the existing bird. Note that they are not drawn in similar styles. Also note that the Egyptians drew elongated thumbs. The disputed figure shows such a thumb. The Egyptians had distinct styles for drawing hands and drawing wings.
[[Image:Thumbs1.louvre.JPG|400px|left|thumb|Papyrus displayed at the Louvre. Note the style in which the thumbs and fingers are drawn. (click to enlarge)]]

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

===Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene===
[[File:Abraham.lion.couch.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Photo appearing in John Gee, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”] Ensign, Jul 1992, 60 Caption "A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)" (click to enlarge)]]
Critics claim that Abraham would never be associated with the Egyptian "lion couch" scene. Recently, however Abraham's name has indeed been discovered associated with one such "lion couch" scene. {{ref|gee.ensign.60}}

<videoflash>0rC2VxeRL0w</videoflash>

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 19 (18–23).
#{{note|gee.ensign.60}}John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, Jul 1992, 60

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1]]

Book of Abraham facsimiles

2013-04-07T01:02:21Z

TylerLivingston: /* {{Topics label}} */

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2013-04-07T00:58:23Z

TylerLivingston: /* {{Topics label}} */

Book of Abraham/By his own hand

2013-04-07T00:51:41Z

TylerLivingston: /* A Question of Assumptions */

Evidences that support the Book of Abraham

2013-04-07T00:46:04Z

TylerLivingston: /* The god "Elkenah" */

Book of Abraham facsimiles/Facsimile 1

2013-03-10T00:32:37Z

TylerLivingston: /* Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene */

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

=Facsimile 1: The "lion couch" scene=
[[Image:facsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham]]

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics make the following claims regarding Facsimile 1:
*That facsimile 1 is simply a typical funerary scene and there are many other papyri showing the same basic scene.
*It is claimed that the missing portions of the drawing were incorrectly restored:
**The head of the priest should have been that of Anubis.
**The priest should not have been holding a knife.
**The portion portrayed as Abraham's second hand should have been the wing of a second bird.
*It is claimed that Abraham has never been associated with the lion couch vignette such as that portrayed in Facsimile #1 of the Book of Abraham.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===What does the lion couch scene normally represent?===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]
The papyrus with the illustration represented in Facsimile 1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 view]) is the only recovered item that has any connection to the text of the Book of Abraham.

This vignette is called a "lion couch scene" by Egyptologists. It usually represents the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial. However, this particular lion couch scene represents the resurrection of Hor (figure 2), aided by the Egyptian god Anubis (3).{{ref|rhodes1}}

[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12] and the notes to Facsimile 1 identify it as representing Abraham being sacrificed by the priest of Elkenah in Ur.

===Is Joseph Smith papyri Facsimile 1 common and similar to other such scenes?===
[[Image:Lion.couch.louvre.JPG|thumb|400px|left|Photograph of "lion couch" carving displayed at the Louvre in Paris. Note that there is only a single bird shown. (click to enlarge)]]
Although many similar lion couch scenes exist, this one has quite a few unique features:
*No other lion couch scene shows the figure on the couch (Osiris) with both hands raised. (There is a dispute regarding whether or not two hands are represented. See below)
*No other lion couch scenes show the figure lying on the couch clothed in the manner shown in Facsimile 1. In most other lion couch scenes, the reclining figure is either completely nude or fully wrapped like a mummy. There is one known scene in which the figure is wearing a loin cloth. None to date show the type of clothing being worn by the figure in Facsimile 1.
*No other lion couch scenes to date have shown the reclining figure wearing anklets or foot coverings.
*No other lion couch scenes show a crocodile beneath the couch.
*The original of Facsimile 1 shows the couch ''behind'' the priest's legs, and the reclining figure's legs are shown in ''front'' of the priest's. When the figure was transferred on to the woodcut prior to publication in the ''Times and Seasons'', this odd perspective was corrected.
*No other such scenes have hatched lines such as those designated as "Expanse" or "Firmament" in Facsimile 1.
*No other such scenes are known to have the twelve gates or pillars of heaven or anything like them.
*No other such scenes show a lotus and an offering table. These items are common in ''other'' Egyptian scenes, but do not appear in the lion couch scene.

===Was the head of the priest incorrectly restored?===
[[Image:Priest.knife.1.jpg|left|Closeup of missing area in which the head and knife have been added. Note that in the final woodcut, the knife appeared in the left hand rather than the right]]

Joseph interpreted this figure to be "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice." This figure is normally represented in lion couch scenes as having the jackal head of Anubis. If the portion of the priests head was indeed missing at the time that the facsimile was copied prior to its publication in the Times and Seasons, it may have been restored simply by copying the head of the figure lying on the lion couch. Unlike standards that would be following in publishing today, it was not considered acceptable at that time to publish a figure with missing gaps.

Joseph correctly interpreted the figure as a priest. Whether the priest has a human head or is wearing the mask of Anubis makes no difference to the interpretation.

===Is there one bird or two?===

Critics insist that this scene should contain two birds. However, not all lion couch images contain two birds.

====Hand versus wing====
[[Image:Gee.hand.wing.jpg|left|Dr. John Gee's representation of the disputed partial figure which critics claim is the wing of a second bird. (click to enlarge)]]
With relation to the claim that a missing portion of Facsimile 1 contained a second bird, the partial figure interpreted as Abraham's second hand is claimed to actually be a portion of the wing of this bird.

[[File:Hand.wing.1.jpg|left|Closeup of original Facsimile 1 detail showing hands and wing.]]

Compare the disputed figure with the wing of the existing bird. Note that they are not drawn in similar styles. Also note that the Egyptians drew elongated thumbs. The disputed figure shows such a thumb. The Egyptians had distinct styles for drawing hands and drawing wings.
[[Image:Thumbs1.louvre.JPG|400px|left|thumb|Papyrus displayed at the Louvre. Note the style in which the thumbs and fingers are drawn. (click to enlarge)]]

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

===Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene===
[[File:Abraham.lion.couch.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Photo appearing in John Gee, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”] Ensign, Jul 1992, 60 Caption "A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)" (click to enlarge)]]
Critics claim that Abraham would never be associated with the Egyptian "lion couch" scene. Recently, however Abraham's name has indeed been discovered associated with one such "lion couch" scene. {{ref|gee.ensign.60}}

<videoflash>f69rSirKWXs</videoflash>

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 19 (18–23).
#{{note|gee.ensign.60}}John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, Jul 1992, 60

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1]]

Book of Abraham facsimiles/Facsimile 1

2013-03-10T00:31:26Z

TylerLivingston: /* Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene */

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

=Facsimile 1: The "lion couch" scene=
[[Image:facsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham]]

=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics make the following claims regarding Facsimile 1:
*That facsimile 1 is simply a typical funerary scene and there are many other papyri showing the same basic scene.
*It is claimed that the missing portions of the drawing were incorrectly restored:
**The head of the priest should have been that of Anubis.
**The priest should not have been holding a knife.
**The portion portrayed as Abraham's second hand should have been the wing of a second bird.
*It is claimed that Abraham has never been associated with the lion couch vignette such as that portrayed in Facsimile #1 of the Book of Abraham.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===What does the lion couch scene normally represent?===
[[Image:BOAfacsimile1.jpg|400px|left|thumb|Photograph of Facsimile 1 from the recovered Joseph Smith Papyri]]
The papyrus with the illustration represented in Facsimile 1 ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1 view]) is the only recovered item that has any connection to the text of the Book of Abraham.

This vignette is called a "lion couch scene" by Egyptologists. It usually represents the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial. However, this particular lion couch scene represents the resurrection of Hor (figure 2), aided by the Egyptian god Anubis (3).{{ref|rhodes1}}

[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/1/12#12 Abraham 1:12] and the notes to Facsimile 1 identify it as representing Abraham being sacrificed by the priest of Elkenah in Ur.

===Is Joseph Smith papyri Facsimile 1 common and similar to other such scenes?===
[[Image:Lion.couch.louvre.JPG|thumb|400px|left|Photograph of "lion couch" carving displayed at the Louvre in Paris. Note that there is only a single bird shown. (click to enlarge)]]
Although many similar lion couch scenes exist, this one has quite a few unique features:
*No other lion couch scene shows the figure on the couch (Osiris) with both hands raised. (There is a dispute regarding whether or not two hands are represented. See below)
*No other lion couch scenes show the figure lying on the couch clothed in the manner shown in Facsimile 1. In most other lion couch scenes, the reclining figure is either completely nude or fully wrapped like a mummy. There is one known scene in which the figure is wearing a loin cloth. None to date show the type of clothing being worn by the figure in Facsimile 1.
*No other lion couch scenes to date have shown the reclining figure wearing anklets or foot coverings.
*No other lion couch scenes show a crocodile beneath the couch.
*The original of Facsimile 1 shows the couch ''behind'' the priest's legs, and the reclining figure's legs are shown in ''front'' of the priest's. When the figure was transferred on to the woodcut prior to publication in the ''Times and Seasons'', this odd perspective was corrected.
*No other such scenes have hatched lines such as those designated as "Expanse" or "Firmament" in Facsimile 1.
*No other such scenes are known to have the twelve gates or pillars of heaven or anything like them.
*No other such scenes show a lotus and an offering table. These items are common in ''other'' Egyptian scenes, but do not appear in the lion couch scene.

===Was the head of the priest incorrectly restored?===
[[Image:Priest.knife.1.jpg|left|Closeup of missing area in which the head and knife have been added. Note that in the final woodcut, the knife appeared in the left hand rather than the right]]

Joseph interpreted this figure to be "The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice." This figure is normally represented in lion couch scenes as having the jackal head of Anubis. If the portion of the priests head was indeed missing at the time that the facsimile was copied prior to its publication in the Times and Seasons, it may have been restored simply by copying the head of the figure lying on the lion couch. Unlike standards that would be following in publishing today, it was not considered acceptable at that time to publish a figure with missing gaps.

Joseph correctly interpreted the figure as a priest. Whether the priest has a human head or is wearing the mask of Anubis makes no difference to the interpretation.

===Is there one bird or two?===

Critics insist that this scene should contain two birds. However, not all lion couch images contain two birds.

====Hand versus wing====
[[Image:Gee.hand.wing.jpg|left|Dr. John Gee's representation of the disputed partial figure which critics claim is the wing of a second bird. (click to enlarge)]]
With relation to the claim that a missing portion of Facsimile 1 contained a second bird, the partial figure interpreted as Abraham's second hand is claimed to actually be a portion of the wing of this bird.

[[File:Hand.wing.1.jpg|left|Closeup of original Facsimile 1 detail showing hands and wing.]]

Compare the disputed figure with the wing of the existing bird. Note that they are not drawn in similar styles. Also note that the Egyptians drew elongated thumbs. The disputed figure shows such a thumb. The Egyptians had distinct styles for drawing hands and drawing wings.
[[Image:Thumbs1.louvre.JPG|400px|left|thumb|Papyrus displayed at the Louvre. Note the style in which the thumbs and fingers are drawn. (click to enlarge)]]

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

===Association between Abraham and the lion couch scene===
[[File:Abraham.lion.couch.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Photo appearing in John Gee, [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,”] Ensign, Jul 1992, 60 Caption "A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)" (click to enlarge)]]
Critics claim that Abraham would never be associated with the Egyptian "lion couch" scene. Recently, however Abraham's name has indeed been discovered associated with one such "lion couch" scene. {{ref|gee.ensign.60}}

<videoflash>f69rSirKWXs</videoflash>

{{SectionUnderConstruction}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|rhodes1}}Michael D. Rhodes, ''The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 19 (18–23).
#{{note|gee.ensign.60}}John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, Jul 1992, 60

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1]]

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2013-03-10T00:23:17Z

TylerLivingston: /* {{Topics label}} */

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

2013-03-10T00:22:46Z

TylerLivingston: /* {{Topics label}} */

Question: Did Abraham himself pen the Joseph Smith Papyri?

2013-03-10T00:19:07Z

TylerLivingston: /* Dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri */

Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Text

2013-03-10T00:15:32Z

TylerLivingston: /* {{Topics label}} */

Book of Mormon/DNA evidence/Identification of "Jewish" or "Middle Eastern" DNA/Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype

2013-03-10T00:07:28Z

TylerLivingston: /* Lemba and Cohen modal haplotype */

Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man

2012-12-28T06:09:00Z

TylerLivingston:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{GodPortal}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim that the doctrine of human deification is unbiblical, false, and arrogant.

Related claims include:
*Mormons believe they will 'supplant God'
*Belief in ''theosis'', or human deification, implies more than one "god," which means Mormons are "[[Polytheism|polytheists]]."
*The Mormon concept of "human deification" is a pagan belief derived from Greek philosophy.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

In conclusion, it is proper to cite Origen:

:Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. ... [However], as, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6). {{ref|OriginConclusion}}

True, some may dislike this doctrine, but it is ancient, Biblical, and true.

=={{Subarticles label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man/Gods of their own planets
|subject=Gods of their own planets?
|summary=Critics claim that Mormons believe that they can push themselves higher in a type of 'celestial pecking order.' This is often expressed by the claim that Latter-day Saint men wish to become "gods of their own planets." One critic even extends this to our "own universe."
}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{SeeAlso|/Gods of their own planets|l1=Gods of their own planets?}}

Said the Church when asked about this doctrine:

:We believe that the apostle Peter’s biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul’s reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes.{{ref|fox1}}

==Supplanting God?==

The first thing we must realize when we study this principle is that

:The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him. {{ref|bkp1}}

A belief in human deification ''does not'' mean that the LDS believe their worship is or will be properly directed at anyone but God the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Non-LDS church historian Ernst Benz insisted that the doctrine of deification was present in the early Church, and pointed out a potential risk for those who do not understand it:

:Now this idea of deification could give rise to a misunderstanding—namely, that it leads to a blasphemous self-aggrandizement of man. If that were the case, then mysticism would, in fact, be the sublimist, most spiritualized form of egoism. But the concept of ''imago dei'', in the Christian understanding of the term, precisely does not aspire to awaken in man a consciousness of his own divinity, but attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor. Here the powerful words of Jesus in {{b||Matthew|25|21-26}} are appropriate and connected by the church fathers to ''imago dei''...

:Hence, the concept of ''imago dei'' does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but rather toward charity as the true and actual form of God's love, for the simple reason that in one's neighbor the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us. The love of God should be fulfilled in the love toward him in whom God himself is mirrored, in one's neighbor. Thus, in the last analysis, the concept of imago dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel—"Thou shalt love . . . God . . . and thy neighbor as thyself" ({{b||Luke|10|27}})—since one should view one's neighbor with an eye to the image that God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given regarding him.{{ref|benz1}}

==UnChristian?==

Critics insist that the doctrine of ''theosis'' is unBiblical and unChristian. Unfortunately for the critics, a review of Christian history illustrates that this doctrine was and is a common belief of many Christians; modern critics are perhaps the exception, rather than the rule.

===Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202) ===

Saint Irenaeus, who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.{{ref|fn1}} Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in ''theosis'':

:While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord. {{ref|fn2}}

Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

:there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.{{ref|iren1}}

Yet, Irenaeus—whom it is absurd to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in ''theosis'' in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

:We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.{{ref|fn3}}

Also:

:How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.{{ref|fn4}}

And:

:Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” {{ref|fn5}}

And:

:But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” {{ref|fn6}}

And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

:For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh," to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.{{ref|fn7}}

Further quotes from Irenaeus available [[/Quotes|here]].

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

:Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.{{ref|mcgiffert1}}

===Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)===

Clement, an early Christian leader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

:yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.{{ref|clement1}}

And:

:...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men."{{ref|clement2}}

:Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.{{ref|clement3}}

===Origen (ca. AD 185-251)===
:And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. {{ref|Origen1}}

:The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God. {{ref|Origen2}}

Origen also defined what it means to "participate" in something:

:Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. {{Ref|Origen3}}

===Justin Martyr (d. ca. AD 163)===

Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

:to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...{{ref|martyr1}}

Also,

:[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest.{{ref|martyr2}}

===Hippolytus (AD 170-236)===

:Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer,) mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son...The Deity (by condescension) does not diminish anything of the dignity of His divine perfection having made you even God unto his glory. {{ref|Hippolytus1}}

===Athanasius===

In 347, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and participant in the council of Nicea, said:

:the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods....just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through His flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life...[we are] sons and gods by reason of the word in us.{{ref|athan1}}

:For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man. {{ref|athan3}}

He also states that Christ "became man that we might be made divine." {{ref|athan2}}

===Augustine (AD 354-430)===

Augustine, considered one of the greatest Christian Fathers, said

:but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, ({{b||John|1|12}}). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.{{ref|augustine1}}

===Jerome (AD 340-420)===

Jerome also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

:“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.{{ref|jerome1}}

Jerome goes on to say that we should

:give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high...{{ref|jerome2}}

===Modern Christian exegesis===

The ''Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' describes "deification" thusly:

:Deification (Greek ''Theosis'') is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, ''according to the Bible'', is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. ({{b||Psalms|82|}} (81) .6; {{b|2|Peter|1|4}}), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption ({{b||Romans|8|9-17}}, {{b||Galatians|4|5-7}}) and the fourth gospel ({{b||John|17|21-23}}).{{ref|westminster1}}

Joseph Fitzmyer wrote:

:The language of 2 Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, ‘if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods; (adv. Haer v, pref.), And becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons ‘by participation’ (Greek ''methexis''). Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the confessor, for whom the doctrine is corollary of the incarnation: ‘deification, briefly, is the encompassing and fulfillment of all times and ages’,...and St. Symeon the new theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, ‘he who is God by nature converses with those whom he has made gods by grace, as a friend converses with his friends, face to face...’

:Finally, it should be noted that deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian.{{ref|fitzmeyer1}}

According to Christian scholar G.L. Prestige, the ancient Christians “taught that the
destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified.”{{ref|prestige1}}

William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:

:"God became man, that we might become God" was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that "deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of ''deificari'' in Latin than Origen of ''apotheosis'' in Greek...To modern ears the word ''deification'' sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.{{ref|inge1}}

Yet, these "arrogant and shocking" doctrines were clearly held by early Christians!

This view of the early Christians' doctrines is not unique to the Latter-day Saints. Many modern Christian writers have recognized the same doctrines. If the critics do not wish to embrace these ancient doctrines, that is their privilege, but they cannot logically claim that such doctrines are not "Christian." One might fairly ask why modern Christians do not believe that which the ancient Christians insisted upon?

===UnBiblical?===

The previous section demonstrates that ''theosis'' has been taught by many Christians through the centuries. They pulled these beliefs from the Bible itself.


===The concept of deification derived from Greek philosophy?===
Evangelical Christians claim that the Latter-day Saint idea of "deification" was derived from pagan Greek philosophy. The simple answer to this question is "No." Why? Greek philosophy was an attempt to discover the First Things. What is it that is behind the multiplicity of things we encounter? Some said water, others argued for fire--building on Ionian notions. Still others argued for numbers. In doing this they began to deal with three issues, or what were called the "parts" of philosophy. The first two parts involved theoria (theory), and included two issues: ''physis'' (from which we get the word "physical") and ''logos'' (from which we get the word "logic"). Put in question form, the Greeks debated about the nature of reality and how we can know, or not know, the answer to this question. The third part of philosophy—''praxis'' (from which we get the word "practical," meaning for the Greek philosophers the question of how, given the limits on our knowledge and what we can know of the nature of things, how ought we to behave?). The question of the nature of divine things or of God was never settled.

Plato is an especially useful instance of what might be called "theoretical atheism" in his physics, while in his practical or moral philosophy he has a rather large place for God as a kind of "noble lie," since believing in divine punishments is a way of controlling children or childish adults—that is, most humans most of the time. It is also true that in Plato's dialogues there are many instances in which a wise saying by one of the participants will draw forth from one of the others expressions such as "oh divine man" or "worthy of being a God" and so forth. This may merely be a way of indicating that wisdom is the highest attainment of human nature, and not anything like theosis (deification) in the sense that word was used by early Christians.

When Latter-day Saints refer to the Hellenizing of Christianity, they are following the lead of Protestant authors who have used that expression. What that label often means, for the Saints, is that the authors of the great ecumenical creeds borrowed categories, which they only half understood, from pagan sources—that is, from Greek philosophy. In doing this they seem to have corrupted both Greek philosophy and Christian faith. This may not have caused the apostasy, but may have instead been a desperate attempt on the part of really passionate believers to sort of issues that were tearing the church to pieces.

For further information, see: {{FR-11-1-7}}

====Scriptures====
'''''Theosis'' or deification is discussed in the following biblical scriptures''':
* {{b||Psalm|82|5-6}} (cf. {{b||John|10|34-36)}}
* {{b||Daniel|12|3}}
* {{b||Matthew|5|48}} (cf. {{b||Luke|6|40}})
* {{b||Matthew|24|45-47}}
* {{b||Acts|17|29}}
* {{b||Romans|8|16-17,32}}
* {{b|2|Corinthians|3|18}}
* {{b|1|Corinthians|15|49}}
* {{b|2|Corinthians|8|9}}
* {{b||Galatians|4|7}}
* {{b||Philippians|3|14-15}}
* {{b||Philippians|3|20-21}}
* {{b||Hebrews|12|23}}
* {{b|1|Jn|3|1-2}}
* {{b|1|Peter|3|7}}
* {{b|2|Peter|1|4}}
* {{b||Revelation|3|21}}
* {{b||Revelation|21|7}}

In regard to the Mormon doctrine, non-LDS scholar Ernst W. Benz has observed:

:One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.{{ref|benz1}}

''For more quotes about ''theosis'' see: [[Primary sources:Theosis]]

<videoflash>ECtHwKpUD-U</videoflash>

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|fox1}} Fox News, "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007). {{link|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html}}
#{{note|bkp1}} {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Pattern of Our Parentage|date=November 1984|start=69}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20november%201984%20.htm/the%20pattern%20of%20our%20parentage.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=}}
#{{note|benz1}}{{reflections|author=Ernst W. Benz|article=''Imago Dei'': Man in the Image of God|start= 215|end=216}} Reprinted in {{FR-17-1-10}} Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of ''theosis'' for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
#{{note|fn1}} {{ECF|start=16|end=17}}
#{{note|fn2}} {{ECF1|start=94}}
#{{note|iren1}} {{Anf|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies|citation=|vol=1|page=463}}
#{{note|fn3}} {{ECF1|start=94}}
#{{note|fn4}} {{ECF|start=95|end=96}}.
#{{note|fn5}} {{ECF1|start=106}}; Citing Irenaeus, ''Against Heresies'', 4.38 cp. 4.11.
#{{note|fn6}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies| citation=|vol=1|start=419, chapter 6}}
#{{note|fn7}} {{Anf1|author=Irenaeus|article=Against Heresies| citation=|vol=1|start=450, chapter 6}}
#{{note|mcgiffert1}} Arthur C. McGiffert, ''A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1—Early and Eastern: From Jesus to John of Damascus'' (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1932), 141.
#{{note|clement1}} Clement of Alexandria, ''Exhortation to the Greeks'', 1. {{link|url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-exhortation.html}}
#{{note|clement2}} Clement of Alexandria, ''The Instructor'', 3.1 see also Clement, ''Stromateis'', 23.{{NeedCite}}
#{{note|clement3}} {{ECF|start=243|end=244}}; ''Stromata'' 7:10 (55–56).
#{{note|Origen1}} Origen, ''Commentary on John,'' Book II, Chapter 2.
#{{note|Origen2}} Origen in Bettensen, Henry. ''The Early Christian Fathers'', 324.
#{{note|Origen3}} Origin, ''De Principiis'', 4:1:36 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:381.
#{{note|martyr1}} Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.
#{{note|martyr2}} Justin Martyr, ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 124.
#{{note|Hippolytus1}} Hippolytus, ''Refutation of All Heresies'' 10:29-30, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:152.
#{{note|athan1}} Athanasius, ''Against the Arians'', 1.39, 3.39.
#{{note|athan3}} Athanasius, ''Against the Arians'', 1:42, in ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers'', Second Series, 4:330-331.
#{{note|athan2}} Athanasius, ''On the Incarnation'', 54.
#{{note|augustine1}} Augustine, ''On the Psalms'', 50:2.
#{{note|jerome1}} Jerome, ''The Homilies of Saint Jerome'', 106–107.
#{{note|jerome2}} Jerome, ''The Homilies of Saint Jerome'', 106–353.
#{{note|westminster1}}Alan Richardson (editor), ''The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology'' (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1983). ISBN 0664213987. (emphasis added).
#{{note|fitzmeyer1}} Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ''Pauline Theology: a brief sketch'' (Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42. AISN B0006BQTCQ.
#{{note|prestige1}} G.L. Prestige, ''God in Patristic Thought'' (London Press, 1956), 73.
#{{note|inge1}} William Ralph Inge, ''Christian Mysticism'' (London, Metheun & Co., 1948[1899]), 13, 356.
#{{note|OrigenConclusion}} Origen, ''Commentary on John,'' Book II, Chapter 3.
#{{note|benz2}} {{reflections|author=Ernst W. Benz|article=''Imago Dei'': Man in the Image of God|start= 215|end=216}} Reprinted in {{FR-17-1-10}}Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of ''theosis'' for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.

{{FurtherReading}}



[[es:Deificación de los Seres Humanos]]
[[de:Theosis]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Nature of God/Deification of man]]

Book of Mormon/Windows

2012-12-28T06:07:23Z

TylerLivingston:

Book of Mormon/Names

2012-12-28T06:04:05Z

TylerLivingston:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy

2012-12-28T06:02:43Z

TylerLivingston:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

2012-12-28T05:57:48Z

TylerLivingston:

The Bible/Inerrancy

2012-12-28T05:55:21Z

TylerLivingston:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{| style="margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; border: 0px; align="right" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0
|-
| {{BiblePortal}}
|-
| {{EarlyChristianityPortal}}
|}
=={{Criticism label}}==
Critics claim the [[Bible_basics |Bible]] texts, at least in their pristine form, were inerrant. Therefore, it is incorrect for Joseph Smith to teach that the Bible contains errors, mistakes, or omissions.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The textual evidence before us makes an inerrant Bible text untenable. Furthermore, the doctrine of inerrancy is not a Biblical doctrine, and so can only be imposed upon the text from outside, not drawn out of the teachings of the purportedly "inerrant Bible."

The Latter-day Saint stance of honoring the Bible and seeking to understand it, while appreciating that it is the Word of God only insofar as fallible humans have faithfully transmitted that Word to us, is consistent with both Biblical teaching and the evidence available to us.

Insisting on Biblical infallibility is a theological and ideological presupposition, not a natural consequence of Bible teachings.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===Unbiblical assertion===
The Bible nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant.

As Blake Ostler observed of the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy":{{ref|chicago1}}

:''The doctrine of inerrancy is internally incoherent''. In my opinion, numerous insuperable problems dictate the rejection of inerrancy in general and inerrancy as promulgated in the Chicago Statement in particular. First, the Chicago Statement is self-referentially incoherent. One cannot consistently assert that the Bible is the basis of his or her beliefs and then assert that one must nevertheless accept biblical inerrancy as asserted in the Chicago Statement...This statement contains a number of assertions, propositions if you will, that are not biblical. Inerrancy, at least as recently asserted by evangelicals, is not spelled out in the Bible. Nowhere do the words ''inerrant'' or ''infallible'' appear in the Bible. Such theoretical views are quite alien to the biblical writers. Further, inerrancy is not included in any of the major creeds. Such a notion is of rather recent vintage and rather peculiar to American evangelicalism. Throughout the history of Christian thought, the Bible has been a source rather than an object of beliefs. The assertion that the Bible is inerrant goes well beyond the scriptural statements that all scripture is inspired or "God-breathed." Thus inerrancy, as a faith commitment, is inconsistent with the assertion that one's beliefs are based on what the Bible says. The doctrine of inerrancy is an extrabiblical doctrine about the Bible based on nonscriptural considerations. It should be accepted only if it is reasonable and if it squares with what we know from scripture itself, and not as an article of faith... However, it is not and it does not. 

:The Chicago Statement can function only as a statement of belief and not as a reasonable observation of what we find in the Bible. The Chicago Statement itself acknowledges that we do not find inerrant statements in the Bible, for it is only "when all facts are known" that we will see that inerrancy is true. It is very convenient to propose a theory that cannot be assessed unless and until we are in fact omniscient. That is why the Chicago Statement is a useless proposition. It cannot be a statement of faith derived from the Bible because it is not in the Bible. It cannot be a statement about what the evidence shows because the evidence cannot be assessed until we are omniscient.{{ref|ostler1}}

===Textual witness===

The current evidence of Biblical manuscripts demonstrates unequivocally that corruption and tampering with Biblical texts is the rule, not the exception.

====Old Testament====

Emmanuel Tov{{ref|tov1}}, J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, and editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication project wrote:

:* "All of [the] textual witnesses [of the OT] differ from each other to a greater or lesser extent."
:* "There does not exist any one edition [of the OT] which agrees in all of its details with another."
:*"Most of the texts—ancient and modern—which have been transmitted from one generation to the next have been ''corrupted'' in one way or another." (emphasis in original)
:* "A second phenomenon pertains to corrections and changes inserted in the biblical text. . . . Such tampering with the text is evidenced in all textual witnesses."
:*"Therefore, paradoxically, the soferim [scribes] and Masoretes carefully preserved a text that was already corrupted."
:* "One of the postulates of biblical research is that the text preserved in the various representatives (manuscripts, editions) of what is commonly called the Masoretic Text, does not reflect the 'original text' of the biblical books in many details."
:* "These parallel sources [from Kings, Isaiah, Psalms, Samuel, etc.] are based on ancient texts which already differed from each other before they were incorporated into the biblical books, and which underwent changes after they were transmitted from one generation to the next as part of the biblical books."
:* "S[eptuagint] is a Jewish translation which was made mainly in Alexandria. Its Hebrew source differed greatly from the other textual witnesses (M[asoretic], T[argums], S[amaritan], V[ulgate, and many of the Qumran texts]). . . . Moreover, S[eptuagint] is important as a source for early exegesis, and this translation also forms the basis for many elements in the NT."
:* "The importance of S[eptuagint] is based on the fact that it reflects a greater variety of important variants than all the other translations put together."
:* "Textual recensions bear recognizable textual characteristics, such as an expansionistic, abbreviating, harmonizing, Judaizing, or Christianizing tendency."
:* "The theory of the division of the biblical witnesses into three recensions [Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan] cannot be maintained . . . to such an extent that one can almost speak in terms of an unlimited number of texts."
:* "The question of the original text of the biblical books cannot be resolved unequivocally, since there is no solid evidence to help us to decide in either direction."
:* "We still have no knowledge of copies of biblical books that were written in the first stage of their textual transmission, nor even of texts which are close to that time. . . . Since the centuries preceding the extant evidence presumably were marked by great textual fluidity, everything that is said about the pristine state of the biblical text must necessarily remain hypothetical."
:* "M[asoretic] is but one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole."
:* "As a rule they [concepts of the nature of the original biblical text] are formulated as 'beliefs,' that is, a scholar, as it were, believes, or does not believe, in a single original text, and such views are almost always dogmatic."
:* "During the textual transmission many complicated changes occurred, making it now almost impossible for us to reconstruct the original form of the text."
:*"many of the pervasive changes in the biblical text, pertaining to whole sentences, sections and books, should not . . . be ascribed to copyists, but to earlier generations of editors who allowed themselves such massive changes in the formative stage of the biblical literature."
:*"It is not that M[asoretic text] triumphed over the other texts, but rather, that those who fostered it probably constituted the only organized group which survived the destruction of the Second Temple [i.e., the rabbinic schools derived from the Pharisees]."

====New Testament====

A similar situations confronts us with the New Testament. Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux{{ref|nt1}} wrote in ''An Introduction to New Testament Criticism'':

:*"They [ancient methods of rhetorical interpretation] are used to reveal a secret code, only accessible to the learned or initiated. If the 'Western' text is seen from this perspective, it becomes less of a product of a certain theology than of a certain system of meaning. . . . But this sophisticated kind of coded writing is not suitable for general circulation. For wider distribution, the text had to be adapted to the mentality of the people who were going to receive it, it had to be revised and changed so as to make it acceptable to an audience who were not expecting to have to look for hidden meaning."
:*"The wide stylistic gap between the two main New Testament text types, the 'Western' on the one hand and all the other types on the other hand, cannot have arisen by chance."
:*"In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.' (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27). Origen does not deny the existence of such changes." Indeed, Origen wrote, "It is an obvious fact today [third century A.D.] that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors."
:*"It is therefore not possible to reconstitute with certainty the earliest text, even though there is no doubt about its having existed in written form from a very early date, without a preparatory oral stage."
:*"In the period following AD 135, the recensions proliferated with a resultant textual diversity which reached a peak before the year 200."
:*"Thus between the years 150 and 250, the text of the first recensions acquired a host of new readings. They were a mixture of accidental carelessness, deliberate scribal corrections, involuntary mistakes, a translator's conscious departure from literalness, a reviser's more systematic alterations, and, not least, contamination caused by harmonizing to an extent which varied in strength from place to place. All these things contributed to diversification of the text, to giving it, if one may so put it, a little of the local colour of each country."

====Who made the changes?====

Christian writers often accused heretics (such as Marcion of the second century AD) of altering the Bible text. However, there is another more disturbing finding for those who insist on an inerrant Bible text:

:...recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the ''orthodox'' tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion.{{ref|ehrman1}}

Thus, the "orthodox" Christian tradition required the original texts to be reworked to support their views or oppose the views of those with whom they disagreed. It seems strange, then, to now accuse those who do not wholly accept the "orthodox" view of "violating scripture," since that very scripture was originally tampered with by those we now label 'orthodox,' which is merely another way of saying that they won the battle to define their view as the 'proper' one.

As Bruce Metzger observed:

:Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought [for themselves] were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them. Many of the alterations which may be classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that they were correcting an error or infelicity of language which had previously crept into the sacred text and needed to be rectified. A later scribe might even reintroduce an erroneous reading that had been previously corrected. …The manuscripts of the New Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alterations: those which involve the elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or inconvenient; and those which introduce into the Scriptures ‘proof’ for a favorite theological tenet or practice...{{ref|metzger2}}

===What did early Christians think?===

Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian author, complained that the Jews had altered scripture:

: And I wish you to observe, that they [the Jews] have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations...{{ref|justin1}}

Origen, a third-century Christian author, bemoaned the problem of poor textual transmission even in his era:

:The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.{{ref|origin1}}

Textual scholar Bruce Metzger quoted this passage, and then observed:

:Origen suggests that perhaps all of the manuscripts existing in his day may have become corrupt...{{ref|metzger1}}

The Book of Mormon describes how "plain and precious things" ({{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}) were removed from the Bible—Origen here complains of "deletions," from the scriptures, which would be the hardest changes to detect. An alteration may be detectable, but a deletion is simply gone forever.

Corinthian bishop Dionysius complained in the second century:

:When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.{{ref|dionysius1}}

===Latter-day Saints wish to defend the Bible===

While not believing that the Bible—or any book—is inerrant, the Latter-day Saints are far more concerned with defending the Bible's value than in denigrating it. Harold B. Lee observed, in 1972:

:I believe that the problem of our missionaries in our day too might be not so much to prove that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are indeed the word of the Lord, but that the Bible, which is generally accepted as the word of God, is being doubted as having been derived from the words of inspired prophets of past generations.

:In this day when the Bible is being downgraded by many who have mingled philosophies of the world with Bible scriptures to nullify their true meaning, how fortunate that our Eternal Heavenly Father, who is always concerned about the spiritual well-being of His children, has given to us a companion book of scriptures, known as the Book of Mormon, as a defense for the truths of the Bible that were written and spoken by the prophets as the Lord directed....

:It is only as we forsake the traditions of men and recover faith in the Bible, the truth of which has been fully established by recent discovery and fulfillment of prophecy, that we shall once again receive that inspiration which is needed by rulers and people alike. {{ref|lee.158-159}}

<videoflash>sSz4TruRdRs</videoflash>

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|chicago1}} On the Chicago Statement, see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 181–185.
#{{note|ostler1}} {{FR-11-2-3}} (italics in original)
#{{note|tov1}} These examples are taken from {{FR-11-2-4}}. References to Tov's original work may be found in footnotes 26–49.
#{{note|nt1}} These examples are taken from {{FR-11-2-4}}. References to Vaganay and Amphoux's original work may be found in footnotes 52–58.
#{{note|ehrman1}} {{MisquotingJesus1|start=53}}
#{{note|metzger2}}Bruce Metzger, ''The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration ''(second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 195, 201.
#{{note|justin1}} {{Anf1| author=Justin Martyr|article=Dialogue with Trypho|vol=1|citation=Chapter 71|start=234}}
#{{note|origen1}} Origen, ''Commentary on Matthew 15.14'' as quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament manuscripts," in ''Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey'', ed. J Neville Birdsall and Robert W. Thomson (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 78—79; reference from Erhman, 223.
#{{note|metzger1}} Bruce Metzger, ''The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration ''(second edition 1979; first edition 1964), 152; citing Metzger, “Explicit references in the works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” in ''Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey'', ed. J.N. Birdsall (1963): 78–95.
#{{note|dionysius1}} Cited in {{MisquotingJesus1|start=53}}
#{{note|lee.158}} {{THBL1|start=158-159}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[de:Bibel:_Unfehlbarkeit]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Bible/Inerrancy]]

Mountain Meadows Massacre/History

2012-12-28T05:52:59Z

TylerLivingston:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
In September 1857 a group of Mormons in southern Utah killed all adult members of an Arkansas wagon train that was headed for California. Critics charge that the massacre was typical of Mormon "culture of violence," and claim that Church leaders—possibly as high as Brigham Young—approved of, or even ordered the killing.

{{CriticalSources}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

{{main|Blood atonement|Oath of vengeance|Crime and violence in Utah}}

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

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

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

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

====The Utah War====

{{SeeAlso|Template:BloodAtonementWiki|l1=Mormon reformation}}

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

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

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

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

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

The Baker-Fancher train arrived in Salt Lake City about the end of July 1857, camping west and a little south of the city on the Jordan River. Their arrival did not appear to raise any eyebrows or concerns, as there was no mention of them in the newspapers of the time. The group was advised by Elder Charles C. Rich of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to head toward California by circling around the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake, and they began in that direction. Upon travelling as far as the Bear River, the train decided to take the southern route. This caused them to pass through Salt Lake City again, moving further south through Provo, Springville, and Payson.

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

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

Whether there is any truth to these rumors, it is clear the travels of the Baker-Fancher train through southern Utah did not go unnoticed as they were in northern Utah. The presence of the train seemed to exacerbate the tensions already present due to the Utah War.

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

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

===The Main Participants===

{{Main|Brigham_Young_ordered_MMM|l1=Brigham Young ordered Mountain Meadows Massacre?|Brigham_Young_ordered_MMM/Brigham's letter mysteriously lost|l2=Brigham's letter mysteriously lost?}}
There were many participants in the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. The following are considered to be the main participants, from a historical perspective. (The individuals are listed in alphabetical order.)

'''William H. Dame''' was, at the time of the massacre, the commander of the Iron Military District with the militia rank of colonel. He was also serving as president of the Parowan Stake. Initially, he counseled letting the wagon train leave in peace. Later, he decided not to help the emigrants fend off what he thought was an Indian attack unless they requested it. Finally, becoming aware of the true situation at the Mountain Meadows, he reluctantly authorized the use of the militia to finish the massacre in time to avoid discovery. While not at the site until after the massacre, he was, by the standards of military justice applicable both then and now, administratively responsible for the actions of officers and soldiers under his command.

'''Isaac C. Haight''' was a major over the Second Battalion in the Iron County militia and president of the Cedar City stake. Haight was the mastermind behind the massacre. After being denied permission to use the militia, Haight recruited John D. Lee and others to incite the Indians to attack the train. Efforts to bring Haight and others to justice after the massacre proved to be fruitless.

'''John H. Higbee''' was a major over the Third Battalion in the Iron County militia and town marshal of Cedar City. His ecclesiastical position was first counselor in the stake presidency of Isaac C. Haight. After a failed attempt to arrest rowdy members of the train for criminal offenses, he conspired with Haight to punish the wagon train. When Dame permitted, Higbee led troops to the Meadows carrying orders to completely destroy the wagon train.

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

'''John Doyle Lee''' was a major over the Fourth Battalion in the Iron County militia. At the Mountain Meadows, Lee led Indians and other Mormons in the early unsuccessful stages of the siege. After Higbee's arrival with reinforcements, Lee convinced the emigrants to surrender their weapons under false pretenses. Lee was the only person ever brought to trial for his involvement in the massacre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==An accounting==

{{Main|Brigham Young and the prosecution of Mountain Meadows Massacre|l1=Prosecution of MMM|Brigham Young and the prosecution of Mountain Meadows Massacre/Church blocked prosecution|l2=Church blocked prosecution?|Brigham Young and the prosecution of Mountain Meadows Massacre/Church interference in trials|l3=Church interference in trials?|Brigham Young and the prosecution of Mountain Meadows Massacre/Deal with Brigham Young|l4=Deal with Brigham Young for MMM prosecution?}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most scholars and historians are quick to admit they don't have all the facts related to the massacre, and probably never will. That hasn't stopped some writers, for polemical reasons, from using a broad brush to denigrate the Church and its early leaders relative to the crimes of September 11, 1857.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Cultural and social considerations===

Nothing can excuse the actions of those who perpetuated the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It may be possible, however, to better understand how basically good, law-abiding people (both before and after the massacre) could have been induced to carry out the massacre's actions.

Researchers have described a "culture of honor" which prevailed in the American South both before and after the Civil War, and illustrate how real or perceived insults or threats from the Fancher party might have moved some to violence:{{ref|nisbett.1}}

:"The book is about “a singular cause of male violence – the perpetrator’s sense of threat to one of his most valued possessions, namely, his reputation for strength and toughness. In many of the world’s cultures, social status, economic well-being, and life itself are linked to such a reputation." (xv}

:"The South was settled by herdsmen from the fringes of Britain. “Herdsmen the world over tend to be capable of great aggressiveness and violence because of the vulnerability to losing their primary resources, their animals."(xv)

(Note that the false belief that the Fancher party was guilty of poisoning water supplies could have stirred the same worries in the LDS settlers.)

:"Cases of southern violence often reflect a concern with blows to reputation or status – with ‘violation of personal honor’ – and the tacit belief that violence is an appropriate response to such an affront." (2)

:"Thus the southern preference for violence stems from the fact that much of the South was a lawless, frontier region settled by people whose economy was originally based on herding."

(Note that LDS settlers in southern Utah were in a similar setting, depending on a similar economic model. They were, furthermore, threatened by the coming U.S. Army).

:"A key aspect to the culture of honor is the importance placed on the insult and the necessity to respond to it. An insult implies that the target is weak enough to be bullied. Since a reputation for strength is of the essence in the culture of honor, the individual who insults someone must be forced to retract; if the instigator refuses, he must be punished—with violence or even death." (5)

:The stereotype of the southern woman is that she was highly feminine. Thought there may be some truth to that stereotype, there is a competing one, that she was a ‘steel magnolia,’ a superficially soft and melting woman who was quite capable of toughness and the wielding of power. ... Whatever plantation women were like, it is clear from all sorts of evidence that in the backcountry, women were very tough indeed. (87)

The threat to honor would have been particularly profound if the Mormons believed that their plural wives were being offended or insulted by being called "whores" by the immigrant party:

:A key aspect to the culture of honor is the importance placed on the insult and the necessity to respond to it. An insult implies that the target is weak enough to be bullied. Since a reputation for strength is of the essence in the culture of honor, the individual who insults someone must be forced to retract; if the instigator refuses, he must be punished—with violence or even death. A particularly important kind of insult is one directed at female members of a man’s family.

:In the Old South, as in the ancient world, ‘son of a bitch’ or any similar epithet was a most damaging blow to male pride....To attack his wife, mother, or sister was to assault the man himself. Outsider violence against family dependents, particularly females, was a breach not to be ignored without risk of ignominy. An impotence to deal with such wrongs carried all the weight of shame that archaic society could muster. (138)

With their history of being repeatedly driven, at least Mormon settlers were surely afraid of appearing weak and vulnerable, which would invite further attacks. That they ''were'' weak and vulnerable to the approaching federal army would have only made matters worse.

We emphasize that this does not ''excuse'' the massacre, but it makes the decisions and actions of those involved perhaps more explicable.



<videoflash>tok62ytBrDo</videoflash>

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|briggs1}}{{Sunstone|author=Robert Briggs|num=125|article=Wrestling Brigham: Review of ''Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows'', by Will Bagley|date=December 2002|start=62|end=66}} A longer version was published as "Mountain Meadows and The Craft of History" and was available on sunstoneonline.com.
#{{note|bhr1}}{{CHC1|vol=4|start=156}}
#{{note|ww1}}{{CD|author=Wilford Woodruff|date=8 April 1894|article=The Law of Adoption|vol=4|start=72|end=73}}
#{{note|brooks2}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre'' (1950; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 219
#{{note|bhr2}}Roberts, 139.
#{{note|jaw1}}{{IE1|author=John A. Widtsoe|article=Was Brigham Young Responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre?|date=August 1951|start=?}}
#{{note|brooks1}}Juanita Brooks, ''The Mountain Meadows Massacre,'' Revised Edition, (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991), 223.
#{{note|nisbett.1}} Richard E. Nisbett and Dov Cohen, ''Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South'' (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996), pages as noted after each citation.

{{FurtherReading}}

[[de:Mountain Meadows Massaker]]
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[Category:Mormon Reformation]]
[[Category:Mountain Meadows Massacre]]

[[fr:Mountain Meadows Massacre]]

Atheism

2012-12-28T05:50:03Z

TylerLivingston:

=LDS works=
* [[Mormon responses to atheism]]
* {{FR-21-2-4}} 
* {{FR-19-2-1}} 
* {{FR-20-1-12}} 

=Non-LDS books that treat matters of interest to atheism=

==Classic works==
* G. K. Chesterton ''Orthodoxy'' [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/130 online] Many other editions exist.
* C. S. Lewis ''Mere Christianity'' (HarperOne, 2012). ISBN 9780061350214. Many other editions exist.

==Biologists==
*Simon Conway Morris
** Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2004). 9780521603256
** The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal (Templeton Press, 2008). ISBN 9781599471389
* Francis Collins (Head of Human Genome Project)
** The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2007). ISBN 9781416542742
** Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith (HaperOne, 2010). ISBN 9780061787348

==Serious Philosophers==
* Anthony Flew, ''There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind'' (HarperOne, 2008). ISBN 9780061335303
* Thomas Nagel, ''Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False'' (Oxford University Press, USA, 2012). ISBN 9780199919758 {{an|Nagel is an atheist, but essentially endorses the "hard problem of consciousness" type of problem that Plantinga explores in his book below (including citation to it). He argues that strict materialism can't be true (i.e., matter before all, yielding minds) and theism is unattractive to him (mind before all, giving matter). So, he believes there must be a third option, which he doesn't spell out but thinks is necessary. At any rate, he regards the current materialistic atheism as inadequate, though does not yet have something to put in its place.}}
* Alvin Plantinga, ''Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism'' (Oxford University Press, USA, 2011). ISBN 9780199812097

==More Popular Books==

* William Lane Craig, ''Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics'' (Crossway; 3rd edition, 2008). ISBN 9781433501159 {{An|Craig has a more evangelical approach that Mormons may properly be skeptical of (such arguing for an ex-nihilo creation—see [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_books&vol=16&num=2&id=556 here] and [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=17&num=2&id=590 here] for reviews of his effort to use similar non-biblical concepts in an effort to refute LDS ideas about theism) but he still does a good job showing the weakness in common atheist arguments and is only presenting age old arguments for God that have been around for centuries but yet are powerful. Videos are also available [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfsYhWNMYr4 here] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZb8m7p8ng here].
* Timothy Keller, ''The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism'' (Riverhead Trade; Reprint edition, 2009). ISBN 9781594483493
* Alister E. McGrath, ''The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World'' (WaterBrook Press; Reprint edition, 2006). ISBN 9780385500623 {{an|A history of atheism in the west, with a look at some of its arguments. Excellent for background to the current debate.}}
* Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, ''The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine'' (IVP, 2009). ISBN 9780830837212

<videoflash>slQEE1BAqmA</videoflash>

Mormonism and Wikipedia/Three Witnesses

2012-12-28T05:45:48Z

TylerLivingston:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
__NOTOC__
{{FAIRAnalysisWikipedia
|title=An analysis of Wikipedia article "Three Witnesses"
|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witnesses
|uplink=[[../|Mormonism and Wikipedia]]
|section=
|previous=[[../Golden plates|Golden plates]]
|next=
|notes={{WikipediaDisclaimer}}
}}
{{CriticalWorkInfobox
|title=Wikipedia article "Three Witnesses"
|type=Website
|author=Controlling editor [[John Foxe]]
|affiliation=Protestant
|accuracy=Conclusions drawn are predominantly negative toward the credibility and character of the Three Witnesses.
|templecontent=None
}}
=An analysis of Wikipedia article "Three Witnesses" {{WikipediaUpdate|9/28/2011}}=

The following sub-articles analyze sections of the Wikipedia "Three Witnesses" article. The sections examined are the following:

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Introduction
|subject=Introduction
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=/Testimony
|subject=Testimony of the Three Witnesses
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=/The Three Witnesses
|subject=The Three Witnesses
|summary=
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=/Importance
|subject=Importance
|summary=
}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
{{MormonismAndWikipedia}}

<videoflash>7E-iP-Xt0-c</videoflash>

{{suggestions}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Mormonism and Wikipedia/Three Witnesses]]

Relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry

2012-12-28T05:34:16Z

TylerLivingston:

Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon

2012-12-28T05:03:38Z

TylerLivingston:

Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon

2012-12-28T05:02:42Z

TylerLivingston:

Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon

2012-12-28T05:00:39Z

TylerLivingston:

Horses in the Book of Mormon

2012-12-28T04:54:13Z

TylerLivingston:

Plants in the Book of Mormon

2012-12-28T04:51:46Z

TylerLivingston:

Book of Mormon/Money

2012-12-28T04:43:38Z

TylerLivingston:

Template:Response label

2012-12-28T04:42:29Z