Answers to the 95 LDS Theses Questions asked by Mormon Reformation (mormonthink.

com)
The Book of Mormon 1. The primary translation method occurred by Joseph Smith putting his face in a hat and reading a rock known as a seer stone. Despite this, the Church frequently misrepresents the method Joseph used to translate. Answer: It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process. As Elder Russel M. Nelson stated in the July 1993 Ensign, the "details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known." We do know, based upon witness accounts, that Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time. We also know that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work. One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method of translation. 2. There is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, a fact that seriously undermines its authenticity claims. Answer: This to me is one of the most untrue statements in 95 theses questions so I will answer with only one archeological evidence even though there are many more. Nephi's party reaches an area "which was called Nahom" (1 Nephi 16:34)near the time that they make an eastward turn in their journey. It [the root for naham] appears twenty-five times in the narrative books of the Bible, and in every case it is associated with death. In family settings, it is applied in instances involving the death of an immediate family member (parent, sibling, or child); in national settings, it has to do with the survival or impending extermination of an entire people. At heart, naham means "to mourn," to come to terms with a death; these usages are usually translated...by the verb "to comfort,"

as when Jacob's children try to comfort their father after the reported death of Joseph. It is intriguing that Nephi tells us that the deceased Ishmael was buried at a spot with a name associated with mourning and death of loved ones. Strikingly, altars dating from the time of Lehi have been found with the inscription "NHM." Semitic languages of the time did not use vowels in their written texts, so this corresponds to a name of "nahom." S. Kent Brown has addressed the linguistic issues in the NHM placename. The Semitic name Nahom can refer to mourning and consolation, and may also refer to groaning and complaining, giving it special significance in Nephi's account (see [1 Nephi 16:35.) The NHM location has an ancient tradition of being a place for burial and mourning. Ancient tombs are still abundant in that area. The name Nehem/Nahom ("nhm"--which can also be rendered "Nihm") is a rare place namewith the only known site in the Arabian peninsula being at a place consistent with the Book of Mormon account. Thus, NHM provides archaeological evidence of a place name mentioned in the Book of Mormon at the exact place and historical period which the text requires. Depending on your own personal preference for a Book of Mormon geological setting you can find many more. I leave this open to personal interpretation because we do not now where the new world location for the majority of the Book of Mormon actually took place although there are many speculations including Mesoamerica (Central America), North America, Peru and a few others. I personally lead towards a Mesoamerican setting for many different reasons. 3. The Book of Mormon is filled with anachronisms that also damage credibility as a Divine record. Answer: Because this question does not list any specific anachronisms I will not go into detail into the more popular anachronisms used against the church. I will advise that whoever reads this that they review the following website that goes through most if not all of the most common anachronisms that are used and gives very satisfactory answers. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms 4. DNA evidence shows that Native Americans do not come from Middle Eastern heritage. Recently, the Church changed its claim that "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians". Answer: DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised, a "contrived controversy." Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but

the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen. Critics do not provide the "whole story" of the DNA data, and seem to want to use the certainty which DNA provides in modern crime-solving as a springboard to trick the Saints, the media, and investigators into thinking that their historical DNA conclusions are as solid. In fact, DNA data tells us nothing which we did not already know from archaeological dataat present, the human settlement of the Americas is thought to date thousands of years before the advent of Lehi. Many of these settlers have links to east Asia. None of this is news, and none of it threatens the Book of Mormon's status as authentic history. But, the critics hope that their listeners will be awed by the banner of DNA science, and conclude that something more impressive is going on. Informed members of the Church have not been persuaded by their tactics, and much has been written to help nonspecialists understand the "numerous and complex" issues in the fascinating and valuable science of genetics. Genetic attacks on the Book of Mormon focus on the fact that Amerindian DNA seems closest to Asian DNA, and not DNA from "the Middle East" or "Jewish" DNA. However, this attack ignores several key points. Lehi and his family are clearly not Jews. They belong to the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3, 1 Nephi 5:14), and married into Ishmael's family, the tribe of Ephraim. These tribes were carried away captive by the Assyrians, and did not contribute greatly to the current genetic mix of the Middle East. Furthermore, the Middle East is located at the crossroads of three continents, and has seen a great deal of immigration, mixing, and intermarriage. To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science. 5. Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to local name and places that Joseph Smith would have been familiar with. Such a resemblance is too close to be a coincidence. Answer: Critics attempt to discredit Joseph even by resorting to suggesting place names that did not exist in his day. They also resort to extremely small, distant sites about which Joseph almost certainly could have had no knowledge. They also overlook the Biblical source for their American "parallels," which are far more likely and plausible than giving Joseph an encyclopedic knowledge of North American place names. Even if they insist that he forged the Book of Mormon, isn't the Bible a far more likely source for these names than obscure hamlets hundreds of miles away?

A modern survey of thousands of square miles and hundreds of small townships can doubtless turn up a few coincidental matches to Book of Mormon place namesor place names from any other source. Cognates and similar names occur easily by chance and can readily be found anywhere one looks. (One LDS author has compiled a list of Hawaiian "parallels" that are at least as convincing as the critics', to demonstrate how pointless this exercise is.)[8]

The examples provided by the critics fail on multiple grounds, as this color-coded chart demonstrates: Book of Mormon City Teancum Moron* Morianton Onidah Jacobugath Alma Shilom Key

Claimed Source Book of Mormon City Tecumseh Morin* Moraviantown Oneida Jacobsburg Alma Shiloh Ramah Ogath Angola Kishkumen Jerusalem Land of Lehi-Nephi --

Claimed Source Rama Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts Angola Kiskiminetas Jerusalem Lehigh --

Red = Did not exist in the 1816 to 1830 timeframe Blue = Biblical name or element Green = Small, distant and likely unknown to Joseph Violet = Partial parallel at best given name differences Black starred (*) = site not yet located on modern map. Has it vanished or is this an error?

6. The Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith's early theology also held this view. Answer: The Lectures on Faith are seven lessons on theology delivered by the presiding officers of the Church to the School of the Elders at Kirtland, Ohio, in late 1834. The lectures are organized in the form of a catechism, with each lecture starting with instructions on doctrine, and the first five lectures concluding with a question-and-answer section to check class participants for understanding. Scholarship seems to indicate that the lectures were mostly written by Sidney Rigdon with some oversight of Joseph Smith.

The Lectures were included as the "doctrine" portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (the revelations comprised the "covenants" portion), and remained in the D&C until they were removed from the 1921 edition. Lecture 5 deals with the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Lecture 5.2 teaches: There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all thingsby whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of manor rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;(emphasis added.) Critics who wish to claim that in the 1830s Joseph Smith had only a vaguely "trinitarian" idea of God (and so would see the Father and the Son as only one being) have missed vital evidence which cannot be ignored. 1829 The Book of Mormon (translated in 1829) contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in spirit bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18.) 1830 Between June and October 1830, Joseph had dictated his revision (the "Joseph Smith Translation") to Genesis. Joseph rendered Genesis 1:26 as: And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2:26-27.) There can be no doubt that Joseph understood "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness, rather than merely a moral or intellectual one. The JST of Genesis 5:1-2 read: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

Thus, by 1830 Joseph was clearly teaching a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity. Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also noted that other Christian denominations took issue with the new Church because of its teachings about God: "the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle." In February 1831 a non-Mormon writer noted that in November 1830 LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith claimed to have received "a commission from God," and they also said that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally." That the Prophet's enemies knew he claimed to have "seen God," indicates that the doctrine of an embodied God that could be seen was well-known early on. 1831 On 4 June 1831 Joseph Smith met in Kirtland, Ohio with a group of Elders and after blessing Lyman Wight with "the visions of heaven" and the ability to "see the Lord" he said, "I now see God, and Jesus Christ at his right hand. Let them kill me, I should not feel death as I am now." (Levi Hancock, autobiography, BYU Special Collections, 33). 1832 On 16 February 1832 Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received a visionary revelation of the three degrees of glory in the same year that Joseph wrote his earliest-known First Vision account. The 'three degrees' vision clearly teaches a physical separation of the Father and Son, bearing witness of seeing both of them, side by side (see DC 76:14,20 24.) John Whitmer would also write in 1831 of a vision enjoyed by Joseph in which Joseph saw Christ as separate from the Father, for he "saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Father making intercession for his brethren, the Saints." (emphasis added) Of this same experience, Levi Hancock wrote: "Joseph Smith then stepped out onto the floor and said, 'I now see God, and Jesus Christ at his right hand, let them kill me, I should not feel death as I am now.'" (emphasis added 18321833 Two of Joseph's close associates reported their own visions of God in the winter of 1832 1833. Both are decidedly not in the trinitarian mold.

Zebedee Coltrin: "Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling...a personage walked through the room from East to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did, and Joseph answered that this was Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; He was surrounded as with a flame of fire. [I] experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw him.... He was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but This appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed that I should melt down in His presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.'" John Murdock: "During the winter that I boarded with Bro[ther] Joseph... we had a number of prayer meetings, in the Prophets chamber.... In one of those meetings the Prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exersise [sic] strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in a most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I had ever before seen. His countenance was the most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree." Before 1836 Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, lived in Kirtland for four years (18321836). He described LDS beliefs: [The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself.

Evidence that is absent In addition to all the non-trinitarian evidence above, as Milton Backman has noted, there is a great deal of evidence that we should find, but don't. For example, no one has located a publication (such as an article appearing in a church periodical or statement from a missionary pamphlet) written by an active Latter-day Saint prior to the martyrdom of the Prophet that defends the traditional or popular creedal concept of the Trinity. . . . Moreover, there are no references in critical writings of the 1830s (including statements by apostates) that Joseph Smith introduced in the mid-thirties the doctrine of separateness of the Father and Son. Other Lecture evidence As noted above, "catchecism" section of Lecture 5 also contains the following: How many personages are there in the Godhead[?] Two: the Father and Son. Thus, even the Lecture in question saw the Father and Son as separate personages. The role of the Holy Ghost was less clear at this point in time; the same catechism describes the "Only Begotten of the Father possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit" (emphasis added). The exact nature of the relationship between the Spirit and the Father and the Son was not explicitly stated until 1843: The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.DC 130:22 Thus, the Lectures did not have a trinitarian view of Godthe Father and the Son were clearly distinct personages, united in mind by the Holy Spirit. 7. Rather than translating with Divine help, evidence supports that Joseph Smith plagiarized a significant portion of the Book of Mormon from the Bible, Ethan Smiths View of the Hebrews and other books contemporary to Josephs time. Answer: The theory the Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. The prevailing theory of the day was the Spalding Theory, which quickly lost credibility upon the discovery of an actual Spalding manuscript in 1884 which bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews

theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet. There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon: If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.][3] It strains credulity to claim that Joseph drew attention to the work from which he derived most of his ideas. Why would he call attention to the source of his forgery? Critics generally ignore the presence of many "unparallels"these are elements of Ethan Smith's book which would have provided a rich source of material for Joseph to use in order to persuade his contemporaries that the Book of Mormon was an ancient history of the American Indians, and that they were descended from Israel. Yet, the Book of Mormon consistently ignores such supposed "bulls-eyes," which is good news for proponents of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, since virtually all of Ethan's "evidences" have been judged to be false or misleading. The lack of such "unparallels" is bad news, however, for anyone wanting to claim that Joseph got his inspiration or information from Ethan Smith. The View of the Hebrews theory became more popular as the availability of the book itself diminished. The best evidence that argues against View of the Hebrews as the primary source for the Book of Mormon is a reading of the text itself, yet the ability to access that text had become more difficult over the years. In order to provide the interested reader with the ability to decide for themselves, BYU's Religious Studies Center re-published the 1825 edition of View of the Hebrews in 1996. 8. For a book Joseph Smith claimed to be "the most correct of any book on earth," it is suspicious that the text has undergone nearly 4,000 changes. Most of the changes, apologists argue, are small grammatical or punctuation fixes. However, there have been significant doctrinal revisions as well.

Answer: It should first be noted that the Book of Mormon itself does not claim to be free of errors. As Mormon himself stated in the introduction to the Book of Mormon: And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ. (1830 Book of Mormon title page) Mormon's son Moroni also acknowledges that the record that has been created is imperfect: And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you. Mormon 8:12 When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" on earth, he was referring to the principles that it teaches, not the accuracy of its textual structure.

If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes. The critical issue is not the number of changes that have been made to the text, but the nature of the changes. Most changes are insignificant modifications to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and are mainly due to the human failings of editors and publishers. For example, the word meet meaning "appropriate" as it appears in 1 Nephi 7:1, was spelled "mete" in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) "Mete" means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions. Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1 Nephi 12:18, which in all printed editions reads "a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God," while the manuscript reads "the sword of the justice of the Eternal God." In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword. The current (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon has this notice printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

10

Significant changes
Some Book of Mormon changes were corrections of transcription or printing errors. Changes that would affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are limited to:

those that are substantive AND o could possibly change the doctrine of the book OR o could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith.

There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and all of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

"the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18; 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40. "or out of the waters of baptism" added to 1 Nephi 20:1. "white" changed to "pure" in 2 Nephi 30:6. "Benjamin" changed to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1. "Words missing in Alma 32:30"[3] Alma 32:30-31

The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it. Many people in the church experience revelation that is to be dictated (such as a patriarch blessing). They will go back and alter their original dictation. This is done to clarify the initial premonitions received through the Spirit. The translation process for the Prophet Joseph may have occurred in a similar manner. 9. The Book of Mormon includes Biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version instead of the KJV version that Joseph later revised. Answer: The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not, as some members have presumed, simply a restoration of lost Biblical text or an improvement on the translation of known text. Rather, the JST also involves harmonization of doctrinal concepts, commentary and elaboration on the Biblical text, and explanations to clarify points of importance to the modern reader. (See main article on the nature of the JST for a more detailed discussion.) Thus, the Book of Mormon is likely a relatively "tight" translation of the Nephite records, with the focus on the important differences between the Nephite textual tradition and the Masoretic text.

11

By contrast, the JST comes from a more prophetically mature and sophisticated Joseph Smith, and provides doctrinal expansion based upon additional revelation, experience, and understanding. It is important to remember that Joseph did not consider one 'translation' of anything to be perfect or 'the final word.' Joseph had indicated that Moroni quoted Malachi to him using different wording than the KJV (See Joseph Smith History 1:3639). However, when Joseph quoted the same passage years later in a discussion about vicarious baptism for the dead, he said: I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other-and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism. for the dead(DC 128:18). (emphasis added) Thus, to Joseph, the adequacy of a translation depended upon the uses to which a given text will be employed. For one discussion, the KJV was adequate; for others, not. A key element of LDS theology is that living prophets are the primary instrument through which God continues to give knowledge and understanding to his children. Scriptures are neither inerrant, nor somehow "perfect," but are instead produced by fallible mortals. Despite this, because of current prophets and the revelation granted each individual, the writings of past prophets are sufficient to teach the principles essential for salvation. Additional revelation is sought and received as required. 10. The story of Laban in First Nephi illustrates that God's command must invariably be followed, even if it means committing murder. This is a dangerous message that inspires religious extremism. Answer: Nephi was told that "the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes". He was also told that "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." Nephi did have ample reason to slay King Laban when you realize that King Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brethren and he had taken their property. You can't help but to feel that Nephi would be completely justified in taking this one life. Nephi also realized that he could not fulfill the commandments of the Lord without obtaining the brass plates, thus he must also kill King Laban. Many scholars have pointed out that in 600 B.C. this would be commonly looked upon as justified but additional justification can be found when you look in the book of Exodus in the Old Testament. As pointed out by Steven L. Olsen in his Neal A. Maxwell Institute article entitled, "The Death of Laban" Nephi not only shrunk away from killing King Laban because he had never killed before but also because intentional murder was punishable by death of the guilty under the Law of Moses. Nephi admits that "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man and would that I might not slay him" but the spirit told him again to slay him "for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." It is this phrase that helps us gain the added insight. However as Steven Olsen points out "a subsequent provision of the law qualifies this absolute

12

prohibition""He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee" (Exodus 21:12-13). The specific wording of Nephi's decision to follow the spirit and slay King Laban places him securely under the justification given in the Law of Moses. This not only shows Nephi's innocents but also his amazing ability at using literary devices such as this to portray his life story and help those of us who were not extremely familiar with the Law of Moses come to a complete understanding of his reasoning. Well done Nephi, well done! 11. The Book of Mormon quotes Bible verses written after 600 B.C. In other words, these passages didn't yet exist when Lehi left Jerusalem. Answer: The challenge to the Book of Mormon is that Nephi quotes several chapters from Second Isaiah, who allegedly had not yet written his material in time for Nephi to quote from it. The key question is, "Were those passages available to Nephi on the plates of brass?". If some parts of Isaiah were not written until after Nephi obtained the brass plates then they obviously would not be available for Nephi to quote from. Among the Latter-day Saints who are familiar with this issue there is more than one approach taken. Some argue for single authorship of Isaiah, disagreeing with multiple authorship theories of Isaiah. Others agree that the Book of Isaiah was authored by more than one person and look for ways to resolve that with the Book of Mormon. We will consider the latter position first. Hugh Nibley summarizes the main reasons why many believe Isaiah was written by multiple authors: The dating of Deutero-Isaiah rests on three things: (1) the mention of Cyrus (Isa. 44:28), who lived 200 years after Isaiah and long after Lehi; (2) the threats against Babylon (Isa. 47:1, 48:14), which became the oppressor of Judah after the days of Isaiah and (3) the general language and setting of the text, which suggests a historical background commonly associated with a later period than that of Isaiah.

LDS scholar Brant Gardner writes: Rather than seeing the specificity of "Cyrus" or "Babylon" as denying Isaiah's authorship because they must have been written later, those same techniques of analysis suggest that others added those names later when fulfillment made the intent of the prophecy obvious. Cyrus might not have been named when Isaiah ben Amoz [1st Isaiah] wrote, but anyone living after the fact would certainly recognize the name and perhaps "improve" the original Isaiah text by adding the specifics of the fulfilled prophecy. If the earliest versions of Deutero-Isaiah were actually written by proto-Isaiah, they were later redacted on the basis of the similar historical facts of destruction and hope of return from exile that were part of both the earlier Assyrian and later Babylonian captivity."

13

However, this doesn't quite settle the issue yet. The question is asked, "What text was available to Nephi?" Nephi would have had available to him only the text of 1st Isaiah, a text which possibly included broad and perhaps vague prophecies of a future exile of Israel. The prophecies on Laban's plates of brass which Nephi was quoting from may not have specifically mentioned "Babylon" as that threat. Thus, what Nephi quoted as he inscribed on his plates was the original, early, 1st Isaiah version of Isaiah 48-52. However, the text that we have in the Book of Mormon of Isaiah 48-52 quotes from the later, 2nd Isaiah material (which is a reworked version of 1st Isaiah's earlier material) as found in the KJV Bible. How can this be? The answer to this question will involve a brief consideration of the translation process of the Book of Mormon. There are two major methods that have been proposed for the translation of the Book of Mormon. The first is a "tight-control" method in which the text of the English version strictly matches the text of the gold plates, often right down to the spelling of names. The second method of translation is "loose-control", in which the English translation is a bit more fluid and matches the general meaning of the original reformed Egyptian text but may not strictly follow every word. Latter-day saint scholars and students fall into both camps, and some believe that both methods could have been used throughout the translation of the Book of Mormon. This is relevant to the question of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon because a "loose-control" theory, or something similar to it, would help account for why we have the KJV of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, as discussed below.

A Proposed Scenario
When considering the large quantity of KJV Bible quotations in the Book of Mormon many LDS scholars have proposed a scenario like this:

As Joseph was translating the text of the Book of Mormon, he would find himself translating something that he recognized as being roughly similar to texts from the Bible. This would occur most prominently when Nephi quotes from Isaiah. Instead of translating Nephi's quotations of Isaiah, Joseph, deferred to the KJV translation of those chapters. This may have been done to save time and to respect the quality of the KJV Bible. The chapters of Isaiah that we find in the Book of Mormon were taken largely by Joseph Smith from the KJV Bible, instead of being translated from Nephi's version of that text. In other words, why reinvent the wheel when the work has already been done? If Joseph Smith did this while translating the Book of Mormon, it would fall under the broad contours of the "loose-control" theory of the Book of Mormon. As a result of this, the Isaiah chapters on Nephi's plates would have looked slightly different from the Isaiah chapters that we have now in the Book of Mormon. Remember, the only 2nd Isaiah chapters that show up in the Book of Mormon are Isaiah 48-52. Nephi's version of Isaiah 48-52 that he quoted on his plates was the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah which did not include specific references to Babylon. The version of Isaiah 48-52 that we have now in the Book of Mormon is not taken from Nephi's plates, but rather copied from the

14

KJV Bible for reasons suggested above. That version of Isaiah 48-52 is the older, reworked material of 2nd Isaiah which inserted specific references to Babylon. One final observation should be made. Scholars believe that Isaiah chapter 1 was not part of 1st Isaiah's original book, but was a later addition by a later writer, perhaps 2nd or 3rd Isaiah. It is noteworthy that Nephi begins quoting Isaiah 2 and continues until Isaiah 14 without break, and never quotes Isaiah 1. If Isaiah chapter 1 was not yet a part of the record of Isaiah when Nephi obtained it would make sense that he would not quote Isaiah chapter 2.

The Book of Abraham and Other Translation Issues

12. Despite Joseph's claim that this record was written by Abraham "by his own hand upon papyrus", scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it. Answer: Whether or not one accepts that the phrase by his own hand upon papyrus is an ancient or modern redaction to the text, a few things are certain. First, if the phrase was a part of the ancient title of the text then there is no justification from the Egyptological evidence that the phrase requires a holographic nature of the papyri. The ancient Egyptians who used the phrase or ones like it never mandated that such be viewed as implying holographic claims. Second, if the phrase is a 19th century redaction to the text then this is an issue concerning not the Book of Abraham's authenticity but the assumptions of Joseph Smith and his associates. If Joseph Smith did in fact harbor such assumptions, that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the actual Book of Abraham itself. Likewise, unless it can be shown that Joseph Smiths views of the nature of the authorship of the papyri came by revelatory means, then one cannot hold the Prophet to an impossible standard of perfection (one that the Prophet never established for himself) and criticize him for merely doing what humans do; have opinions and speculations. Thirdly, if the phrase by his own hand upon papyrus is a 19th century redaction and if Joseph Smith assumed a holographic nature of the papyri, then the whole issue is one of assumption. If one believes that Prophets must be right about everything or they are false prophets, then such an assumption reflects only the thoughts and background of the person holding the assumption. The same for those who hold no such assumption and acknowledge the fallibility of Prophets. We should therefore be careful to not impose our own assumptions on those figures in the past who may not have shared such assumptions or standards.

15

In either case, the phrase by his own hand upon papyrus cannot be used as a club against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. If anything, it is actually confirmatory evidence of the books ancient authenticity or a statement on the assumptions of Joseph Smith (and, by association, our own assumptions as well), and nothing more. It need not be assumed that the phrase by his own hand indicates a holographic nature of the Book of Abraham. As Professor John Gee reminds us, there is a difference between the date of a text and the date of a copy of a text. The two are not the same. Thus, while the date of the text of the Book of Abraham could have dated from Abrahams time, the copy of the Book of Abraham received by Joseph Smith could have a later copy dated to the Ptolemaic Era. 13. Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common funerary text. Joseph was completely wrong in his translation. Answer: It should first be understood that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it's possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus).[ Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly Facsimile 3which didn't survive) is incomplete. Dr. Nibley writes: We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant. A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known! And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

16

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee: Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls. It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text? Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century B.C.or the Ptolemaic period just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations. Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text. 14. The Church has denied that Joseph made Abrahamic claims about the papyrus, but still insists that "a testimony of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power." Answer: And I fully agree! Physical evidence of any of the standard works is not the foundation upon which a testimony of truthfulness is built although once a testimony is had these types of evidences can help strengthen the testimony. With that said the testimony should be built upon the promptings of the spirit. These prompting feeling are found in Galatians 5:22-23 and are known as the fruits of the spirit. 15. Joseph was fooled into thinking the Kinderhook plates were ancient records and even attempted to translate them. This demonstrates that he had no real gifts of translation or Divine revelation. Answer: A set of small plates, engraved with characters of ancient appearance, were purported to have been unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois, in April 1843. The so-called "Kinderhook plates" have been something of an enigma within the Mormon community

17

since they first appeared. While there are faithful LDS who take a number of different positions on the topic of these artifacts, most have concluded that they were fakes. Joseph Smith appears to have had the plates in his possession for about five days.

Did Joseph Smith attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates. [1] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth. Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph. The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL. The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL. Joseph did not attempt to translate the plates by revelation, and in fact demonstrated no interest in the plates after they left Nauvoo. Had Joseph attempted further translation of the plates using the "Egyptian Alphabet," he would likely have gotten no further than the first, easily identifiable character that he did "translate." A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

18

16. Joseph Smith showed his ineptitude for translation when he declared a Greek Psalter to be Egyptian hieroglyphics. Answer: There is no other evidence of Caswall's claim save his anti-Mormon work. That Caswall took no steps in Nauvoo to get Joseph on record is fatally suspicious, since this was the entire reason he claimed to be there. He is also clearly attempting to make Joseph Smith appear uncouth and ignorant, having him say "them plates" and "them characters", when this contrasts markedly with other known examples of Joseph's speaking and writing style at the time.[1] Furthermore, Joseph was familiar enough with Greek to recognize Greek characters, and so is unlikely to have mistaken them for an unknown languageeven if we believe Joseph was attempting to deceive Caswall, it seems unlikely he would fail to recognize the characters of a language he had studied. Critics who tell this story rarely provide the source details for the tale, and do not inform their readers about John Taylor's witness regarding Caswall's later dishonesty. On 19 April 1842, an English clergyman from Missouri named Henry Caswall visited Nauvoo, and would later claim that he had shown Joseph Smith a Greek psalter, which the Prophet claimed to translate: He [Joseph Smith] has a downcast look, and possesses none of that open and straightforward expression which generally characterizes an honest man. His language is uncouth and ungrammatical, indicating very confused notions respecting syntactical concords. When an ancient Greek manuscript of the Psalms was exhibited to him as a test of his scholarship, he boldly pronounced it to be a "Dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he said, "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics, and them which follows is the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian language. Them characters is like the letters that was engraved on the golden plates." [2] Of this claim, John Taylor would later say: Concerning Mr. Caswall, I was at Nauvoo during the time of his visit. He came for the purpose of looking for evil. He was a wicked man, and associated with reprobates, mobocrats, and murderers. It is, I suppose, true that he was reverend gentleman; but it has been no uncommon thing with us to witness associations of this kind, nor for reverend gentlemen; so called, to be found leading on mobs to deeds of plunder and death. I saw Mr. Caswall in the printing office at Nauvoo; he had with him an old manuscript, and professed to be anxious to know what it was. I looked at it, and told him that I believed it was a Greek manuscript. In his book, he states that it was a Greek Psalter; but that none of the Mormons told him what it was. Herein is a falsehood, for I told him. Yet these are the men and books that we are to have our evidence from.

19

An earlier, more detailed account from Caswall

That Caswall is not being entirely honest is demonstrated by another version of the same tale which he published the year earlier: [p. 5] I had laid aside my clerical apparel, and had assumed a dress in which there was little probability of my being recognized as a " minister of the Gentiles." In order to test the scholarship of the prophet, I had further provided myself with an ancient Greek manuscript of the Psalter written upon parchment, and probably about six hundred years old. [p. 35] On entering the house, chairs were provided for the prophet and myself, while the curious and gaping crowd remained standing. I handed the book to the prophet, and begged him to explain its contents. He asked me if I had any idea of its meaning. I replied, that I believed it to be a Greek Psalter; but that I should like to hear his opinion. "No," he said; "it ain't Greek at all; except, perhaps, a few words. What ain't Greek, is Egyptian ; and what ain't Egyptian, is Greek. This book is very valuable. It is a dictionary of Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Pointing to the capital letters at the commencement of each verse, he said : "Them figures is Egyptian hieroglyphics; and them which follows, is [p. 36] the interpretation of the hieroglyphics, written in the reformed Egyptian. Them characters is like the letters that was engraved on the golden plates." Upon this, the Mormons around began to congratulate me on the information I was receiving. "There," they said ; "we told you so we told you that our prophet would give you satisfaction. None but our prophet can explain these mysteries." The prophet now turned to me, and said, "this book ain't of no use to you, you don't understand it." "Oh yes," I replied; "it is of some use; for if I were in want of money, I could sell it, and obtain, perhaps, enough to live on for a whole year." "But what will you take for it?" said the prophet and his elders. "My price," I replied, "is higher than you would be willing to give." "What price is that?" they eagerly demanded. I replied, "I will not tell you what price I would take; but if you were to offer me this moment nine hundred dollars in gold for it, you should not have it." They then repeated their request that I should lend it to them until the prophet should have time to translate it, and promised me the most ample security; but I declined all their proposals.[4] The Times and Seasons noted somewhat sardonically that Caswall had returned home and been 'rewarded' with status in his own denomination because of his attacks on the Church. The newspaper gave a version of events which seems to accord much better with the facts than Caswall's claim that Joseph was anxious to translate the psalter but Caswall refused to sell or lend it: It will be recollected by some, that a Mr. Caswall, professing to be an Episcopal minister, came to this city some twelve or eighteen months ago. He had with him an old manuscript, professing to be ignorant of its contents, and came to Joseph Smith, as he said, for the purpose of having it translated. Mr. Smith had a little conversation with him and treated him with civility, but as the gentleman seemed

20

very much afraid of his document, he [Joseph] declined having any thing to do with it.[5]

Suspicious differences between the accounts

In his first version, Caswall claims that he told Joseph and the Mormons what the book wasa copy of the Psalms in Greek. Despite this warning, the bumbling Joseph that Caswall wishes us to see presses blindly on, utterly confident in his ability. The prophet and Mormons are also extraordinarily anxious to purchase the Psalter or borrow it with "the most ample security," but Caswall will not do so. Extraordinary! He has come to Nauvoo, he tells us, with the firm intent of exposing Joseph Smith as a charlatan. In front of a mass of witnesses, Joseph makes claims about the contents of a book that Caswall knows to be Greek, and the prophet offers to translate the document. Caswall, however, refuses to let him continue, refuses to loan it, and tries to discourage the Mormons from even thinking about buying it. Why? If Joseph committed himself publicly, in print, on the document's contents, Caswall would have iron-clad proof that Joseph could not translate. Joseph walked right into Caswall's trap, and Caswall then goes to great length to spring the prophet from it? His claim does not stand up. Caswall also claimed at first to have disguised his identity as a minister (the better to fool Joseph and the Mormons) but the Times and Seasons noted that Caswall had claimed to be an Episcopal minister. Caswall's second account likewise says nothing about him hiding his identity. It is not surprising, then, that critics often cite the later, less-detailed version(s) of Caswall's tale, which omit many of the absurdities in Caswall's claim. Critics make his charge look plausible, when the earliest document demonstrates that it is not, and that Caswall (as John Taylor claimed) was not above hiding or altering the facts to suit his polemical purpose.

Final nail in the coffin: Joseph studied Greek

Joseph Smith's journal reveals that Joseph actually studied a bit of Greek well before Caldwell's visit. On 20 November 1835, Oliver Cowdery returned from New York and brought Joseph a Hebrew and Greek lexicon.[6] On 23 December 1835, Joseph wrote that he was "at home studying the greek Language..."[7] Joseph was probably not a great scholar of Greek. But, Caldwell's claim that he was able to deceive Joseph with a Greek psalter seems pretty implausible when we realize that Joseph had studied a book on Greek. Joseph would not even need to be able to read the psalter to recognize Greek letterslearning such letters is the first task of any Greek student.

21

This, coupled with the other absurdities in Caswall's tale, and his efforts to make Joseph appear as a simple ignorant yokel make his tale even more unlikely.

Polygamy and Polyandry

17. Joseph Smith illegally married at least 33 women, some of whom were as young as 14 years old. Some of Joseph's marriages were secured by promising salvation or threatening damnation. Answer: Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage. The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so. Critics do not provide this perspective because they wish to shock the audience and have them judge Joseph by the standards of the modern era, rather than his own time.

Supporting Data
The information we have on Joseph Smith's plural marriages is sketchy, simply because there were few official records kept at the time because of the fear of misunderstanding and persecution. What we do know is culled from journals and reminiscences of those who were involved. The most conservative estimates indicate that Joseph entered into plural marriages with 2933 women, 7 of whom were under the age of 18. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, who was 14. The rest were 16 (two) or 17 (three). One wife (Maria Winchester) about which virtually nothing is known, was either 14 or 15.

Helen Mar Kimball

Some people have concluded that Helen did have sexual relations with Joseph, which would have been proper considering that they were married with her consent and the consent of her parents. However, historian Todd Compton does not hold this view; he criticized the anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner for using his book to argue for sexual relations, and wrote: The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage. In other words, polygamous marriages often had other purposes than procreationone such purpose was likely to tie faithful families together, and this seems to have been a 22

purpose of Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a faithful Apostle. (See: Law of Adoption.) Critics who assume plural marriage "is all about sex" may be basing their opinion on their own cultural biases and assumptions, rather than upon the actual motives of Church members who participated in the practice. Helen Mar "took pen and paper in hand before she died to describe vividly her ties as a member of the Latter-day Saint Church during its first two decades of existence in a series of articles published in the Woman's Exponent" in the 1880s. Some of her articles dealt with plural marriage: "Her personal remembrances of those days constitute an important source that, taken together with other first-hand accounts by participants, provides a more complete view of the introduction of one of the most distinctive features of nineteenth-century Mormonism." Helen Mar's writings, an important source of LDS history, were published by BYU's Religious Studies Center in 1997 in a book entitled A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History. The book also includes her 1881 autobiography to her children wherein, concerning her marriage to the Prophet Joseph Smith, she wrote: I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487)

Fanny Alger
Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events. Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics). There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding

23

ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly thata marriage.

Historical and cultural perspective

Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. Within Todd Compton's book on Joseph Smith's marriages, he also mentions the following monogamous marriages: Wife Lucinda Pendleton Marinda Johnson Almira McBride Fanny Young Wife's Age 18 19 17 44 Husband William Morgan Orson Hyde Sylvester Stoddard Roswell Murray Husband's Age 44 29 40s 62 Difference in age 26 10 >23 18

And, a variety of Mormon and non-Mormon historical figures had similar wide differences in age: Husband Johann Sebastian Bach Husband's Age 36 Wife Anna Magdalena Wilcke Olave Soames Julia Hancock Frances Cleveland Mary Stillwell Mina Miller Lucy Harris (1st cousin) Clarissa Reed Nora Mary Wife's Age 19 23 16 21 16 20 15 17 20 Difference 17 32 21 28 8 19 9 13 25

Lord Baden-Powell (Founder of 55 Scouting) William Clark (of the Lewis 37 and Clark Expedition) Grover Cleveland (22nd, 24th 49 US President) Thomas A. Edison 24 Thomas A. Edison 39 Martin Harris (1808) Levi Ward Hancock (7 April 1803) Andrew Mellon 24 30 45

24

John Milton (Paradise Lost) John Milton Edgar Allen Poe Alexander Smith David Hyrum Smith Frederick Granger Williams Smith Joseph Smith, III Almonzo Wilder

34 55 26 23 26 21 66 28

McMullen Mary Powell (1st wife) Elizabeth Minshull (3rd wife) Virginia Clemn (his cousin) Elizabeth Kendall Clara Hartshorn Annie Maria Jones

17 24 13 16 18 16

17 31 13 7 8 5 37 10

Ada Rachel Clark 29 Laura Ingalls (Little 18 House)

Statistical information for marital ages is available from the 1850 census. Using a 1% random sample of individuals, 989 men and 962 women indicated they had been married within the last year. The plot below breaks these individuals down by census age.

Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men. The mean age for men was more than five years older than that for women (27.6 vs. 22.5). For young women, marriage in the early to mid teens was rare, but not unheard of as both the anecdotal and statistical evidence above show. Teenage brides married a husband that

25

averaged 6.6 +/- 4.7 (std) years older. To put that in perspective, 13% of the time the husband was over 10 years older than his teenage wife. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, though it is still not uncommon. In the U.S. today, in most states, the "age of consent" is set by statute to be 18. This is the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity or to marriage. However, even today, the "marriageable age," the minimum age at which a person may marry with parental permission or with a judge's permission, is 16 in most states. In California, there is no minimum marriageable age; a child of any age may marry with parental consent. So Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, having been done with her parents' permission, would be legal in California even today, except for the polygamous aspect of it. But the modern age limits in most states represent only the modern attitude. The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had the declared age of consent to be ten. Some had raised it to twelve, and Delaware had lowered it to seven! It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards. As one non-LDS scholar of teenage life in American history noted: Until the twentieth century, adult expectations of young people were determined not by age but by size. If a fourteen-year-old looked big and strong enough to do a man's work on a farm or in a factory or mine, most people viewed him as a man. And if a sixteen-year-old was slower to develop and couldn't perform as a man, he wasn't one. For, young women, the issue was much the same. To be marriageable was the same as being ready for motherhood, which was determined by physical development, not age.... The important thing, though, was that the maturity of each young person was judged individually. In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age. It is clear that Joseph applied very little pressure, and the members were not inclined to simply follow him blindly. Those who sought a witness received a dramatic experience which convinced them, independent of Joseph, that plural marriage was the correct path for them to follow. For examples of individual cases please see the following link.

26

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_ wives_and_families No woman was physically harmed for a refusal to practice plural marriage. Those who refused but maintained the secrecy necessary for the Saints' protection in Nauvoo suffered no ill effects. Joseph's reported reaction was relatively mild. As Sarah Kimball reported: Early in the year 1842, Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. I asked him to teach it to some one else. He looked at me reprovingly, and said, 'Will you tell me who to teach it to? God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving. He said, 'I will not cease to pray for you, and if you will seek unto God in prayer you will not be led into temptation.' (Sarah's husband was not a member of the Church until 1843. There was some tension between him and Joseph as a result of this episode, but he seems to have resolved any animosity he held for the prophet. They were later to go Utah with the Saints, where Sarah assumed a prominent role in the Relief Society. Her husband died while en route to a mission in Hawaii.) Other women loudly trumpeted the plural marriage doctrine in Nauvoo and the hostile press. These women's testimony and character were generally attacked to try to discredit them in an effort to preserve the secrecy which surrounded plural marriage. (This factor is complicated by the fact that at least some were guilty of inappropriate behavior (e.g., likely Sarah Pratt). Despite attacks on their character, some remained in Nauvoo and likewise suffered no physical harm (e.g., Nancy Rigdon). 18. Joseph Smith married at least 11 women who were already married to other men. This practice is known as polyandry, for which no reference can be found on the Church's web site. In some cases, Joseph married the wives of men whom he had sent away on missions. Brigham Young also married other men's wives. Answers: The term "polyandry" is derived from the Greek roots "poly" ("many") and "andros" ("men") to describe marriages in which one woman is married to more than one man. The term does not account for the concept of marriage after this life. Therefore, describing some of Joseph Smith's marriages as "polyandrous" implies that he was married to these women in this life, with all that is involved in such a relationship. Evidence does not bear this out, however. In fact, the existing evidence indicates that these women continued to associate with their current husbands. Therefore, by stating that Joseph "married" other men's wives without making the distinction that these sealings applied only to the next life, critics can draw many lascivious conclusions from

27

Joseph's actions. The faithful member may feel uneasy because he has no ready "alibi" for the polyandry material which the gleeful critic insists is a "smoking gun" for Joseph's base motives. Among Joseph's plural marriages and/or sealings, between eight to eleven of them were to women who were already married. Of the eight well-documented cases, five of the husbands were Latter-day Saints, and the other three were either not active in or not associated with the Church. In all cases, these women continued to live with their husbands, most of them doing so until their husbands died. These eternal marriages appear to have had little effect upon the lives of the women involved, with the exception that they would be sealed to Joseph in the afterlife rather than to their earthly husbands. Of all the aspects of Joseph Smith's marital theology, this is the most difficult area to understand, because very little primary evidence exists. As one scholar noted: Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations. One of the most well-known of these "polyandrous" marriages was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs. At the time that celestial marriage was introduced, it was possible to be married for time to one person and sealed for eternity to another. These marriages appear to have been performed for the purpose of forming dynastic bonds in the afterlife, as there is no evidence that Joseph ever cohabited or had intimate relations with any of these women. No children from these marriages have ever been identified. These were sealings which would only affect Joseph's association with these women in the afterlife.

A hypothesiswhy so many early polyandrous marriages?

Joseph's polyandry strikes us as a strange practice, but few have noted some of the strangest elements. Interestingly, after Joseph's resumption of plural marriage in April 1841, all of his marriages (with one exception) were polyandrous until 29 June 1842. The lone exception is the marriage to his dead brother's widow. Furthermore, of his eleven polyandrous marriages, all but two occurred before July 1843. This early prominence, even predominance, of polyandry is counter-intuitive. Polyandrous marriages would seem to be the most risky for Joseph and his wives. With polyandry, Emma's reaction to the marriages would be the least of Joseph's worries. Unlike being sealed to single women, polyandrous sealings introduced an additional dangerous variable: the first husband! In teaching and practicing polyandry, Joseph ran the significant risk of a jealous husband learning of his arrangement with the wife, and exposing the explosive secret in hostile terms. Such a husband might also choose to threaten Joseph physically for wrongs to his wife'sand his ownhonor.

28

The risk to Joseph is heightened when we appreciate that a single woman had no competing loyalties, while a polyandrous wife almost always had children and a husband to whom she was bound by love and loyalty. Finally, since a key justification for Mormon polygamy was the biblical model, polyandry would also have been the most difficult form to justify to potential initiates, since there is no biblical polyandry. Yet when we examine Joseph's polyandrous marriages, none of these problems seem to surface. All of the menmember or non-memberwere close friends of Joseph's, and remained so until his death. No wife seems to have second thoughts; none tearfully confessed all to her unsuspecting husband or Nauvoo society. This common-sense analysis hinges, however, on the question of marital intimacy. If polyandrous sealings were not expected to involve sexual intimacy, then they were much less challenging for all involvedincluding Joseph and Emma. Emma would be far less troubled by a polyandrous marriage intended to seal Joseph to beloved friends than a marriage to single women living in her home. Joseph's naturaland, I suspect, profound desire to keep the Lord's commandments and protect Emma's feelings would have been satisfied. If the first husband was aware of the sealings, the faithful Saints would have been untroubled by a relationship which they saw as primarily binding their family to Joseph's, while non-member husbands would have seen it as a purely religious rite with a man for whom they retained great respect and affection.

Could faithful members save the unfaithful or unbaptized?

A skeptical reader might, at this point, suspect that I am over-reaching for an explanation. There is evidence, however, that early Mormons firmly believed that a faithful spouse could help exalt a wayward or non-member spouse. Twenty-one-year-old Isaiah Moses Coombs immigrated to Utah in 1855. To his grief, his childhood sweetheart refused to accompany him, despite their marriage the year before. Reflecting on the agonizing decision to go west without his non-member spouse, Coombs wrote: not least was the consideration that I was obeying the voice of God and that I was taking a course that would secure my own glory and exaltation and that would eventually either in this life or that which is to come enable me to bind my wife to me in bands that could not be broken. She was blind then but the day would come when she would see.[54] Coombs' wife was never to join the Church, and refused a later entreaty to return with him to Utah. Yet, he persisted in the conviction that his faithfulness to the sealing covenant would suffice to exalt his disbelieving, non-member wife in the hereafter, even if she did not accept the gospel in mortality.

29

This example from my own great-great-great grandfather is instructive, and strikes me as the more significant because his account was not written for public consumption. He had no polemic purpose, save to tell his life's story. He was also not a "prominent" member of the Churchhis reflections demonstrate how one rank-and-file member, living apart from the main body of saints because of poverty, understood matters in the early 1850s. Coombs' journal makes it wrenchingly clear that his decision to leave was extraordinarily difficultif a relatively unknown young man, moving outside the hub of Church power in Nauvoo and Utah was thus convinced, it seems likely that other early members also saw their own engagement in sealing as sufficient to save faithful, wayward, or non-member spouses. 19. It is known that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, but it is also true that Joseph was accused of sexual impropriety multiple times in several states before the practice of polygamy was revealed and commanded. Answer: Some critics have charged that Joseph had a long history of adulterous scrapes predating 1831. They want Joseph to be seen as a rake and womanizer. But was he? Joseph Smith faced intense opposition throughout his life. Attacks on his moral character surfaced a few years after the Church's organization, though no such charges appeared before the organization of the Church. A key source for these claims was an apostate Mormon, Doctor Philastus Hurlbut. Hurlbut joined the Church in 1833, but was excommunicated for immoral conduct while on a mission. Hurlbut became Joseph's avowed enemy, and Joseph even brought a peace warrant (akin to our modern "restraining order") against him because of threats on Joseph's life. Hurlbut returned to the New York area, and gathered a collection of affidavits about Joseph and the Smith family. Hurlbut's reputation, however, was so notorious, that he gave the affidavits to Eber D. Howe of Painsville, Ohio. Howe disliked the Mormons, doubtless partly because his wife and daughter had joined the Church. Howe published the first anti-Mormon book using the affidavits: Mormonism Unvailed (1834). The Hurlbut-Howe affidavits have provided much anti-Mormon ammunition ever since. But, their value as historical documents is limited. There is evidence that Hurlbut influenced those who gave affidavits, and since some who gave them were illiterate, they may have merely signed statements written by Hurlbut himself. That said, these charges continue to surface, and are sometimes used as a type of "introduction" to plural marriage. Critics seem to presume that because charges were made, those charges must be true to some extent"where there's smoke, there must be at least a small fire." They then conclude that since these charges are true, they help explain

30

Joseph's enthusiasm for plural marriage. It is difficult to prove a negative, but a great deal of doubt can be cast on the affidavits themselves, without even considering the bias and hatred which motivated their collection and publication.

Eliza Winters
One affidavit was provided by Levi Lewis, Emma Hale Smith's cousin and son of the Reverend Nathaniel Lewis, a well-known Methodist minister in Harmony. Van Wagoner uses this affidavit to argue that: [Josephs] abrupt 1830 departure with his wife, Emma, from Harmony, Pennsylvania, may have been precipitated in part by Levi and Hiel Lewis's accusations that Smith had acted improperly towards a local girl. Five years later Levi Lewis, Emma's cousin, repeated stories that Smith attempted to "seduce Eliza Winters &c.," and that both Smith and his friend Martin Harris had claimed "adultery was no crime." Van Wagoner argues that this "may" have been why Joseph left. But, we have no evidence of Levi and Hiel Lewis making the charge until the affidavits were gathered five years later. (Hiel Lewis' inclusion adds nothing; he gave no affidavit in 1833, and in 1879 simply repeated third hand stories of how Joseph had attempted to "seduce" Eliza. At best, he is repeating Levi's early tale.) A look at Lewis' complete affidavit is instructive. He claimed, among other things, that:

he heard Joseph admit "God had deceived him" about the plates, and so did not show them to anyone. he saw Joseph drunk three times while writing the Book of Mormon he heard Joseph say "hewas as good as Jesus Christit was as bad to injure him as it was to injure Jesus Christ." he heard Martin Harris and Joseph Smith claim "adultery was no crime." he heard Martin say that Joseph attempted to "seduce Eliza Winters," and that he didn't blame him.

There are serious problems with these claims. It seems extraordinarily implausible that Joseph "admitted" that God had deceived him, and thus was not able to show the plates to anyone. Joseph insisted that he had shown the plates to people, and the Three and Eight Witnesses all published testimony to that effect. Despite apostasy and alienation from Joseph Smith, none denied that witness. The claim to have seen Joseph drunk during the translation is entertaining. If Joseph were drunk, this only makes the production of the Book of Mormon more impressive. But, this sounds like little more than idle gossip, designed to bias readers against Joseph as a "drunkard."

31

A study of Joseph's letters and life from this period make it difficult to believe that Joseph would insist he was "as good as Jesus Christ." Joseph's private letters reveal him to be devout, sincere, and almost painfully aware of his dependence on God. Thus, three of the charges that are unmentioned by Van Wagoner seem implausible, even laughable. They are clearly efforts to simply paint Joseph in a bad light: make him into a pretend prophet who thinks he's better than Jesus, who admits to being deceived, and who gets drunk. Such a portrayal would be welcome to skeptical ears. This Joseph is ridiculous, not to be taken seriously. We can now consider the claim that Martin and Joseph claimed that adultery was no crime, and that Joseph attempted the seduction of Eliza Winters. Recent work has also uncovered Eliza Winters' identity. She was a young woman at a meeting on 1 November 1832 in Springville Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. While on a preaching mission with his brother Emer, Martin Harris announced that Eliza "has had a bastard child." Eliza sued Martin for slander, asking for $1000 for the damage done to her "good name, fame, behavior and character" because his words "render her infamous and scandalous among her neighbors." Martin won the suit; Eliza could not prove libel, likely because she had no good character to sully. This new information calls the Lewis affidavit into even greater question. We are to believe that Martin, who risked and defended a libel suit for reproving Eliza for fornication, thinks that adultery is "no crime"? Eliza clearly has no reason to like Joseph and the Mormonswhy did she not provide Hurlbut with an affidavit regarding Joseph's scandalous behavior? Around 1879, Eliza gave information to Frederick Mather for a book about early Mormonism. Why did she not provide testimony of Joseph's attempt to seduce her? It seems far more likely that Eliza was known for her low morals, and her name became associated with the Mormons in popular memory, since she had been publicly rebuked by a Mormon preacher and lost her court suit against him. When Levi Lewis was approached by Hurlbut for material critical of Joseph Smith, he likely drew on this association.

Marinda Nancy Johnson

Van Wagoner describes another charge against Joseph: One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack "because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, was screaming for Joseph's castration."

32

There is more to the story than this, howevermuch more. Van Wagoner even indicates that it is "unlikely" that "an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing." Unfortunately, Van Wagoner tucks this information into an endnote, where the reader will be unaware of it unless he checks the sources carefully. Todd Compton casts further doubt on this episode. He notes that Van Wagoner's source is Fawn Brodie, and Brodie's source is from 1884quite late. Clark Braden, the source, also got his information second-hand, and is clearly antagonistic, since he is a member of the Church of Christ, the Disciples, seeking to attack the Reorganized (RLDS) Church. Brodie also gets the woman's name wrongit is "Marinda Nancy," not "Nancy Marinda." And, the account is further flawed because Marinda has no brother named Eli. Compton notes further that there are two other late anti-Mormon sources that do not agree with the "Joseph as womanizer" version. Symonds Ryder, the leader of the attack, said that the attack occurred because of "the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith." The Johnson boys are not portrayed as either leaders, or particularly hostile to Joseph. It is also unlikely that the mob would attack Sidney Rigdon as well as Joseph if the issue was one of their sister's honor, yet as Rigdon's son told the story, Sidney was the first target who received much harsher treatment: the mob came and got Rigdon first. He was a man weighing about 225. As they draged him some distance over the frozen ground by his heels bumping the back of his head so that when they got him to the place where they were to put the tar and feathers on him he was insensible. They covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they thought he was dead and then went to get J. Smith The mob covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they got tired and left them both on the ground. J. Smith soon after the mob left got up and went home not very badly hurt. Sidney was attacked until the mob thought he was dead; Joseph seems almost an afterthought in this version: someone they will pound until tired, while Sidney is beaten until thought death. Marinda Johnson had difficulties with plural marriage, but many years later would still testify, "Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my fathers house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission." It is clear, then, that little remains of this episode to condemn Josephand Van Wagoner seems to think so too, though he caches this fact in the endnotes.

Benjamin F. Winchester: "Close friend" of Joseph?

Van Wagoner continues to outline Joseph's supposed pattern of problems with women:

33

Benjamin F. Winchester, Smith's close friend and leader of Philadelphia Mormons in the early 1840s, later recalled Kirtland accusations of scandal and "licentious conduct" hurled against Smith, "this more especially among the women. Joseph's name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families." There is again more to the story, and Van Wagoner again places it in the endnotes. Far from being a "close friend" of Joseph when he made the statement, Winchester was excommunicated after the martyrdom. Winchester claims he was excommunicated for being "[a] deadly enemy of the spiritual wife system and for this opposition he had received all manner of abuse from all who believe in that hellish system." So, we have a late reminiscence, by someone who is now definitely not a close friend and leader of Philadelphia Mormons as he was in 1844. By his own admission, he was an excommunicate apostate and bitter opponent of plural marriage. And, all he can tell us is about rumors of scandal in Kirtland, and isn't even sure with whom or how many families. Van Wagoner's habit of putting important details in the endnotes should trouble us more than these vague charges against Joseph in Kirtlanda period by which he had begun to practice plural marriage. Winchester's other claims are not included by Van Wagoner. As with Levi Lewis' charges, the other claims demonstrate how unreliable Winchester is. He wrote that the Kirtland Temple dedication "ended in a drunken frolic." As one historian noted: Such an accusation conflicts with many other contemporary accounts and is inconsistent with the Latter-day Saint attitude toward intemperance. If such behavior had been manifest, individuals would have undoubtedly recorded the information in their diaries or letters in 1836, but the negative reports emerged long after the events had transpired and among vindictive critics who had become enemies of the Church. So, on issues which we can verify, Winchester is utterly unreliable. Why ought we to credit his vague, gossipy recall of early plural marriage?

Polly Beswick: The Two-Hundred Pound Domestic

The "best" sources on Joseph's early character have already been presented. The most creative, however, involves Polly Beswick, "a colorful two-hundred-pound Smith [servant who] told her friends" a tale better suited to a farce or bad situation comedy: "Jo Smith said he had a revelation to lie with Vienna Jacques, who lived in his family" and that Emma Smith told her "Joseph would get up in the night and go to Vienna's bed." Furthermore, she added, "Emma would get out of humor, fret and

34

scold and flounce in the harness," then Smith would "shut himself up in a room and pray for a revalation state it to her, and bring her around all right." One hardly knows where to start with this account. Van Wagoner notes that the story is second hand, but fails to mention that Polly is a known gossip. There is also no reference for Polly's claimsit is impossible to verify them, or know in what context they were given. The description, however, seems totally implausible. No doubt, Emma Smith was challenged by plural marriage. But, the image of Emma being petulant and then settling down once Joseph produces a "revalation" is totally out of character and quite different from how she behaved when Joseph did provide a revelation. I find this evidence utterly unconvincing and unreliable.

Martin Harris: Again?

The final source provided by Van Wagoner quotes Martin Harris from an interview purportedly given in 1873: Martin Harris, Book of Mormon benefactor and close friend of Smith, recalled another such incident from the early Kirtland period. "In or about the year 1833," Harris remembered, Joseph Smith's "servant girl claimed that the prophet had made "improper proposals to her, which created quite a talk amongst the people." When Smith came to him for advice, Harris, supposing that there was nothing to the story, told him to "take no notice of the girl, that she was full of the devil, and wanted to destroy the prophet of god." But according to Harris, Smith "acknowledged that there was more truth than poetry in what the girl said." Harris then said he would have nothing to do with the matter; Smith could get out of the trouble "the best way he knew how" We should not be surprised by now that this charge has many weaknesses. To begin with, Martin Harris was not in Kirtland at the time. The interview with Martin Harris supposedly occurred in 1873; it was not published until 1888. The reader's patience is also strained when we realize that Harris had returned to the Church by 1870, and died 10 June 1875 before the interview was published. Why would Harris give a "tell-all" interview about Joseph Smith three years after being rebaptized and endowed? He was safely dead before it was published, so the author had no need to worry about Harris' reaction. Furthermore, in this account Martin Harris is portrayed as someone who definitely did not approve of adulterous conduct. This is in direct contradiction with the Levi Lewis affidavit, which has Harris claiming that adultery is no crime.

35

Other witnesses in Joseph's behalf

Though there are no contemporary witnesses of Joseph's bad behavior, there are witnesses to his good character. We have already seen how Marinda Nancy Johnson also testified of Joseph's good conduct, but there are other more contemporary witnesses. Two of Josiah Stowell's daughters (probably Miriam and Rhoda) were called during a June 1830 court case against Joseph: the court was detained for a time, in order that two young women (daughters to Mr. Stoal) with whom I had at times kept company; might be sent for, in order, if possible to elicit something from them which might be made a pretext against me. The young ladies arrived and were severally examined, touching my character, and conduct in general but particularly as to my behavior towards them both in public and private, when they both bore such testimony in my favor, as left my enemies without a pretext on their account. 20. Joseph Smith and a young woman named Fanny Alger engaged in what Oliver Cowdery called "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair". Even if Joseph married Fanny as is claimed, he would have had no civil nor spiritual authority to do so. Answer: Probably the wife about whom we know the least is Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, whom he came to know in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant of sorts to Emma (such work was common for young women at the time). There are no first-hand accounts of their relationship (from Joseph or Fanny), nor are there second-hand accounts (from Emma or Fanny's family). All that we do have is third hand accounts, most of them recorded many years after the events. Unfortunately, this lack of reliable and extensive historical detail leaves much room for critics to claim that Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny and then later invented plural marriage as way to justify his actions. The problem is we don't know the details of the relationship or exactly of what it consisted, and so are left to assume that Joseph acted honorably (as believers) or dishonorably (as critics). There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 that plural marriage would be restored, so it is perfectly legitimate to argue that Joseph's relationship with Fanny Alger was such a case. Mosiah Hancock (a Mormon) reported a wedding ceremony; and apostate Mormons Ann Eliza Webb Young and her father Chauncery both referred to Fanny's relationship as a "sealing." Ann Eliza also reported that Fanny's family was very proud of Fanny's relationship with Joseph, which makes little sense if it was simply a tawdry affair. Those closest to them saw the marriage as exactly thata marriage. The bulk of the evidence seems to show that Fanny and Joseph were regarded as married, even by hostile witnesses. It seems likely that their involvement became more widely known when someone (perhaps Parrish?) spied on Joseph and Fanny, and other church leaders then became involved. We can say little with confidence of the circumstances

36

surrounding their discovery and nothing of Emmas knowledge (or lack thereof) beforehand, though she almost certainly became hostile if she did not start out that way. I suspect that the bare bones tale to which Johnson alludesperhaps no better than gossip itselfis the kernel around which McLellin and the Webbs embroidered exaggeration, drama, and even outright fabrication. The evidence for a pregnancy is weak. The textual evidence deserves more attention and care than G. D. Smith has given it. His analysis is superficial and inadequate, and it contributes nothing new. While he spends considerable time on the McLellin letters, G. D. Smith (like many other critics) never comes to grips with some of the difficulties identified by Compton and others. These issues are worthy of consideration in some detail.

William McLellin's accounts

With a lone exception, there is no account after Josephs death of Emma admitting Josephs plural marriages in any source.[1] The reported exception is recorded in a newspaper article and two letters written by excommunicated Latter-day Saint apostle William E. McLellin.[2] McLellin addressed the letters to Emmas son, Joseph Smith III. The former apostle claimed to have visited Emma in 1847 and to have discussed Josephs relationship with Fanny Alger.

McLellin: Letter No. 11861

McLellins first letter to Joseph Smith III arrived soon after he assumed the duties of RLDS Church president on 6 April 1860. Joseph Smith III began his tenure as president by declaring that his father could never have been involved with plural marriage. When McLellin heard of his stance, he wrote the new leader: I do not wish to say hard things to You of your Father, but Joseph, if You will only go to your own dear mother, she can tell You that he believed in Polygamy and practiced it long before his violent death! That he delivered a revelation sanctioning, regulating, and establishing it. . . . Your Mother told me these items when I was in Nauvoo. I am not dealing in fictions, nor in ill founded slanders. McLellin wanted Joseph III to confront Emma and seemed to hope he would learn the truth from her.

McLellin: Letter No. 2July 1872

Eleven years later, McLellin wrote Joseph Smith III a second letter, asserted Josephs polygamous teachings, and urged him to ask his own dear Mother for the truth. McLellin claimed that Emma would confirm his story, if you ask her, for Can you dispute your dear Mother? To believe otherwise, insisted the former apostle, I would have to believe your Mother a liar, and that would be hard for me to do, considering my acquaintance with her. 37

McLellin recounted a story that he attributed to Frederick G. Williams, an excommunicated member of the First Presidency. McLellin claimed that Joseph had been caught in immoral behavior with a Miss Hill in late 1832. According to McLellin, Emma called Williams, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon to help settle the matter. McLellin insists that she told me this story was true!! McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger. He claimed that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true. In this letter, McLellin upped the ante, adding disturbing details that he claims Emma verified in 1847. He wanted Joseph III to confront his mother about at least two women with whom he claims the Prophet was involved.

McLellin: NewspaperOctober 1875

McLellin also repeated his charges to a newspaper reporter who claimed that McLellin described how [t]he sealing took place in a barn on the hay mow, and was witnessed by Mrs. Smith through a crack in the door! . . . Long afterwards when he visited Mrs. Emma Smith . . . she then and there declared on her honor that it was a factsaw it with her own eyes. It is interesting that McLellins account here refers to the Fanny Alger incident as where the first well authenticated case of polygamy took place. Gone is McLellins claim that a Miss Hill existed and caused problems prior to Fanny. Miss Hill is otherwise unmentioned in either friendly or hostile sources, and some authorslike G. D. Smith try to paper over this discrepancy by suggesting that McLellin got confused in his old age and mistook Fanny Hill in John Clelands 1749 novel for Fanny Alger. This is unpersuasive since McLellin tells both stories in the 1872 letter. His accounts are mutually contradictory on this point. This discrepancy calls McLellins accuracy into question. In 1872 he told Joseph Smith III that Emma had confirmed both accounts, but in 1875 he described the second account as the first well authenticated case. One suspects that McLellins authentication may be lacking overall. McLellin is a late, second- or thirdhand, antagonistic witness whose story seems to vary in the telling. Can anything else help us assess other parts of the story?

McLellin: Examining the Witness

McLellin insisted that Emma Smith confirmed these tales in 1847. Yet this is a strange occurrencethere is virtually no other record of Emma admitting, following Josephs death, that he even taught plural marriage. Emma and Joseph Smith III would go to their graves denying that Joseph had anything to do with the practice. But we are expected to believe that she confirmed these events to McLellin, who had no personal knowledge of them but was misled, merely repeating secondhand gossip. Emma did more (in McLellins retelling) than confirm that Joseph practiced plural marriageshe verified a

38

version of events that would have been intensely shameful for her personally and that sullied her dead husbands memory. Was McLellin the sort of man to whom she would have unburdened herself? To begin to answer this, we must briefly revisit McLellins history in and out of the church. McLellin was baptized 20 August 1831 and was ordained an elder four days later. On 25 October he received a revelation via Joseph Smith in which he was warned: Commit not adultery a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. McLellin did not take this advice and was excommunicated in December 1832 for spending time with a certain harlot while on a mission. Rebaptized in 1833, he was ordained an apostle on 15 February 1835. His problems continued. He was disfellowshipped in 1835 for writing a letter that cast . . . censure upon the [first] presidency. Reinstated on 25 September 1835, he attended the Kirtland Temple dedication but had lost confidence in the church leadership by August 1836. At his 11 May 1838 excommunication hearing, he said he had no confidence in the presidency of the Church; consequently, he had quit praying and keeping the commandments of the Lord, and indulged himself in his sinful lusts. It was from what he had heard that he believed the presidency had got out of the way, and not from anything that he had seen himself. It seems that McLellin had difficulty with adulterous behavior. He also frequently disagreed with church leaders and did not hesitate to criticize them publicly. His penchant for believing and acting on secondhand informationas in the report about Miss Hill from Frederick G. Williamswas already apparent, since he attacked the First Presidency for what he had heard, not for what he personally had witnessed. McLellins later life found him bouncing from one Mormon splinter group to another. He gave early support to James J. Strang but later distanced himself when it became clear that he would not get a leadership position. In a public debate with Strang, McLellin denied ever having been friendly with Strang or well-disposed toward his claims. In response, Strang produced three letters written by McLellin, which he proceeded to read. The letters ended the debate quickly, and McLellin never mentioned these matters again, even in his own publications. . . . In their debate Strang exploited the content of those letters to demonstrate that McLellins verbal and other published statements were at total variance with the reality suggested in the letters. Clearly, then, McLellin was perfectly willing to fib to others in furtherance of his religious goals. He lied about conversations he had had with Strang only to have his own letters prove his duplicity.

Emma Smith and McLellin

Following his excommunication, McLellin played an active role in mobbing and robbing the Saints. Joseph was taken to Liberty Jail, and Emma returned home to find that she had been robbed of everything. A contemporary journal records that McLellin went into brother Josephs house and commenced searching over his things . . . [and] took all his [jewelry] out of Josephs box and took a lot of his cloths [sic] and in fact, plundered the

39

house and took the things off. When Emma asked McLellin why he did this, McLellin replied, Because I can. This theft affected Emma profoundly. She received word that Joseph was suffering greatly from the cold in Liberty Jail, and he asked her to bring quilts and bedding. Sister Emma cried and said that they had taken all of her bed cloths [sic] except one quilt and blanket and what could she do? Emma sought legal redress but recovered nothing. McLellins offenses against Joseph extended beyond robbing his family: While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Missouri, McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet. Permission was granted on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made known to Joseph McLellins earnest request, to which Joseph consented, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms. If we accept the late, secondhand accounts of McLellin as reliable, we must accept that Emma made her (only?) admission of Josephs plural marriages to a man who had robbed her and her family and had saucily insisted that he did so merely because they could do nothing to stop him. While her husband froze in Liberty Jail, Emma had to worry about her children going cold because McLellin had stolen their bedding. It seems an enormous leap of faith in McLellinwho clearly does not deserve such faith to presume both that he was truthful and that Emma disclosed humiliating details about Joseph and Fanny to him of all people. Todd Compton acknowledges that McLellin may have bent the truth in this case, but if the account is false, the truth has not been bent but shattered.[3] It is worth noting that some, such as Michael Quinn, have argued that after Josephs death Emma had a high opinion of McLellin. Quinn writes that [i]ronically between his receipt of these two letters, Emma . . . wrote Joseph Smith III on 2 February 1866 and highly praised McLellin. Quinn reads too much into his source or does not represent it properly. Emmas exact words were I hope that Wm. E. McLellin will unearth his long buried talents, and get them into circulation before it is everlastingly too late . . . for he is certainly a talented man.[4] This does not strike me as high praise. It sounds instead as if Emma is claiming that McLellin had great potential but that he has squandered it or left it untapped.

Marriage or affair?
G. D. Smith avoids labeling Fanny a wife since this weakens his thesis that Joseph was sexually driven. He quotes Johnson as saying that Joseph had Fanny Alger as a wife. Anxious to protect his theory, Smith informs his readers that this phrase employs a Victorian euphemism that should not be construed to imply that Fanny was actually married to Joseph (pp. 4142). Yet it is not clear why we should not so construe it. G. D.

40

Smith does not tell us that Johnson then insisted that without a doubt in my mind, Fanny Alger was, at Kirtland, the Prophets first plural wife. G. D. Smith provides no evidence or citation to enforce his reading over Johnsons clear view of the relationship. (The various accounts are compared in the Table 2 of this link Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2.Detailed Book Review.)

Summary of varied accounts

There is little that agrees between the accounts. The facts seem to be that Emma became aware of the marriage at some point, probably involved Oliver and perhaps other church leaders, and was upset enough to eventually insist that Fanny leave her home. Todd Compton argues that these accounts can be harmonized since regardless of whether Emma saw her husband in the barn or discovered evidence of Fannys pregnancy, her reaction was the same. This stance glosses over a key pointit may well be that both the Webbs and McLellin are either mistaken or lying. That Emma was upset is certain. But the contradictions and problems with these two hostile accounts give us no reason to conclude that the truth must be that Emma discovered either Joseph and Fanny in the barn or a pregnancy. Above all else, ones attitude toward Joseph, the church, and plural marriage will influence how such contradictory and biased testimony is interpreted. Emma would later give her permission for Joseph to marry two sisters who also lived in the Smith homeEmily and Eliza Partridge. Yet Emma was soon to change her mind and eventually compelled these wives to leave her home. It is thus consistent with her later behavior for her to have agreed (if only reluctantly) to a marriage with Fanny only to have second thoughts later. 21. Leaders of the Church, starting with Joseph Smith, systematically lied about practicing polygamy. Even recent leaders have been deceptive about when and why polygamy was practiced. Answer: Of the little we do know, much comes from later reminiscences. Later memories are not useless, but memory can change, and can be influenced by what people later came to believe or desire. Such data must be used with caution. There are enough scattered bits of evidence, however, that let us form some tentative conclusions. The first specifically-LDS encounter with plural marriage was the 1829 Book of Mormon. The prophet Jacob rebuked the Nephites for their practice of having many wives and concubines. Jacob forbade this practice, and declared monogamy to be the norm unless "I willraise up seed unto me." It is not clear that the early Saints contemplated any exceptions to this command in their own case, until after Joseph had taught plural marriage. As late as May 1843, Hyrum

41

Smith (not yet converted to Joseph's plural marriage doctrine) attempted to rebut rumors of plural marriage by citing the condemnation in Jacob 2.

The Revelation to Joseph

There are no contemporaneous records which tell us when Joseph first taught plural marriage, or when he first had a revelation endorsing it. One account has Brigham Young placing the revelation to Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith in 1829 while translating the Book of Mormon. [3] Most scholars have rejected this early date. Brigham was not even a member at this time, so he would have heard such a story second-hand at best, and may well have misunderstood the timing. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that portrays plural marriage positively, so there is little which would inspire Joseph and Oliver to ask questions about it, and such questioning seems to have been a prerequisite to Joseph and Oliver's early revelations on baptism, the priesthood, and other matters. The journal which records the 1829 date may be in error, since there is another, earlier record in which Brigham Young opines that Joseph had the plural marriage revelation "as early as in the year 1831." [4] Other evidence also points to an 1831 date. Joseph undertook his revision/translation of the Bible, and was working on Genesis in FebruaryMarch 1831. [5] Hubert Howe Bancroft was the first to suggest this theory, [6] while Joseph Noble, [7] B.H. Roberts, [8] and Joseph F. Smith [9] have agreed. The obvious approval of the polygamous patriarchs in Genesis is a more likely stimulus for Joseph's questions to the Lord about plural marriage than the Book of Mormon's generally negative view.

Joseph's First Mention of the Doctrine

The date of 1831 is reinforced by a letter written years later by W.W. Phelps. Phelps reported that on 17 July 1831, the Lord told Joseph "It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just." Phelps then said that he asked Joseph three years later how this commandment could be fulfilled. Joseph replied, "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpha, by revelation. [10] Phelps' recollection is reinforced by Ezra Booth, an apostate Mormon. In November 1831, Booth wrote that Joseph had received a revelation commanding a "matrimonial alliance" with the natives, though he says nothing about plural marriage per se. [11] Since Joseph's explanation to Phelps came three years later, this does not help us date the receipt of the revelation specifically. It may be that Joseph did not understand the import of the July 1831 revelation any more than Phelps did. On the other hand, Orson Pratt reported that Joseph told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle but that the time to practice it had not yet come. [12] Lyman Johnson also reportedly heard the doctrine from Joseph in 1831, [13] as did a plural wife who recalled late in life that in 1831 Joseph told her that he had been commanded to one day take her

42

as a plural wife. [14] Mosiah Hancock reported that his father was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832. [15] Some authors have suggested that Phelps' late recollection is inconsistent with other things that he wrote earlier. Richard Van Wagoner argues that: the Phelps letter has been widely touted as the earliest source documenting the advocacy of Mormon polygamy, [but] it is not without its problems. For example, Phelps himself, in a 16 September 1835 letter to his wife, Sally, demonstrated no knowledge of church-sanctioned polygamy: "I have no right to any other woman in this world nor in the world to come according to the law of the celestial kingdom. [16] It seems to me, though, that the problem is more in Van Wagoner's reading of the data. Phelps says nothing about "church-sanctioned polygamy," one way or the other. He merely tells his wife that he has no right to any other woman. This was certainly true, since Joseph Smith had introduced no other men to plural marriage by September 1835. In fact, Phelps' remark seems a strange comment to make unless he understood that there were circumstances in which one could have "right to" another woman. Joseph F. Smith gave an account which synthesizes most of the preceding data: The great and glorious principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates. Among them were Oliver Cowdery and Lyman E. Johnson, the latter confiding the fact to his traveling companion, Elder Orson Pratt, in the year 1832. (See Orson Pratt's testimony.)" (Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record 6 [Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1887]: 219) The bulk of the evidence, therefore, suggests that plural marriage was known by Joseph by early 1831. The Prophet was probably teaching the idea to a limited circle by the end of that year. 22. Joseph Smith routinely lied to his wife Emma about his extra-monogamous activities, often making her feel alone, abused and foolish. Why would God reveal a commandment to His prophet that would require such deception? Answer: It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages,

43

though she soon changed her mind.[1] Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet: Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophets wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.[2] Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic calling; she did, however, teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young. Torn between two certitudesher conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling, and her hatred of plural marriageEmma had difficult choices to make for which we ought not to judge her. But, the critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herselfshe had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later: I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.[3] 23. In 1886, John Taylor received a revelation regarding the practice of plural marriage. In the revelation, the Lord told Taylor "I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting." Four years later, Wilford Woodruff contradicted Taylor's revelation by issuing the 1890 Manifesto. Answer: Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members and leaders choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having revelations on demand, or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.[1] This placed Church leaders in a vicious double-bind: they were being ruthlessly persecuted by the legislature for following their faith; if they were to comply with the law, they would (in the eyes of some) be admitting that revelation came on demand and in response to secular pressure or convenience. Their enemies would win no matter what they did. But, this did not happenthe leaders and members of the Church were literally willing to do anything they were commanded to do, in order to obey the Lord, until they were told otherwise. Impressively, the Church and its leaders took the only possible course which

44

would preserve its revelatory integrity: only when they literally had no further choice besides dissolution was the plural marriage commandment completely rescinded. It should be remembered, finally, that a key doctrine of the Church is that no one should have to take anyone elses word for somethingthat man should not council his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of fleshbut that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the savior of the world.(DC 1:19-20.) This doesnt apply to polygamy alone; every discussion of testimony includes it. Joseph Smith made numerous other claims that might make us skeptical: appearances of God and Jesus, angels, gold plates, and everything else. Said he: Search the scripturessearch the revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation.[2] As President Cannon explained, the leaders of the Church were not exempt from the rigors of receiving revelation: Yet, though [Church doctrines] shocked the prejudices of mankind, and perhaps startled us as Latter-day Saints, when we sought God for a testimony concerning them, He never failed to give unto us His Holy Spirit, which witnessed unto our spirits that they were from God, and not of man. So it will be to the end. The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does. They have their faith tested as you have your faith tested. So with the Twelve Apostles. All that we can do is to seek the mind and will of God, and when that comes to us, though it may come in contact [conflict?] with every feeling that we have previously entertained, we have no option but to take the step that God points out, and to trust to Him[3]

Supporting Data
The Doctrine and Covenants clearly indicates that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are of equal authority[4] and that every decision should be done in unanimity in order to make such decisions binding upon the Church[5]: to make them official, as it were. Clearly, President Woodruff did not follow this practicewhich would be very strange if he expected the Manifesto to be read as a formal revelation insisting that all polygamous practices immediately cease: only three of the apostles even saw the Manifesto prior to its publication.[6] The leaders were agreed that President Woodruff had been right to issue it, and acknowledged his action of the Lord; the full implications of the Manifesto, however, were still the subject of discussion and debate.

45

Interpreting the Manifesto

President Woodruff did not frame the matter as a declaration from the First Presidency and the Twelve (which would be required for any official change in doctrine or practice). Rather, he spoke of the Manifesto as a duty on his part, which the Lord required. Even the wording of the Manifesto reflects thisit does not speak of we the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, but simply of Wilford Woodruff in the first person singular. The wording is careful and precise: "I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.(OD1) Thus, President Woodruff announces a personal course of action, but does not commit other general authorities or the Churchhe even issues advice, rather than a command or instruction. No other signatures or authorities are given, other than his own. A useful comparison can be made with Official Declaration 2, which follows the prescribed pattern for Church government: the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball[who] has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelationhe presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.(OD-2) The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve voted on 2 October 1890 to sustain President Woodruffs action. Even at this meeting their intent was clear, since they debated whether the Church as a whole should sustain the Manifesto, since some felt that the assent of the Presidency and Twelve to the matter was sufficient without committing the people by their votes to a policy which they might in the future wish to discard.[7] It is evident that these united quorums did not consider the Manifesto to be a revelation forbidding all plural marriage in 1890: for, why would they then contemplate the Church wanting to disregard it? The leaders were doubtless still hoping that they might be able to gain some reprieve, and continue to practice their religion without civil or criminal penalty. Perhaps most convincingly, an editorial in the Churchs Deseret News responded to the governments Utah Commission, which had argued that President Woodruff needed to have a revelation suspending polygamy. The editorial advised that [w]hen President Woodruff receives anything from a Divine source for the Church over which he presides he will be sure to deliver the message.[8] This was written five days after the publication of the Manifesto. It seems clear that President Woodruff considered his action inspired

46

and divinely directed; however, he and the Church did not believe that God had, by the Manifesto, told them to cease all plural marriage. George Q. Cannon made it clear that the Church still felt somewhat trapped between duties to God and duties to political authority: But the nation has interposed and said, "Stop," and we shall bow in submission, leaving the consequences with God. We shall do the best we can; but when it comes in contact with constituted authorities, and the highest tribunals in the land say "Stop," there is no other course for Latter-day Saints, in accordance with the revelations that God has given to us telling us to respect constituted authority, than to bow in submission thereto and leave the consequences with the Lord.[9] The Manifesto thus strove to walk this difficult lineconceding sufficient to constitutional authority to prevent the Churchs destruction, maintaining the restrictions on plural marriage, and refraining from teaching the doctrine. Yet, significantly President Cannon says that the Saints shall do the best we can (emphasis added). That is, they will continue to practice their faith to the extent possible without threatening the Churchs existence. This would later include a limited continuation of plural marriage. The Church leaders united understanding was that the Manifesto was a revelation. However, they did not understand it as universally forbidding all plural marriage at that time, though for the Churchs survival it was necessary that the government so interpret it. The leaders and Saints would understand the meaning and application of the Manifesto differently in time. An altered understandingvia revelationof a revelation is not unprecedented: Jesus commanded the apostles to teach all nations, but the apostles continued to interpret this command in a more limited way until later revelation expanded the Christian gospel beyond those who had first embraced the rites of Judaism. A modern example involves the Word of Wisdom, which was not declared to be universally binding for more than a century, though the revelation in section 89 did not change 24. The Church historically lied and presently still lies in telling the membership and outside media that polygamy ended in 1890. In actuality, Church-sanctioned and performed plural marriages continued until 1904 and beyond. Answer: It is estimated that fewer than two hundred plural marriages were sanctioned between 1890 and 1904.[11] These were often performed in areas outside the reach of U.S. law, such as on the seas or in Mexico. Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at BYU about the difficulties of this period: Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord As far as concerns our own church and culture, the most

47

common allegations of lying for the Lord swirl around the initiation, practice, and discontinuance of polygamy. The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance of this religious practice. Elder Oaks then reaches the key pointthere will be times when moral imperatives clash: My heart breaks when I read of circumstances in which wives and children were presented with the terrible choice of lying about the whereabouts or existence of a husband or father on the one hand or telling the truth and seeing him go to jail on the other. These were not academic dilemmas. A father in jail took food off the table and fuel from the hearth. Those hard choices involved collisions between such fundamental emotions and needs as a commitment to the truth versus the need for loving companionship and relief from cold and hunger. My heart also goes out to the Church leaders who were squeezed between their devotion to the truth and their devotion to their wives and children and to one another. To tell the truth could mean to betray a confidence or a cause or to send a brother to prison. There is no academic exercise in that choice! It is also clear that polygamy did not end suddenly with the 1890 Manifesto. Polygamous relationships sealed before that revelation was announced continued for a generation. The performance of polygamous marriages also continued for a time outside the United States, where the application of the Manifesto was uncertain for a season. It appears that polygamous marriages also continued for about a decade in some other areas among leaders and members who took license from the ambiguities and pressures created by this high-level collision between resented laws and reverenced doctrines. I do not know what to think of all of this, except I am glad I was not faced with the pressures those good people faced. My heart goes out to them for their bravery and their sacrifices, of which I am a direct beneficiary. I will not judge them. That judgment belongs to the Lord, who knows all of the circumstances and the hearts of the actors, a level of comprehension and wisdom not approached by even the most knowledgeable historians. 25. Jacob 2:24 reads, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." D&C 132:3839 reads, "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon ... and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me." This is one example of many scriptural inconsistencies in LDS canon. Answer: Critics use the Book of Jacob to show that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice of polygamy:

48

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. Jacob 2:24-29 Critics go on to claim that Joseph Smith ignored this restriction by introducing the doctrine of plural marriage. Critics generally refrain from citing the very next verse: 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30). The Book of Mormon makes it clear that the Lord may, under some circumstances, command the practice of plural marriage: Jacob 2:30 is the key verse for understanding why Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other nineteenth-century Mormons were justified in their practice of polygamy, but that this is the exception to the Lord's law, not the rule.... Mormons believe that the period when polygamy was publicly sanctioned (18521890)and the longer period in which it was privately approved (the early 1830s to 1904)were exceptions to God's basic law that Jacob spelled out in verse 27. 26. The Church allowed an adulterer, Richard Lyman, to serve as an apostle for 18 years before excommunicating him. Although it appears that fellow members of the quorum did not know about Lyman's adultery, these "prophets, seers, and revelators" should have had the spirit of discernment to know of Lyman's unworthiness. Answer: The key to this question is in the wording itself, Although it appears that fellow members of the quorum did not know about Lymans adultery. The prophet and apostles are not in the business of policing every member who receives the priesthood or the Holy Ghost. It is the spirit that polices the priesthood holder or for that matter any member who has received the Holy Ghost. The priesthood holder also has his own agency and can choose to continue to battle with his sins in private and not confess to the proper authority and lose the spirit that would regularly accompany someone in his position or to come clean to the proper authority and face the consequences and begin the climb back to being in proper standing in the sight of God. In this case Richard Lyman

49

chose not to come clean to the proper authority. To assume that the prophet or his apostles should have known assumes that they police every member who has the Holy Ghost which is not their purpose. It also takes away the agency of Richard Lyman and his choice to come clean through the proper channels and go through the repentance process. Who is to know for sure when and if the prophet and apostles did or didnt know? Just because they didnt act does not mean they had no clue. 27. Doctrine & Covenants 121:36 teaches that "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven", and can be "handled only upon the principles of righteousness." Given this fact, ordinances performed unrighteously (such as those by Apostle Lyman for 18 years) should not be acceptable in the eyes of God or the Church. However, such ordinances are rarely, if ever, re-performed. Answer: Each priesthood ordinance is hinged dually on the faith and authority of him who ordains or gives the blessing as well as the faith of the recipient of the blessing or ordinance. At the time the ordinances were performed by Richard Lyman he did have the authority although he may not have been worthy of it his priesthood had not been removed so any ordinances given by him would more than likely been hinged on the faith of the recipient and not the faith of Mr. Lyman.

The Establishment of the Church

28. In defiance of God's command to not join any churches, Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church. Answer: No critic who has charged Joseph Smith with joining a church between 1820 and 1830 has ever produced any authentic denominational membership record that would substantiate such a claim. Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that this claim is not valid and, therefore, does not reflect historical reality.

The critics' sources

Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place: Lapham: 1870, second-hand Fayette Lapham claimed to have interviewed Joseph Smith Sr. in 1829-30, and published a report forty years later. In it, he reported:

50

About this time [1822, perhaps as late as 1824] he [Joseph, Jr.] became concerned as to his future state of existence, and was baptized, becoming thus a member of the Baptist Church.[2] Joseph and Hiel Lewis, Amboy Journal 1879 Joseph and Hiel Lewis were cousins of Emma Hale Smith; they would have been aged 21 and 11 respectively in 1828: ...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.[3] Note that Joseph did not inscribe himself, but the Methodist minister added Joseph's name to the class book. It is not surprising that Joseph might have attended Methodist services: Emma's family was involved in Methodism, she was related to Methodist ministers, and Joseph at this period was living on the Hale family's farm. The Hales had serious reservations about their new son-in-law, who claimed by this point to have the Book of Mormon plates in his possession. It would be natural for him to attend worship services with them if only to reassure them that he was not hostile to religion. It is telling, though, that as soon as Joseph Lewis learned that Joseph had attended, he quickly took steps to disassociate the church from a person he saw as an imposter: note too that Lewis describes himself (rather than Joseph) as one "of the official members." A study of Methodist procedure makes it extremely unlikely that Joseph could have been a member of the Church, especially for only three days. Anderick - 1887 When Jo[seph Smith] joined the Presbyterian Church, in Palmyra village, it caused much talk and surprise, as he claimed to receive revelations from the Lord.
[4]

51

As Dan Vogel notes, "Because Lucy Smith and three of her older children joined the Presbyterian Church, together with the possibility that Joseph Jr. may have attended some meetings with other family members, some observers may have assumed Joseph Jr. was also a member."[5] (Vogel notes that Lorenzo Saunders claimed in 1884 that he attended Sunday School with Joseph at the Presbyterian Church, and so that attendance (without formal membership) may be the source for this reminiscence.[6]) Summary re: critics' sources 1. The Lapham source is secondhand at bestputting forward information that reportedly came from the Prophet's father. 2. The Lewis source presents a scenario that was directly contradicted in print by an adult eyewitness who was a Methodist church officer. It is certainly possible that Joseph attended a Methodist meeting with his wife and in-laws: even in the Lewis' telling, however, he was quickly made to understand that he was not wanted, and he persisted in his own beliefs rather than continue with them. 3. The Anderick source may simply be recalling an occasion when the young Prophet attended a church service with his Presbyterian mother and siblings. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices. We must note too that none of these sources confirms the othersthey all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing. We turn now to the many sources (both friendly and hostile) that claim that Joseph had no formal affiliation with any religious denomination during this period. Critics typically leave these sources safely unmentioned.

Sources which contradict the critics

The eyewitness sources that follow below indicate that up until the time that Joseph Smith announced the existence of the golden plates of the Book of Mormon to his family (23 September 1823) he was not formally attached to any church, but had instead publicly rejected all of them and manifested his desire NOT to join their ranks. Some are contemporaneous, others are later remembrances, but the hostile and friendly voices are clear that he had no denominational affiliation.

Reminiscence Around 1820

Pomeroy Tucker (a non-Mormon critic who knew Joseph Smith in Palmyra, New York) said that Joseph joined the Methodist probationary class in Palmyra but soon "withdrew from the class" without being converted; announcing that "all the churches [were] on a false foundation."[7] This information corresponds with historical details dated by Joseph Smith at around 1820. Main article: Joseph Smith and Methodist camp meetings

52

Reminiscence of Fall 1823

Joseph Smith's mother recalled in her autobiography that shortly after her son Alvin died on 19 November 1823 Joseph "utterly refused" to attend church services with the intent to convert, and he made the specific request: "do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."[8] As can be seen by the continuing chronological sources which follow, Joseph Smith and his associates were teaching from 1825 to 1832 that the Prophet did not belong to any church between the years 1825 and 1827.

Reminiscence Concerning 1825

Josiah Stowell, Jr. (a non-Mormon): I will give you a short history of what I know about Joseph Smith, Jr. I have been intimately acquainted with him about 2 years. He then was about 20 years old or thereabout. I also went to school with him one winter. He was a fine, likely young man and at that time did not profess religion.[9]

Reminiscence Concerning 1827

In 1827 David Marks (a non-Mormon minister) went to Palmyra and Manchester, New York where he made considerable inquiry respecting . . . [Joseph] Smith and learned from several persons in different places that Joseph was about 21 years [old]; that previous to his declaration of having found the plates he made no pretensions to religion.[10]

Reminiscence Concerning 1830

In October 1830 Peter Bauder (a non-Mormon minister) spoke directly to the Prophet. Bauder commented: he could give me no Christian experience, meaning that he did not belong to any church before his experience with the angel and plates in September 1823.[11]

Contemporary Document - 1830

Four LDS men from New York state taught that at the time the angel appeared to Joseph Smith (22 September 1823) he made no pretensions to religion of any kind.[12]

Contemporary Document - 1831

The editor of a Palmyra, New York newspaper claimed that he has been credibly informed, and was quite certain, that the prophet . . . never made any serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation -- meaning the Book of Mormon, which was made known among Palmyra's residents in the Fall of 1827.[13]

53

Contemporary Document - 1832

Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson taught on 8 April 1832 that in 1827 a young man called Joseph Smith of the state of New York, of no denomination [i.e., not belonging to a church], but under conviction, inquired of the Lord . . . [and] an angel [appeared to him] . . . who gave information where the plates were deposited.[14] Pratt clarified in a much later statement that between 1820 and 1823 Joseph Smith "was not a member of any church."[ 29. Joseph Smith told multiple different versions of the events surrounding the First Vision. He waffled on key details including when it happened and what he saw. Answer: During a 10-year period (183242), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church. The Church has published information about the various First Vision accounts since at least 1970. Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defense of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didnt know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it. The Church, however, has discussed the various accounts in a number of publications. Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. They, however, show a remarkable degree of harmony between them. There is no evidence that the early leaders of the LDS Church did not understand that the Prophet saw two Divine Personages during his inaugural theophany. "Critics of Mormonism have delighted in the discrepancies between the canonical [1838 PGP] account and earlier renditions, especially one written in Smith's own hand in 1832. For example, in the 1832 version, Jesus appears to Smith alone, and does all the talking himself. Such complaints, however, are much ado about relatively nothing. Any good lawyer (or historian) would expect to find contradictions or competing narratives written down years apart and decades after the event. And despite the contradictions, key elements abide. In each case, Jesus appears to Smith in a vision. In each case, Smith is blessed with a revelation. In each case, God tells him to remain aloof from all Christian denominations, as something better is in store." - Stephen Prothero, American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003), 171.

Church response
Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experiencean answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration. 54

Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ, Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Ensign, Jan 2009, 1622 off-site I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life. God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear, Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Oct 1984, 2 30. The First Vision was not taught in church until 22 years after it happened. Why would such a miraculous event not be shared at the outset? Answer: (the Criticism) There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons surely would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smiths imposture. Anti-Mormons would draw fewer faulty conclusions if they would spend more time in the library. It seems, however, that they simply hope that their readers are unaware of the facts.

Supporting Data
These statements simply cannot be sustained in the light of the historical record. The first statement (no non-LDS mention prior to 1843) is negated by the following evidence:

Report in a non-LDS newspaper of Mormon missionaries teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God personally and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831). The Articles and Covenants of the Church - which contained a reference to something that happened during the First Vision - were published in a non-LDS newspaper (Telegraph, 19 April 1831). Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832). In April 1841 the British publication Athenum (a literary weekly) reprinted material from Orson Pratts Interesting Account pamphlet.

55

A non-LDS newspaper printed the first elements of the First Vision story. They were first reported in the Congregational Observer [Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut] and then reprinted in the Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer, vol. 5, no. 23, 3 September 1841. First Vision story elements from Orson Pratt's 1840 pamphlet were reprinted in The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, vol. 14 (new series), no. 42, July 1841, 370. Philadelphia: E. Littell and Co. (copied from the 1841 Athenum article called The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites). When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---). A non-LDS college professor published the beginning story elements of the First Vision (Jonathan B. Turner, Mormonism in All Ages [New York: Platt and Peters, 1842], 14).

The majority of these reports are garbled, fragmentary, and out of proper context but this evidence still shows that the claim being made in the source cited above is not accurate. The second statement (critics of Joseph would have used the vision accounts) is negated by the following evidence:

Daniel P. Kidder, Mormonism and the Mormons (New York City: Lane and Sandford, 1842), 334. The appendix heading explains that the author was drawing material from the January through June editions of the 1842 Times and Seasons (two separate First Vision stories were found in the March and April editions). Joseph Smith, as editor of the Times and Seasons, Kidder said, commenced publishing his autobiography. It is, however, nothing but the old story about the plates and the angel, with a few emendations to save appearances. Quincy Whig, vol. 4, no. 46, 12 March 1842 Acknowledgment that the Wentworth Letter had recently been published in the Times and Seasons on 1 March 1842. No mention is made of the First Vision story. The Morning Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 190, 24 March 1842 [Pittsburgh] quotes from the Wentworth Letter directly before and after the First Vision material but completely ignores the story (focuses on Joseph Smiths birthday and the Book of Mormon instead). John Hayward, The Book of Religions (Boston: John Hayward, 1842), 260-65, 271. This author indicates that he has possession of the Wentworth Letter and says, "we . . . are now enabled to tell [the] story [of the Latter-day Saints] in their

56

own words." But he paraphrases the material about Joseph Smith's birth and background, completely skips over the First Vision story, provides lengthy quotes about the angel and the plates and even includes the Articles of Faith. This is clear evidence that even if an anti-Mormon had multiple authoritative, unambiguous, printed copies of the First Vision story sitting right in front of them they would NOT necessarily seize upon it as evidence of an imposture. Some of them simply did NOT pay close attention to what Joseph Smith was saying openly. Hugh Nibley pointed out years ago that anti-Mormon authors often went to great lengths to distort, ignore, or omit Joseph's telling of the visit of the Father and the Son. 31. Between the time of the First Vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud for taking clients' money under false claims that he could detect the whereabouts of hidden treasure. Answer: Joseph Smith was persecuted in courts of law as much as anyone I know. But he was never found guilty of any crime, and his name cannot be tarnished in that way. Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What is the background to the trial? What was the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith? Why is the 1971 discovery of the Neely and De Zeng bills significant? Why do the critics think that this event discredits Joseph Smith? What does it actually tell us? Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?"

Summary conclusion
Gordon Madsen summarized: "The evidence thus far available about the 1826 trial before Justice Neely leads to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was acquitted."[1] A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that: 1. The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination 2. The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims. 3. There were seven witnesses. 4. The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully. 5. Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight

57

It was likely that the court hearing was initiated not so much from a concern about Joseph being a money digger, as concern that Joseph was having an influence on Josiah Stowell. Josiah Stowell was one of the first believers in Joseph Smith. His nephew was probably very concerned about that and was anxious to disrupt their relationship if possible. He did not succeed. The court hearing failed in its purpose, and was only resurrected decades later to accuse Joseph Smith of different crimes to a different people and culture. Understanding the context of the case removes any threat it may have posed to Joseph's prophetic integrity.

Supporting Data
Background to the trial
In the spring of 1825 Josiah Stowell visited with Joseph Smith "on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye."[2] Josiah Stowell wanted Joseph to help him in his quest to find treasure in an ancient silver mine. Joseph was reluctant, but Stowell persuaded Joseph to come by offering high wages. According to trial documents, Stowell says Joseph, using a seer stone, "Looked through stone and described Josiah Stowell's house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Sampson Stowell's correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone."[3] Joseph and his father traveled to southern New York in November of 1825. This was after the crops were harvested and Joseph had finished his visit to the Hill Cumorah that year. They participated with Stowell and the company of workers in digging for the mine for less than a month. Finally Joseph persuaded him to stop. "After laboring for the old gentleman about a month, without success, Joseph prevailed upon him to cease his operations."[4] Joseph continued to work in the area for Stowell and others. He boarded at the home of Isaac Hale and met Emma Hale, who was one "treasure" he got out of the enterprise.

What is the 1826 trial?

In March of the next year, Stowell's sons or nephew (depending on which account you follow) brought charges against Joseph and he was taken before Justice Neely. The supposed trial record came from Miss Pearsall. "The record of the examination was torn from Neely's docket book by his niece, Emily Persall, and taken to Utah when she went to serve as a missionary under Episcopalian bishop Daniel S. Tuttle."[5] This will be identified as the Pearsall account although Neely possessed it after her death. It is interesting that the first published version of this record didn't appear until after Miss Pearsall had died. William D. Purple took notes at the trial and tells us, "In February, 1826, the sons of Mr. Stowell, ...were greatly incensed against Smith, ...saw that the youthful seer had

58

unlimited control over the illusions of their sire... They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood."[6] Whereas the Pearsall account says: "Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, [Josiah Stowell's nephew] who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter...brought before court March 20, 1826"[7] So, we have what has been called "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith", even though the records show that this wasn't actually a trial. For many years LDS scholars Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley and others expressed serious doubts that such a trial had even taken place.

Why are the 1971 discoveries important?

It was easy to cast doubt on the reality of the 1826 trial until the bills from Judge Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng were found in 1971. These documents were removed from their purported site of discovery by Dr. Wesley Walters, a well-known anti-Mormon author. Walters wrote, "Because the two 1826 bills had not only suffered from dampness, but had severe water damage as well, Mr. Poffarl hand-carried the documents to the Yale University's Beinecke Library, which has one of the best document preservation centers in the country."[8] The problem with this action is, once you have removed a document from a historical setting and then try to restore it to the same setting, you can't prove that you have not altered the document. The actions of Walters and Poffarl compromised the documents. By having the documents removed and only returned under threat of a lawsuit by the County, it opened the possibility that they could be forged documents. They are generally considered to be authentic, but now there is always room for doubt

Why do the critics use this event?

Interestingly, critics of Joseph Smith's time ignored the 1826 trial. 1. They didn't bring it up in another trial in the same area in 1830. 2. It was not mentioned in any of the affidavits collected by Hurlbut in 1833, even though he was diligently looking for every piece of dirt he could find. 3. Although the trial was briefly mentioned in 1831, it was not mentioned again in a published record for 46 years. The attraction of this event for a later generation of critics, however, lies in the fact that:

Society had changed Seer Stones were no longer acceptable Treasure digging was considered abnormal

59

Spiritual gifts were reinterpreted as manifestations of the occult

Many people of the 1800s did not see any differences between what later generations would label as "magic" and religiously-driven activities recorded in the Biblesuch as Joseph's silver cup (see Genesis 44:2,5) in which 'he divineth' (which was also practiced by the surrounding pagans and referred to as hydromancy),[9] or the rod of Aaron and its divinely-driven power (Exodus 7:9-12). The Bible records that Jacob used rods to cause Laban's cattle to produce spotted, and speckled offspring (see Genesis 30:37-39) one can only imagine what the critics would say should Joseph Smith have attempted such a thing! In Joseph Smith's own day other Christian leaders were involved in practices which today's critics would call 'occultic.' Quinn, for instance, observes that in "1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the 'spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin'...."[10] It is important to realize that every statement about "magic" or the "occult" by LDS authors is a negative one. Joseph and his contemporaries would likely have shocked and dismayed to be charged with practicing "magic." For them, such beliefs were simply how the world worked. Someone might make use of a compass without understanding the principles of magnetism. This mysterious, but apparently effective, device was useful even if its underlying mechanism was not understood. In a similar way, activities of the early 1800s or Biblical times which later generations would view skeptically were simply thought of as part of how the world worked. But, it is a huge leap from this realization to charging that Joseph and his followers believed they were drawing power from anything but a divine or proper source.

What does the 1826 trial tell us?

What records exist? We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents. 1. Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate 2.Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate 3.1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977) 4.Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece) Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London) Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)

60

1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)

5. May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chenango Union It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences. Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details. Document provenance We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle. Miss Pearsall dies in 1872. Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873. Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia. Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886 Then the record was lost.

It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published. Do we have a court record? We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all. 1. 2. 3. 4. Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials. No witness signaturesthey were required in an official record. It appears to be a pretrial hearing. Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts.

Why were the various records made? This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.

61

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Benton: more complete history of their founder Cowdery: private character of our brother Noble: explain the character of the Mormons Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others Judge Neely: to collect fees

Unsurprisingly, those who provided these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer, and most of that bias is directed against Joseph Smith. Who brought the charges? If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following: Benton (1831): The Public Cowdery (1835): very officious person Noble (1842): Civil authority Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman Judge Neely: The Public Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source. Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."[11] Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?" What was the charge against Joseph Smith? The charge is listed in the various accounts as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Benton (1831): a disorderly person Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter

62

7. Judge Neely: a misdemeanor Hugh Nibley indicated how it would be strange that he could be charged without visible means of livelihood, since he was being employed by Stowell and others. The portion of the statute that would seem to apply was enacted by New York in 1813. ...all persons who not having wherewith to maintain themselves, live idle without employment, and also all persons who go about from door to door, or place themselves in the streets, highways or passages, to beg in the cities or towns where they respectively dwell, and all jugglers, and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found; ... shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons. What is a juggler? It used to be that a person skilled in sleight of hand was called a juggler, whereas today we would call them a "sleight of hand magician." Thus, a "juggler" was a con man; someone using his 'stage magic' talents to defraud.[12] But what if you weren't pretending to discover lost goods? What if you actually had a gift where you "could discern things invisible to the natural eye" Could you then be judged guilty of this statute? How many witnesses testified? As far as the number of witnesses we have the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Benton (1831): not mentioned Cowdery (1835): not mentioned Marshall (1873): Five quoted, charges for seven witnesses Tuttle (1882): Six Purple (1877): Four Constable Philip De Zeng: Twelve

What is particularly interesting here is that Tuttle and Marshall are supposedly quoting from the same document. Marshall only quotes 5 witnesses, but at the end, the charges are listed for seven witnesses. The fee was 12-1/2 cents per witness. Eighty-seven and cents divided by twelve cents per witness, gives us seven witnesses. By combining the Purple and Pearsall accounts we can arrive at seven witnesses, and also a motive for not including all the witnesses or letting the record be examined. It is unknown why the constable would have listed twelve witnesses, unless that is the number he summoned to the proceedings. Seven would seem to be the correct number of those that testified. What witness is excluded from some accounts?

63

Purple does add a witness that hadn't been included by Marshall or Tuttle: Joseph Smith, Sr. Maybe they didn't want to include the testimony of Joseph's father because his testimony was more religious in nature. He spoke of Joseph's "wonderful triumphs as a seer", that "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre," and "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him." It is easy to see why this testimony wouldn't be included in a record where you are trying to show that Joseph Smith was a person trying to acquire work as a money digger. Which might be the reason the Tuttle and Marshall omitted the Joseph Smith Sr. testimony. What verdict was brought against Joseph? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Benton: tried and condemned ... designedly allowed to escape Cowdery: honorably acquitted Noble: was condemned, took leg bail Marshall: guilty? Tuttle: guilty? Purple: discharged Constable De Zeng: not a trial

Noble's statement is hearsay, since there is no evidence that he actually attended this trial. Furthermore, his statement and Benton's statement can't be taken as an indication that Joseph was judged guilty. For example, in Joseph's 1830 trial he was acquitted. The court said that they "find nothing to condemn you, and therefore you are discharged." Then Mr Reid testifies, "They then proceeded to reprimand him severely, not because anything derogatory to his character in any shape had been proven against him by the host of witnesses that had testified during the trial."[13] The verdict indicated by Marshall and Tuttle is questionable. It seems to be appended as an afterthought. Throughout the document Joseph is referred to as the "prisoner", then after the last testimony, we have one sentence in which he is named a defendant, "And thereupon the Court finds the defendant guilty." Here we have suddenly a declaratory statement that is completely out of character with the rest of the Pearsall document. Also, if this were actually a trial, Joseph wouldn't have testified against himself as the first witness. The examination was not a trial Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that this is not a trial. The Constable's charges of "19 cents attached to the mittimus marks it as the pre-trial 'commitment for want of bail' ...and not the post-trial 'warrant of commitment, on conviction, twenty-five cents."[14] In the Tanners' anti-Mormon Salt Lake City Messenger, they stated, "Wesley P. Walters had convincingly demonstrated to us that we were dealing with 'an examination.' In a

64

New Conductor Generalis, 1819, page 142, we learn that in an 'examination' the accused is not put under oath but that the witnesses are'"[15] In all cases but one the witnesses were "sworn", whereas Joseph was examined. Judge Neeley's charges actually uses that precise terminology, "in examination of above cause". Therefore, since this wasn't a trial, one cannot have a guilty verdict. Summary of testimony

Joseph Smith, Jr.: In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business. Joseph Smith Sr.: This testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account. Josiah Stowell: His employer's testimony in the Purple account has Josiah say that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true." We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."

Horace Stowell: This testimony is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.

65

Arad Stowell: This witness went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around. Interestingly, the same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So this detail matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money. There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account.

Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that a record of this trial would be "the most damning evidence in existence" against Joseph Smith?
Hugh Nibley had serious doubts as to whether or not Joseph Smith was actually brought to trial in 1826, and he felt that the only real trial was in 1830. For the most part, Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct. The following quote is taken from Nibley's book "The Myth Makers:" "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." Since Wesley Walters has found some bills related to the trial, the critics now claim that the case is proven and that Nibley has proven their case for them. Nothing is further from the truth. First of all you need to look at the whole quote. Nibley was chastising Tuttle for not actually using the trial record that he had. He was questioning why he would do that if it was so important. "You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you

66

had only Miss Pearsall's word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn't you immediately send he back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of I? Why didn't you "unearth" it, as they later said you did? . . . The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: "a woman helper in our mission," who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? . . . in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever. . . yet in the final summary of his life's experiences he never mentions the story of the court record his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!" (Nibley "The Myth Makers", 246) The Pearsall account, which has never been produced, claims that the defendant was found guilty. The real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit. A document proving such guilt has not been found.

Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty?

The court did not assess a fine against Joseph. There were bills made out by Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng, but these were for costs. Those bills were directed to the County for payment of witnesses, etc., not to Joseph. 32. Joseph Smith initially claimed that the angel who visited him was Nephi. This confusion calls into question the veracity of an actual angelic visit. Answer: The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' One critic claims that if the angel spoke about the plates being "engraven by Moroni," then he couldn't have been Moroni himself. This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemieswho would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about itshows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.

67

Church response
Richard Lloyd Anderson discussed this issue in the Church's magazine: "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni." This wording in the present Pearl of Great Price is modified from the first printing, in which the messenger was identified as "Nephi," a fact that has generated its share of superficial comment. A textual critic or a court of law reserves the right to use common sense in the face of obvious documentary errors. The "Nephi" reading contradicts all that the Prophet published on the subject during his lifetime. In 1835 Joseph Smith identified the messenger in official scripture: "Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon. ([D&C 50.2 (1835 edition), Template:DC (present edition)]. That year Oliver Cowdery also named this individual in the Messenger and Advocate: "the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing. Communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites." [Messenger and Advocate, 1:112 (April 1835).] Without exhausting the evidence, nothing could be clearer than Joseph Smith's statement printed in the same year that the History began to be dictated: "Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them" [Elder's Journal 1:4243 (July 1838), cit. Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:28].[1]

FAIR's comments
The identity of the angel that appeared to Joseph Smith in his room in 1823 and over the next four years was known and published as "Moroni" for many years prior to the publication of the first identification of the angel as "Nephi" in the Times and Seasons in 1842. Even an anti-Mormon publication, Mormonism Unvailed, identified the angel's name as "Moroni" in 1834a full eight years earlier. All identifications of the angel as "Nephi" subsequent to the 1842 Times and Seasons article were using the T&S article as a source. These facts have not been hidden; they are readily acknowledged in the History of the Church: In the original publication of the history in the Times and Seasons at Nauvoo, this name appears as "Nephi," and the Millennial Star perpetuated the error in its republication of the History. That it is an error is evident, and it is so noted in the manuscripts to which access has been had in the preparation of this work.[2] Joseph F. Smith and Orson Pratt understood the problem more than a century ago, when they wrote in 1877 to John Taylor: "The contradictions in regard to the name of the angelic messenger who appeared to Joseph Smith occurred probably through the mistakes of clerks in making or

68

copying documents and we think should be corrected. . . . From careful research we are fully convinced that Moroni is the correct name. This also was the decision of the former historian, George A. Smith."[3]

Sources which mention Nephi

Critics cite a variety of sources that repeat the 'Nephi' identification. The key point to understand is that there is really only one source that claims the heavenly messenger was Nephi; the other sources which mention Nephi are merely citing this one source, thus perpetuating the error. The problematic document is the June 1839 Manuscript History of the Church Book A-1 (which was a copy of an April 1838 document -- James Mulholland copied George W. Robinson's earlier text. The 1838 document is no longer extant).

The 1839 document was then published in the 1842 Times and Seasons as follows: He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God had a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil, among all nations, kindreds, and tongues; or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. [italics added][4]

In England, the Church's periodical called the Millennial Star reprinted the same article in August 1842, perpetuating the error: He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi [italics added][5]

This idea was repeated again, in the same volume of the Millennial Star, in an editorial written on 1 August 1842 either by Parley P. Pratt or Thomas Ward: Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi, which has finally opened a new dispensation to man, and commenced a revolution in the moral, civil, and religious government of the world...[italics added][6]

The Pearl of Great Price, published in England in 1851 (but not yet canonized), identified its source for the story as "Times & Seasons, vol. iii, p. 726, &c." On page 41 it is said, He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi [italics added][7]

69

The Times and Seasons account was also inserted into the autobiography of the Prophet's mother (Lucy Mack Smith) by an editor in 1853. The Prophet's mother, therefore, did not make this statement (as some critics claim). The source is identified on page 81 as follows -- "Times and Seasons, vol. iii., p. 729. Supp. to Mil. Star, vol. xiv., p. 4." It reads: He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi [italics added][8]

However, on the bottom of page 79 of this autobiography (where the above quotation occurs) there is a note about the name "Nephi" and it says, "Moroni, see Doc & Cov. sec. L., par. 2; Elders' Journal, vol. i., pp. 28 and 129; History of Joseph Smith under year 1838; Deseret News, no. 10, vol. iii. O.P." The initials at the end probably stand for Orson Pratt -- who had the autobiography published in 1853. Thus, a single error in the Manuscript History had a ripple effect through several published accounts of the vision. These accounts are not independent 'proof' that Joseph was changing the story; they all depend upon a single initial error (which may have been caused by the 1838 or 1839 scribes).

Sources which mention Moroni

In contrast to the single source error mentioned above, there are multiple independent sources (originating with Joseph Smith and both friendly and hostile individuals) which demonstrate that the identification of the angel as "Moroni" was well-known and predated the 1838/39 error.

D&C 27:5 - 18301835 Behold this is wisdom in me: wherefore marvel not for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel [modern edition D&C 27:5][9]

Mormonism Unvailed - 1834, reprinted as History of Mormonism in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book] After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)[10]

Messenger and Advocate - 1835

70

I have now given you a rehearsal of what was communicated to our brother, when he was directed to go and obtain the record of the Nephitesand I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the record of the Nephites, in this age, saw also, before he hid up the same unto the Lord, great and marvelous things, which were to transpire when the same should come forth[11]

Elders' Journal - July 1838 For those holy men are angels now. And these are they, who make the fulness of times complete with us. And they who sin against this authority given to him ... sins not against him only, but against Moroni, who holds the keys of the stick of Ephraim. (italics added)[12]

Elders' Journal - July 1838 How, and where did you obtain the book of Mormon?...Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead, and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the book of Mormon.[13]

Gospel Reflector - March 1841 The 1835 Oliver Cowdery letter identifying "the angel Moroni" as the revealer of the golden plates was reprinted. [vol. 1, no. 6, March 1841, 161.]

Times and Seasons - April 1841 The 1835 Oliver Cowdery letter identifying "the angel Moroni" as the revealer of the golden plates was reprinted. [vol. 2, no. 11, 1 April 1841, 363].

Pamphlet - 1844 The 1835 Oliver Cowdery letter identifying "the angel Moroni" as the revealer of the golden plates was reprinted. [Letters by Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps on the Origin of the Book of Mormon (Liverpool: Thomas Ward and John Cairns, 1844), 31.]

D&C 128 (labeled 104 in 1844 edition) - 1844

71

And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophetsthe book to be revealed. (D&C 128:20).

Did Nephi visit Joseph at some point in time?

Several of Joseph's associates believed that Joseph had visits from both Moroni and Nephi during the process of the Restoration. George Q. Cannon in 1869, If you will read the history of the Church from the beginning, you will find that Joseph was visited by various angelic beings, but not one of them professed to give him the keys until John the Baptist came to him. Moroni, who held the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim, visited Joseph; he had doubtless, also, visits from Nephi and it may be from Alma and others.[14] John Taylor notes in 1877, Who was it that administered to Joseph Smith? Moroni and Nephi, men who had lived upon this continent.[15] President Taylor repeats this assertion in 1879, Afterwards the angel Moroni came to him and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days. 33. Given its dimensions and weight, the Gold Plates would have been quite difficult to transport. So the story of Joseph escaping from attackers while carrying the plates is far-fetched. Answer: Critics claim that: 1. Gold plates of the dimensions described by the witnesses would be too heavy (on the order of 200 lbs) to be realistically lifted and carried as Joseph and others described. 2. Joseph could not have outrun those who sought to take the plates from him, nor carried the plates as he ran Both witness testimony and the material of which the plates were made indicates that the weight of the plates was 40-60 lbs, and not 200 lbs.

72

There is nothing about Joseph's story which is implausible, especially when the story details and presented correctly, instead of in the distorted fashion favored by some critics.

What did the plates weigh?

The plates were neither a solid block of metal, nor likely made of solid gold. William Smith, Joseph's brother, claimed that the plates were made of a "mixture of gold and copper." This matches well with an alloy known to ancient Americans called "tumbaga," which has the appearance of gold but is considerably lighter. Plates made of tumbaga would have matched the weight of 40-60 lbs that witnesses estimated the plates weighed.

Joseph's account
Joseph said relatively little about efforts to steal the plates in his official history: 59 At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected. 60 I soon found out the reason why I had received such strict charges to keep them safe, and why it was that the messenger had said that when I had done what was required at my hand, he would call for them. For no sooner was it known that I had them, than the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from me. Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight. (Joseph Smith History 1:59-60)

Lucy Mack Smith's account

His mother, however, recalled a more graphic account: My husband soon learned that ten or twelve men were clubbed together, with one Willard Chase, a Methodist class leader, at their head; and what was still more ridiculous, they had sent sixty or seventy miles for a certain conjuror, to come and divine the place where the plates were secreted.

73

We supposed that Joseph had taken the plates, and hid them somewhere, and we were apprehensive that our enemies might discover their place of deposit. Accordingly, the next morning, after hearing of their plans, my husband concluded to go among the neighbours to see what he could learn with regard to the plans of the adverse party. The first house he came to, he found the conjuror and Willard Chase, together with the rest of the clan. Making an errand, he went in and sat down near the door, leaving it a little ajar, in order to overhear their conversation. They stood in the yard near the door, and were devising plans to find "Joe Smith's gold bible," as they expressed themselves. The conjuror seemed much animated, although he had travelled sixty miles the day and night previous. Presently, the woman of the house, becoming uneasy at the exposures they were making, stepped through a back door into the yard, and called to her husband, in a suppressed tone, but loud enough to be heard distinctly by Mr. Smith, "Sam, Sam, you are cutting your own throat." At this the conjuror [p.103] bawled out at the top of his voice, "I am not afraid of any bodywe will have them plates in spite of Joe Smith or all the devils in hell." When the woman came in again, Mr. Smith laid aside a newspaper which he had been holding in his hand, and remarked, "I believe I have not time to finish reading the paper now." He then left the house, and returned home. Mr. Smith, on returning home, asked Emma, if she knew whether Joseph had taken the plates from their place of deposit, or if she was able to tell him where they were. She said, she could not tell where they were, or whether they were removed from their place. My husband then related what he had both seen and heard.... [104] The plates were secreted about three miles from home, in the following manner. Finding an old birch log much decayed, excepting the bark, which was in a measure sound, he lock, his pocket knife and cut the bark with some care, then turned it back, and made a hole of sufficient size to receive the plates, and laying them in the cavity thus formed, he replaced the bark; after which he laid across the log, in several places, some old stuff that happened to lay near, in order to conceal, as much as possible, the place in which they were deposited. Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and, wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home. [105] After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Travelling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house. lie was still altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue of running.

74

After resting a few moments, he desired me to send Carlos for my husband, Mr. Knight, and his friend Steal....[1]

The critics' claims

MormonThink, an anti-Mormon website run by an anonymous editor who hides his identity so he will not be excommunicated, claims that even at 40-60 lbs, the story of Joseph running with the plates is impossible. Statements in bold below come from MormonThink.[2] Inconceivable? "It's inconceivable that anybody could run carrying a 50 lb. set of metal plates, jumping over logs and such and be able to outrun three men for some 1 to 2 miles that were bent on taking the plates from Joseph."' In the first place, Lucy does not say that Joseph "outran" the menin each case, a man tried to ambush him alone, and Joseph struck them and ran on. So, the key question would seem to be, "Was Joseph physically capable of incapacitating someone with a blow?" His well-known skill at wrestling and stick-pulling would suggest that this is so. He does not have to outrun three men trying to trap him simultaneously. In the second place, Lucy also says that at least one of the men had traveled sixty miles the day and night before. This suggests that he, at least, would not have been at his peak by the time he accosted Joseph, and probably more ill-suited to a long chase than the prophet. In the third place, this type of thing is not "inconceivable" at all:

MormonThink hopes we ignore the fact that if Joseph's account is true that God could well have blessed him beyond his own abilities. That said, Joseph was wellknown for his strength and ability to do serious amounts of physical work, as well as wrestle and pull sticksmaybe he's in better physical shape that MormonThink wants to grant? In a culture and time when all work is done by either human or animal muscle power, frontier farmers like the Smiths were likely in far better physical condition than most twenty-first century westerners. Several people testified of the plates' weight, and they all knew Joseph Smith. None of them found the story inherently impossible. None of them challenged Joseph's taleincluding his family who both knew him best and handled the plates. Did you know that traditional Chinese martial artists recommend training in "hilly terrain" to build strength, and running with a rucksack containing 56 lbs for men, for a distance of at least 5 miles? (They emphasize that farmlife made such things doable anciently.) Maybe MormonThink should let them know this weight and distance is impossible.

75

During World War II, a Canadian infantry sergeant carried his friend on his shoulders for half a mile, while under continuous enemy fire. A wounded man weighs considerably more than fifty pounds, and he probably didn't loiter while under severe fire. Hitler's SS trained to run 3 km (1.87 miles) in twenty minutes with full gear.[3] Israel Defense Force officer candidates must past the "Loren test""scaling a two-meter wall, climbing a three-meter wall, completing an obstacle course, running two miles, and then target-shooting all in under 22 minutes," and done in full battle gear.

While such feats are not easy, and are tiring (and Joseph had to rest a bit before even asking his mother to go get help), they are well within human ability, then and now. Joseph's limp "And all this from a young man that had a slight limp and would have difficulty running at a high speed for a long distance -especially carrying a 50 lb. weight." What evidence is there that Joseph's "slight limp" made it hard for him to run at high speed? Joseph managed fine during the Zion's Camp march of nearly a thousand miles on foot at 25-40 miles per day.[4] He'd had the limp since his boyhood operation, and was likely well-adjusted to it. It also didn't seem to stop Joseph from competing well in footraces and high jumping: . . . All of the Henrie boys were of the rugged athletic type and all were fairly big fellows. Daniel being the smallest, but he was strong and wirey. They loved to wrestle, run and jump and often did it in the less tense moments when they had time. The prophet also loved and excelled in these sports and one day Daniel related he walked up to one of their high corral gatesit came up to his chin as he measured itthen he walked back a little way, took a running jump, and cleared the gate easily. Daniel related that he often beat the Prophet racing and also at the high jump, but when the prophet thought it was his turn to win and he really tried, he could out them all.[5] This doesn't sound like a man whose limp is crippling him--and Joseph was younger and likely more fit during the Book of Mormon translating period, when he was focused almost entirely on farming, rather than splitting his attention as required for Church administration. 34. The Church uses the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses to support the authenticity of the Gold Plates. But there are significant problems with these testimonies, primarily that the witnesses claimed to see the plates only with "spiritual eyes".

76

Answer: Martin Harris frequently told people that he did not see the golden plates and the angel with his natural eyes but rather with spiritual eyes or the eye of faith. When Martin Harris said that he had seen the angel and the plates with his "spiritual eyes" or with an "eye of faith" he may have simply been employing some scriptural language that he was familiar with. Such statements do not mean that the angel and the plates were imaginary, hallucinatory, or just an inner mental imagethe earliest accounts of Martin Harris' testimony makes the literal nature of the experience unmistakable. Rather than being hallucinatory or "merely" spiritual, Martin claimed that the plates and angel were seen by physical eyes that had been enhanced by the power of God to view more objects than a mortal could normally see (cf. DC 76:12; DC 67:10-13). Critics who claim otherwise do not provide their readers with all of Martin's statements, distorting the historical record. Anti-Mormons desperately desire to make it appear as though the statements made by Martin Harris about the Three Witnesses manifestation discount its reality. But in their zeal for the destruction of the LDS faith critics have wrenched Brother Harris statements out of their proper context. This vital viewpoint can be regained by simply taking a look at several passages from the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenantswhich all predate Martins public statements about the nature of his experience.

Early hostile accounts disagree

An early hostile account of the three witnesses' testimony from February 1830 is instructive: In the Investigator, No. 12, Dec. 11, I published, by way of caution, a letter of Oliver H.P. Cowdry, in answer to my letter to Joseph Smith, Jun. Martin Harris, and David Whitmorethe believers in said bible of gold plateswhich they affirm they have miraculously, or supernaturally beheld. I sought for evidences, and such as could not be disputed, of the existence of this bible of golden plates. But the answer wasthe world must take their words for its existence; and that the book would appear this month.[1] Clearly, the author here uses "supernatural" as a synonym for "miraculous," not an attempt to argue that the plates do not literally exist, since "their words" are intended as "evidences...for its existence." Furthermore, Martin Harris' testimony is reported in a mocking newspaper article, which still makes it clear that Harris' experience was tangible and literal: Martin Harris, another chief of Mormon imposters, arrived here last Saturday from the bible quarry in New-York. He immediately planted himself in the barroom of the hotel, where he soon commenced reading and explaining the Mormon

77

hoax, and all the dark passages from Genesis to Revelations. He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God![2]

The scriptural witnesses

Ether 5:23 This prophetic passage had a direct application to Martin Harris as one of the Three Witnesses. It said: the plates . . . . unto three shall they be shown by the power of God DC 5:11,13,2426 unto [three of my servants] I will show these things . . . . I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are. Speaking specifically of Martin Harris: then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them, for they have been shown unto me by the power of God and not of man. And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say. DC 17:13,5 All three of the witnesses were told: you shall have a view of the plates . . . . And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old . . . . And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them . . . . And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith From these scriptural texts it is evident that:

The Three Witnesses were required by God to exercise faith like the prophets of old in order to view the angel and the plates (cf. Moroni 7:37; DC 20:6). God would exercise His power to enable the Three Witnesses to see things that were not usually visible to mortal eyes. Nevertheless, the Three Witnesses would see the angel and the plates with [their] eyes and as they are in objective reality.

78

Contemporary witnesses
Joseph Smith was an eyewitness to what Martin Harris said at the exact moment that the manifestation took place. He reported that Martin's words were: "Tis enough; mine eyes have beheld".[3] Another eyewitness, named Alma Jensen, saw Martin Harris point to his physical eyes while testifying that he had seen both the angel and the plates.[4] David Whitmer helps clear up the "spiritual" vs. "natural" viewing of the plates. Responding to the questions of Anthony Metcalf (the same Metcalf who interviewed Harris) Whitmer wrote: In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer. [5] And to leave absolutely no doubt about the nature of the manifestation Whitmer explained, "I was not under any hallucination . . . . I saw with these eyes."[6] Early hostile newspapers claimed that the witnesses' descriptions did not match, but were clear that both Harris and Whitmer had at some point physically handled and examined the plates: Whitmars [sic] description of the Book of Mormon, differs entirely from that given by Harris; both of whom it would seem have been of late permitted, not only to see and handle it, but to examine its contents. Whitmar relates that he was led by Smith into an open field, on his fathers farm near Waterloo, when they found the book lying on the ground; Smith took it up and requested him to examine it, which he did for the space of half an hour or more, when he returned it to Smith, who placed it in its former position, alledging that the book was in the custody of another, intimating that some Divine agent would have it in safe keeping.[7] David, like Martin, had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was so accused, and said: How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I

79

deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" [citation needed] On another occasion in which Whitmer was asked about the plates, the interviewer recorded: He then explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable. [citation needed] Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences when he wrote: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) [citation needed] Paul's vision was real, yet he was unsure whether he had the experience in or out of his body. Harris may have felt a similar experience. He knew the plates were real, yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was only able to see them by the power of God. On a separate occasion Harris testified to the reality of his vision. The scene as recorded by Edward Stevenson was instrumental in getting Harris to re-enter the Church. On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, "Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?" "No," said Martin, "I do not believe it." The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, "Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day."49 [citation needed]

Choice of phrase
The only question that remains, then, is why Martin Harris used the particular phraseology that he did in describing his experience. Perhaps the answer lies in another passage found in the book of Ether 12:19 (created by June 1829). Here it is noted that those people who have "exceedingly strong" faith can see things "within the veil." But even though they see things in the spiritual realm "with their eyes" it is described as beholding things with "an eye of faith."

80

Another possibility can be seen in the text of Moses 1:11 (created in June 1830). It reads: "But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face." This dovetails nicely with the description of David Whitmer who "explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for itthat he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God."[8]

Other accounts
Harris made his views clear in other statements, and they do not match the critics' reading: When in England to preach for an LDS splinter group, Martin Harris was ejected from a meeting of Latter-day Saints. He left, and began to loudly criticize the Church leadership. Critics of Mormonism arrived quickly: When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God."[9] An LDS author reported in 1870: On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake? No, said Martin, I do not believe it. The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day.[10] And, at his death, Harris reported:

81

The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true 35. Brigham Young claimed that there were was a cave located at the Hill Cumorah containing "wagon loads" of ancients records "piled up in the corners and along the walls". No such cave has ever been found.

Answer: Is there a cave in the Hill Cumorah containing the Nephite records?
On June 17, 1877, Brigham Young related the following at a conference: I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that will be as marvelous as anything can be. This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take. I tell these things to you, and I have a motive for doing so. I want to carry them to the ears of my brethren and sisters, and to the children also, that they may grow to an understanding of some things that seem to be entirely hidden from the human family. Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: "This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ." [14] There are at least ten second hand accounts describing the story of the cave in Cumorah, however, Joseph Smith himself did not record the incident. [15] As mentioned previously, the Hill Cumorah located in New York state is a drumlin: this means it is a pile of gravel scraped together by an ancient glacier. The geologic unlikelihood of a cave existing within the hill such as the one described suggests that the experience related by the various witnesses was most likely a vision, or a divine transportation to another locale (as with Nephi's experience in 1 Nephi 11:1). John Tvedtnes supports this view:

82

The story of the cave full of plates inside the Hill Cumorah in New York is often given as evidence that it is, indeed, the hill where Mormon hid the plates. Yorgason quotes one version of the story from Brigham Young and alludes to six others collected by Paul T. Smith. Unfortunately, none of the accounts is firsthand. The New York Hill Cumorah is a moraine laid down anciently by a glacier in motion. It is comprised of gravel and earth. Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events.[16] The Book of Mormon text does not describe the compartment in the hill as a "cave." This word is only used in references to it outside the text of the Book of Mormon itself, in other dated publications and in Church tradition. So the idea that the compartment was a natural cave is not established as a certainty. One author points out that some Adena mounds in the Eastern United States contain burial chambers. He suggests that this is a precedent in the archaeology of the general area of the New York drumlin, suggesting that the idea of a man-made chamber for the ancient records is a possibility.[17] Whatever the case, a natural cave could not exist there. Given that the angel Moroni had retrieved the plates from Joseph several times previously, it is not unreasonable to assume that he was capable of transporting them to a different location than the hill in New York. As Tvedtnes states, "If they could truly be moved about, why not from Mexico, for example?" 36. Although the Priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery made no such claim until at least 1834. Why did it take five years for Joseph to tell members of the Church about the Priesthood? Answer: Critics claim that the restoration of the priesthood was "back dated" later by Joseph Smith to justify his desire to dominate the Church. When all the circumstantial evidence is studied, the approximate time of the Melchizedek priesthood' restoration can be plausibly narrowed down. Although the exact date is not known, the window that is known is small enough to preclude a later fabrication of events by the Prophet to "increase his authority." Although historical documents do not give an exact date for the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood we can pinpoint its occurrence to a 17 day window between the 15 and 31 of May, 1829.

Aaronic Priesthood
Joseph learned from Moroni in 1823 that when [the golden plates] are interpreted the Lord will give the holy priesthood to some, and they shall begin to proclaim this gospel and baptize by water, and after that they shall have power to give the Holy Ghost by the

83

laying on of their hands.[1] Two years later the first part of that pronouncement occurred when John the Baptist visited Joseph and Oliver: He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter...The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us...It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.[2] We know that the Melchizedek priesthood therefore had not yet been given and must be given either later that day or sometime following that day. Joseph and Oliver Cowdery were told to re-ordain each other to the priesthood after being baptized. This was to follow proper rules of being a member before receiving the priesthood, but in their case they couldn't become members until having the priesthood to baptize each other.[3]

Melchizedek Priesthood
Similar to this origination complication of baptism and membership, the ordination to the office of Elder via the higher priesthood could not occur until the church had been established. After the church was officially established we have the following evidences that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had already received the higher priesthood: 1. Aug 1830, the Lord spoke to the Prophet Joseph Smith of Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them. DC 27:12 2. Apr 1830, And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand. DC 20:2-3 3. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sought after this higher authority, and the Lord gave it to them, before the rise of this Church, sending to them Peter, James and John. What for? To bestow upon them the Apostleship. -Elder Parley P. Pratt
[4]

4. Hiram Page, a son-in-law of Peter Whitmer Sr., and one who was present on the day of the Churchs 6 April 1830 organization, later confirmed that Peter, James and John had come and bestowed the Holy Priesthood before the 6th of April 1830. [5] 5. I know that Joseph received his Apostleship from Peter, James, and John, before a revelation on the subject was printed, and he never had a right to organize a Church before he was an Apostle. -Brigham Young [6]

84

Narrow Window
Knowing that the prophet already had the Melchizedek priesthood prior to the organization of the church we can look at the following clues of the May 15 to 30, 1829 ordination window in order of progressively narrowed parameters: 1. Year 1829: There is a manuscript in Oliver Cowderys handwriting recording part of DC 18: saying, Written in the year of our Lord & Saviour 1829. [7] 2. June 1829: In DC 18:9 we read And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called. 3. Before June 14, 1829: Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to Hyrum Smith. The letter has some wording that quotes and refers to section 18 in the D&C. [8] 4. Before June 1, 1829: o Joseph Smith said that he, Emma, Oliver and David Whitmer traveled to the home of Peter Whitmer Sr. In the beginning of the month of June. [9] o David Whitmer is quoted as saying The translation at my fathers farm, Fayette Township, Seneca County, New York occupied about one month, that is from June 1, to July 1, 1829. [10] If those dates are exact then the Prophet was in New York during the entire month of June. o Orson Pratt asked David Whitmer, Can you tell the date of the bestowal of the Apostleship upon Joseph, by Peter, James and John? To which he replied: I do not know, Joseph never told me. From this we can tell that the visitation either: 1. Happened during the traveling when Joseph and Oliver were away from David and did not tell him about the occurrence (their trusted friend with whom they shared many other events). 2. Happened at another time than their travel from Harmony to Fayette.

Location
Critics also raise the issue of where the Melchizedek priesthood restoration occurred. The bestowal of the Melchizedek priesthood occurred in Harmony, Pennsylvania. [11] The time of travel between Harmony, PA and the Whitmer farm would have been three days. The likely hood of the men traveling back to Harmony at the same time as they did the following is near impossible: Finished the translation Secured the copyright on June 11 Oliver's letter to Hyrum on June 14 Joseph's details of how busy they were during this time period at the farm [12]

85

As shown above, after receiving the priesthood they were not yet allowed to ordain each other to the offices within that priesthood. They were told to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our proceeding to ordain each other. [13] There are many times[14] when Oliver confirmed without error that the sequence of events occurred as shown above.[15]

Other early mentions

Some have claimed that Joseph only began to mention apostolic ordination to the priesthood several years after the Church's organization. This claim is belied by the fact that in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles."[16] Here, then, is a clear reference to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Josephs conversations with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other miracles. 37. The name of the restored Church was changed several times in the first few years after it was established. Why would a prophet receiving revelation have to revise the proper name of God's Church so many times? Answer: Why did the Church change its name twice during its history? Shouldn't the name have been given by revelation? The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in DC 115:3. This is not to suggest that the members did not consider it the "Church of Christ," before and after the name change. The words "Church of Jesus Christ" are obvious references to the Savior and His Church. The addition of "Latter-day" highlights the Church's belief that it is not a new organization of Christians, but a restoration of Christians in the "Latter-days," or the days prior to Christ's return. The label "Saints" identifies the members as those who areor aspire to beSaints. "Saint" comes from the Latin sanctus, meaning "holy." The Saints are those who have been made holy through the grace and blood of Jesus Christ.

86

Thus, the name of the Church emphasizes its links to Christ and His Church of former times in multiple ways. Some critics try to impose inerrantist ideas on the Churchthey act as if such things as official names and procedures can never change. But, the Latter-day Saints have never held such ideasthey believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions. The original name of the Church when it was organized in 1830 was the "Church of Christ." Mormonism to some extent originated in the historical context of the restorationist movement. This movement consisted of Christians who believed that the original Christianity needed to be restored, and it was a common belief among Christian restorationists that the name of a Christian church should properly be the "Church of Christ." Many new members of the Church brought such ideas with them when they became "Mormons." This caused practical problems, however, since there were lots of restorationist groups who named their local churches the "Church of Christ," so there was tremendous confusion. (Indeed, one of the groups that descends from Alexander Campbell's Disciples of Christ continues to use the name "Church of Christ" to this day.) This, coupled with the use of the common antagonistic epithet "Mormonite" (soon simplified to "Mormon"), led to a desire for a more distinctive name that would distinguish our church from so many others that were using the same name. So in April 1834, under the influence of Sidney Rigdon (according to David Whitmer),[1] who had been a reformed Baptist preacher with close ties to Alexander Campbell prior to joining the church, the official name of the church was changed to the "Church of Latter Day Saints." This was no attempt to distance the Church from the name of Christ or its claims to be Christ's church. In 1835, the official Church paper referred to the: "rise and progress of the church of Christ of Latter Day Saints"[2] The basis for the present name of the church came in DC 115:3, received on April 26, 1838: the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Note how this name combines elements of the original name and the Rigdon-inspired name. In 1851 when the church formally incorporated, the name included a corporate initial article "The" and a British hyphenization of "Latter-day," thus becoming the formal name we use to this day, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Other groups that split off from the church, such as the Strangites and the Reorganization {RLDS, now Community of Christ}, kept the original unhyphenated "Latter Day" in their formal names.

87

The Word of Wisdom

38. Joseph Smith smoked tobacco and drank tea, coffee, and alcohol long after he revealed the Word of Wisdom. In fact, Joseph Smith at one time had a bar in his house and also drank wine at Carthage shortly before he died. Answer: Critics count on "presentism"they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day. The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not enforced as rigorously, or with the same requirements, in Joseph Smith's day. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Many speakers emphasized the Lord's patience in this matter, as applied to both leaders and members. But, many of the events with which the critics wish to shock the modern member probably have nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom at all. They are concerned about medical practice, not the social or recreational use of substances. The critics' tactics are akin to pointing out slyly that President Kimball used morphinewhile not mentioning the fact that the morphine was prescribed for cancer pain by a physician. This is the same case for Joseph Smith. Many Latter-Day Saint physicians were Thomsonians Herbalists , this is anyone who practiced herbalism as practiced by Samuel Thomson. Willard Richards was one of many who practiced this. Tea Critics also fail to point out that the fact that Joseph noted the use of tea shows that it was probably a unique event, worthy of note. Why would this be? In consulting the journal entry, we read: "Saturday, March 11th Too cold last night as to freeze [p.332] water in the warmest rooms in the city. River filled with anchor ice. 8 1/2 o'clock in the office, Joseph said he had tea with his breakfast."[1] In Joseph's day, some medical thinking held that "hot drinks" (such as tea and coffee) could heat the body and vital fluids. While this was usually regarded as a bad idea that would be dangerous to health: It was a common use by Thomsonians Herbalism that was once again being practiced by associate and close friend Willard Richards. Tobacco Another aspect of Thomsonian medicine was Thomson's enthusiasm for the use of lobelia, or wild Indian tobacco. It was used as a cure-all, and was prominently used as an emetic to induce vomiting and restore health.

88

This bit of historical information allows us to see how the critics attempt to deceive us in a similar episode. The Tanners (p. 33) make a great deal of Joseph asking for a "pipe and tobacco" for Willard Richards. However, when we read the circumstances, this action makes sense, and it has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom. In the first place, we must realize that Joseph and Willard are locked in Carthage Jail. Joseph had sent Stephen Markham out, as previous text unquoted by the Tanners tells us: "'Brother Markham...go get the doctor [i.e., Richards] something to settle his stomach,' [said Joseph,] and Markham went out for medicine. When he got the remedies desired... [the] Carthage Greys gathered round him, put him on his horse, and forced him out of the town at the point of the bayonet." So, Markham could not return, and none of the remedies he had obtained reached the jail.[8] It is not clear which remedies Markham sought outbut he could not return. A Thomsonian like Richards would have probably seen tobacco as a medicinal drug, howeverespecially in a pinch when he could get nothing else. This would be particularly true if the tobacco was lobeliait was the Thomsonian cure-all, literally. The Tanners disingenuously complain elsewhere about how in the History of the Church the words "pipe and some tobacco" were replaced by the word "medicine" (p. 471). But, this misses the point in a spectacular waytobacco was considered a medicine at the time! Modern editors would not make this type of change to a historical text, but one can understand why rather than bother to explain about Thomsonian beliefs and medical practices, the editors of earlier times decided to simply "translate" the reason for the tobacco. The issue only becomes important, after all, when critics like the Tanners try to exploit the unwary reader's unfamiliarity with early nineteenth century medicine. Liquor A bar was set up in Joseph's hotel, the Mansion house. Joseph Smith III tells of Emma's return from a journey to find the bar in place. As her biographers tell the story: ...Emma entered the main room of the Mansion House on April 24 [, 1843]. A bar, complete with counter, shelves, and glasses for serving liquor stood in the room. [Orin] Porter Rockwell reigned supreme over it. Emma sent her elevenyear-old son into a meeting to tell Joseph she wished to speak with him; she waited in the hall. "Joseph, what is the meaning of that bar in this house?" Emma asked with restraint obvious to her young son, who later recorded the confrontation. Joseph explained that a new building across the street was planned for Porter Rockwell's bar and barbershop, but until it could be completed Rockwell had set up the bar in the Mansion. "How does it look for the spiritual head of a religious body to be keeping a hotel in which a room is fitted out as a liquor-selling establishment?" she asked earnestly. Joseph countered that all hotels had their bars, the

89

arrangement was only temporary, and he wanted to make up for Rockwell's months in prison.[7] Rockwell had been jailed for months, and reached Nauvoo in financially desperate straits. Joseph hoped to find a trade for his old friend and bodyguard. Emma was not persuaded by this argument: Unconvinced, Emma told Joseph he could hire someone to run the Mansion for him. "As for me," she continued, "I will take my children and go across to the old house and stay there, for I will not have them raised up under such conditions as this arrangement imposes upon us, nor have them mingle with the kind of men who frequent such a place. You are at liberty to make your choice; either that bar goes out of the house, or we will!"... Joseph answered, "Very well, Emma; I will have it removed at once." Soon a frame structure, designed to house the bar and barbershop, began to rise across the street. 39. Although it is argued that the Word of Wisdom was initially a suggestion and not a commandment, Joseph Smith taught "that no official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office" if he neglects to obey the Word of Wisdom. By his own teaching, Joseph was not worthy to hold his calling of prophet. Answer: Observance of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, due to on-going revelation from modern-day prophets, who put greater emphasis on certain elements of the revelation originally given to Joseph Smith. Early Latter-day Saints were not under the same requirements as today's Saints are. Latter-Day Saints believe that the Lord reveals his will to men "line upon line, precept upon precept," (Isaiah 28:10,13 and others) and that revelation continues as circumstances change. The text of the Word of Wisdom forbids "strong drink" (D&C 89:5, 7), which was initially interpreted as distilled beverages (hard liquor). Beer, unfermented or lightly fermented wine, and cider were considered "mild drinks" (D&C 89:17) and therefore acceptable (note that verse 17 specifically permits "barley...for mild drinks"). The complete prohibition of alcoholic drinks of any kind only became part of the Word of Wisdom following the temperance movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant supported the movement and Grant made complete abstention from alcohol in any form a requirement for a temple recommend in the early 1920s. Consider also that drinking water in Joseph Smith's day (or during Biblical times) was a gamble because water purity was always questionable; a little alcohol in a beverage ensured that it was free of viruses and bacteria. The development of germ theory in the late 19th century lead to chemical treatments to ensure a safe supply of public drinking water. A strict ban of all alcohol in Joseph Smith's time would have been a death sentence

90

for many Latter-day Saintsespecially during the 18321833 cholera pandemic, which spread its disease by water. The same sort of "ramping up" of requirements occurred with regard to tobacco, coffee and tea. While use of these items was often discouraged by Church leaders, enforcement was usually light and confined to people who were severe abusers. For example, Brigham Young made the following remarks in April 1870 General Conference: On Sunday, after meeting, going through the gallery which had been occupied by those claiming, no doubt, to be gentlemen, and perhaps, brethren, you might have supposed that cattle had been standing around there and dropping their nuisances. Here and there were great quids of tobacco, and places a foot or two feet square smeared with tobacco juice. I wish the door-keepers, when, in the future, they observe any persons besmearing the seats and floor in this way to request them to leave the house; and, if they refuse and will not stop spitting about and besmearing their neighbors, just take them and lead them out carefully and kindly. It is an imposition for those claiming to be gentlemen to spit tobacco juice for ladies to draw their clothes through and besmear them, or to leave their dirt in the house. We request all addicted to this practice, to omit it while in this house. Elders of Israel, if you must chew tobacco, omit it while in meeting, and when you leave, you can take a double portion, if you wish to.[1]

Phasing in of enforcement
Said Brigham Young in 1861: Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the "Word of Wisdom", and would like to have me preach upon it, and urge it upon the brethren, and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think I shall do so. I have never done so.[2] In 1867, Ezra T. Benson exhorted the Saints to live the law, but seemed to realize that not all the Saints of the time had the capacity: Supposing he had given the Word of Wisdom as a command, how many of us would have been here? I do not know; but he gave this without command or constraint, observing that it would be pleasing in His sight for His people to obey its precepts. Ought we not to try to please our Heavenly Father?[3] In 1870, Brigham Young again emphasized that this was a commandment of God, but that following was left, to an extent, with the people: The observance of the Word of Wisdom, or interpretation of God's requirements on this subject, must be left, partially, with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians. We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that....[4]

91

Just before the turn of the century, in 1898, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom: President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it.[5] So, even by this date keeping the Word of Wisdom was not a point of fellowshipyou could still have a temple recommend if you didnt obey, though the leaders remained clear that it was a true doctrine from the Lord. By 1902, the Church leaders were strongly encouraging the members to keep the law, and were even beginning to deny temple recommends to those who would not. They were, however, still merciful and patient with the older members who had not been born into the system, and for whom change was presumably quite difficult: [In 1902] Joseph F. Smith urged stake presidents and others to refuse recommends to flagrant violators but to be somewhat liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Habitual drunkards, however, were to be denied temple recommends.[6] By 1905, the Council of the Twelve were actively preaching that no man should hold a leadership position if he would not obey the Word of Wisdom.[7] On 5 July 1906, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve began using water instead of wine for their sacrament meetings.[8] By 1915, President Joseph F. Smith instructed that no one was to be ordained to the priesthood or given temple recommends without adherence.[9] Heber J. Grant became President of the Church in 1918, and he continued the policy of Word of Wisdom observance; after that time temple attendance or priesthood ordination required obedience to the principle. Thus, the Church membership had eighty-five years to adapt and prepare for the full implementation of this revelation.[10] By 1933, the General Handbook of Instructions listed the Word of Wisdom as a requirement for temple worship, exactly 100 years after the receipt of the revelation by Joseph Smith.[11] This long period of patience on the part of the Lord was necessary for allfrom the newest member to even the leaders. Joseph F. Smith observed: The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was givenas not by 'commandment or restraint' was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.[12] Thus, we should not expect perfect observance of the Word of Wisdom (especially in its modern application) from early members or leaders. The Lord and the Church did not expect it of themthough the principle was taught and emphasized.

92

40. Joseph Smith and other early leaders taught that because animals had spirits, they should only be eaten in times of "dire necessity". Not only does the Church ignore this aspect of the Word of Wisdom, it also acts in direct defiance and hypocrisy by owning and operating the largest cattle ranch in the United States. Answer: It is not clear how the critics have made this determination about most members. How do they know? What does "sparingly" consist of? Who authorized them to judge others? The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application, and leaders of the Church were clear that while the Lord expected perfect adherence to the Word of Wisdom as an ideal, he was also patient and understanding of everyoneleader and memberwho struggled to alter their habits. In our day, the Word of Wisdom applies in ways in which it did not for Joseph Smith's erathe modern Word of Wisdom forbids a great many other illegal street drugs that received little attention in the 19th century. Just as past members struggled as individuals and a group to keep some parts of the Word of Wisdom, it is arguable that some members today likewise struggle. As with the former members, the Lord is merciful and has not yet created a "standard" for meat consumption each member and his or her conscience settles the matter with him or herself. Joseph Fielding Smith seems to take this attitude: While it is ordained that the flesh of animals is for man's food, yet this should be used sparingly. The wording of this revelation is perfectly clear in relation to this subject, but we do not always heed it.[1] Thus, each member is encouraged to do better, but as in Joseph Smith's day we ought not to attack or dictate to others. If the Lord is displeased with us individually, he can make his will known by revelation. If He is displeased with the Church as a whole, prophetic authority will give the necessary correction. To be certain, the last correction any Latter-day Saints needs is from a cynical critic trying to use this as one more chink in someone's spiritual armor. But, as good Christians, we can appreciate the reminder, examine our conscience, and pay the critics or their issues no further worry. They do not have our spiritual well-being at heart. The ranches owned by the are known as Deseret Ranches. Deseret Ranches refers to the ranching operations of Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Central Florida. The Ranches include several organizations including Deseret Ranches of Florida, Deseret Cattle and Citrus, Taylor Creek Management, East

93

Central Florida Services, Agreserves, and Farmland Reserve. Located 7 miles (11 km) east of the Orlando International Airport and 19 miles (31 km) west of Cape Canaveral, Florida. Currently, Deseret Ranches is the largest cow-calf ranch in the United States. This ranch, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spreads over the three central Florida counties of Osceola, Orange, and Brevard. Covering almost 300,000 acres (1200 km) of land, 90 ranchers and their families live on the ranch. The ranch maintains 44,000 head of beef cattle. It is a for profit operation and is not a normal part of the humanitarian efforts of the LDS Church. Gordon B. Hinckley, former president of the church has said, "We have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need. 41. Brigham Young owned a distillery in Utah and sold whiskey to saints for Pioneer Day celebrations. Answer: Critics count on "presentism"they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day. The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member.

Rational purposes
Critics also fail to point out that the fact that some forbidden substances were seen as having a medicinal use, for which the Saints were free to use them. Said Brigham: When there was no whisky to be had here, and we needed it for rational purposes, I built a house to make it in. When the distillery was almost completed and in good working order, an army was heard of in our vicinity and I shut up the works I did not make a gallon of whisky at my works, because it came here in great quantities, more than was needed. I could have made thousands of dollars from my still, which has ever since been as dead property. Whiskey could have legitimate usesfor medication, for the cleaning of wounds, and for the cleaning of the body. Furthermore, the application of the Word of Wisdom did not necessarily require complete abstinence, as Brigham taught on another occasion: I have no fellowship for men who are guilty of breaking the Sabbath, of drinking spirituous liquors to excess.... This message was echoed elsewhere: Brigham Young

94

"You have read that piece of excellent advice called the "Word of Wisdom." I shall not say you must obey it; you can read it over again and refresh your memories, and I give the privilege to the Elders of Israel to cease using tobacco, and if they will not cease using it, then raise it; and then, also, to cease using spirituous liquors to excess....If you will cease drinking spirituous liquors you will thereby be benefited individually and benefit the community. A man who indulges in any habit that is pernicious to the general good in its example and influence, is not only an enemy to himself but to the community so far as the influence of that habit goes. A man who would not sacrifice a pernicious habit for the good it would do the community is, to say the least of it, lukewarm in his desires and wishes for public and general improvement. Tobacco is not good for man; spirituous liquor is not good for a beverage, but in many cases it is good for washing the body." Heber C. Kimball "If any of you have been in the practice of drinking spirituous liquors to excess cease at once the wicked and destructive practice." Erastus Snow "If a person having a strong desire for stimulants, such as spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, tobacco, opium, &c., that stimulate the nervous system to excess, and continues to gratify this appetite, will soon destroy the elasticity of his nervous system, and become like a bow that is often bent almost to breaking....We must neither indulge in excessive eating, excessive drinking, nor in excessive working, whereby to overtax our physical energies or our nervous system. Joseph F. Smith We do not want these things here; but we are not supreme; we cannot govern as we would wish. Not that we desire to rule with an iron hand, oppressively. It would not be oppression to me, for the Proper authorities to say,"You Shall not take intoxicating liquors; you shall neither manufacture nor drink them, for they are injurious to your body and mind," nor would it be to any Saint,but what oppression it would be to a certain class! Yet I hope to see the day when, within the pale of the kingdom of God, no man will be allowed to take intoxicating liquor; and makeI was acing to say, a beast of himself. But I do not name it, rather to make a degraded man of himself. Beasts would not degrade themselves as men do. The habits of the brutes are decent in the eyes of God and angels when compared with the conduct of drunken, debauched men, who pollute mind and body by the commission of every species of vice and crime. I want to see the day when no man in the midst of this people will be allowed to touch intoxicating drink to become drunken. Do the "Mormons" drink it? Yes, to their shame, disgrace and the violation of their covenants, some of them do; and while on this subject I will say that no one supposes for a moment that a confirmed and unrepentant drunkard will ever be permitted within the gates of the celestial city. We all understand this, but I want to bear my testimony that those who prostitute mind and body by the debasing use of intoxicating drinks and the crimes and evils to which it leads will never have part in the celestial kingdom. "But," says one, "did not some of the ancients get 'boozy' once in a while?" If they did they had to repent of it. I do not excuse

95

them any more than I would you or myself, for taking a course of this kind. Yet God sees as we cannot [p.285] see. He takes all things into consideration, He does not judge partially as we are liable to do. When He places a man in the balance He weights him righteously, but when we judge a man we are apt to judge unrighteously, because we are not omniscient. But what necessity is there for a healthy person to take intoxicating liquor? Does it ever do him any good? No, never. But does it never do any good to use liquor? I do not say that. When it is used for washing the body according to the revelations God has given, and when absolutely necessary if used with wisdom for sickness, it may do good, but when it is used to the extent that it destroys reason and judgment it is never used with impunity. All who thus use it then violate an immutable law, the penalty of which must inevitably follow the transgressor. It is against this practice that I am speaking. If there be any guilty of it here this afternoon, and I have no doubt there are, I wish them to take warning (italics added, underline is emphasis in original). Franklin D. Richards I am not asleep to, nor unaware of the fact that many of us coming from the world have brought with us a deep craving for spirituous liquors, and for other things which are not good for us, but which we may have dabbled in to gratify a wicked appetite. Parents afflicted with these propensities ought to take warning not to breed them into the natures of their children, and if possibly they have done so, to use diligence to preserve them from being thrown in the way of temptation until they come to years of understanding, judgment and firmness of purpose, which will enable them to practice self-denial, and live as men of God. These are matters that need to be looked after. Brigham was prepared to produce a limited amount for such usesthe Saints were isolated in Utah and had to either produce or import everything they needed. He was not pleased, however, at the influx of whiskey and attendant over-use which accompanied the U.S. army. 42. The official change of the Word of Wisdom from principle to requirement came with no claim of Divine instruction. On the contrary, the shift seems to have taken place for political reasons surrounding Prohibition and desire for mainstream Christian acceptance.

Answer: Phasing in of enforcement

Said Brigham Young in 1861: Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the "Word of Wisdom", and would like to have me preach upon it, and urge it upon the brethren, and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think I shall do so. I have never done so.[2] In 1867, Ezra T. Benson exhorted the Saints to live the law, but seemed to realize that not all the Saints of the time had the capacity:

96

Supposing he had given the Word of Wisdom as a command, how many of us would have been here? I do not know; but he gave this without command or constraint, observing that it would be pleasing in His sight for His people to obey its precepts. Ought we not to try to please our Heavenly Father?[3] In 1870, Brigham Young again emphasized that this was a commandment of God, but that following was left, to an extent, with the people: The observance of the Word of Wisdom, or interpretation of God's requirements on this subject, must be left, partially, with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians. We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that....[4] Just before the turn of the century, in 1898, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom: President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it.[5] So, even by this date keeping the Word of Wisdom was not a point of fellowshipyou could still have a temple recommend if you didnt obey, though the leaders remained clear that it was a true doctrine from the Lord. By 1902, the Church leaders were strongly encouraging the members to keep the law, and were even beginning to deny temple recommends to those who would not. They were, however, still merciful and patient with the older members who had not been born into the system, and for whom change was presumably quite difficult: [In 1902] Joseph F. Smith urged stake presidents and others to refuse recommends to flagrant violators but to be somewhat liberal with old men who used tobacco and old ladies who drank tea. Habitual drunkards, however, were to be denied temple recommends.[6] By 1905, the Council of the Twelve were actively preaching that no man should hold a leadership position if he would not obey the Word of Wisdom.[7] On 5 July 1906, the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve began using water instead of wine for their sacrament meetings.[8] By 1915, President Joseph F. Smith instructed that no one was to be ordained to the priesthood or given temple recommends without adherence.[9] Heber J. Grant became President of the Church in 1918, and he continued the policy of Word of Wisdom observance; after that time temple attendance or priesthood ordination required obedience to the principle. Thus, the Church membership had eighty-five years to adapt and prepare for the full implementation of this revelation.[10] By 1933, the General Handbook of Instructions listed the Word of Wisdom as a requirement for temple worship, exactly 100 years after the receipt of the revelation by Joseph Smith.[11]

97

This long period of patience on the part of the Lord was necessary for allfrom the newest member to even the leaders. Joseph F. Smith observed: The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was givenas not by 'commandment or restraint' was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.[12] Thus, we should not expect perfect observance of the Word of Wisdom (especially in its modern application) from early members or leaders. The Lord and the Church did not expect it of themthough the principle was taught and emphasized. Thus we see that the word of wisdom was applied and slowly adopted in full to the point where it became a requirement for a temple recommend due to the fact that the generation to whom it was originally given already had formed the habits so it slowly progressed till the following generations were able to completely apply its teachings, not because of a wish to appeal to mainstream Christianity due to a stance on Prohibition. 43. Members are taught to believe that Joseph Smith received the endowment through revelation. However, much of the temple ceremony was copied directly from Masonry. Answer: Critics of the LDS Church often point to similarities between the rituals of Freemasonry and the LDS temple endowment and claim that since Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason in Nauvoo, Illinois shortly before he introduced the full endowment to the Saints (as opposed to the partial endowment given in the Kirtland Temple), he must have incorporated elements of the Masonic rites into his own ceremony. Implicit in this charge is the idea that Joseph Smith's ritual was not revealed to him by God and thus not a legitimate restoration of ancient Israelite and early Christian ordinances. It is worthwhile to note that these critics are also often critical of Freemasonry, and thus attempt guilt by association. Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that 1. Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment, 2. Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and

98

3. the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons. In order to understand this issue, a few facts need to be understood: 1. Joseph Smith, Jr. was initiated as a Freemason in Nauvoo, Illinois on the 15th and 16th of March 1842; his brother Hyrum and (possibly) his father Joseph Sr. were Masons before the Church's organization in April 1830. 2. A few of the early leaders of the Church were Masons before the Church's organization while many others were initiated into the Masonic institution after the Prophet was in 1842. 3. Masonry was a well-known social institution in mid-19th century America. 4. There are similarities between the rituals of Freemasonry and those of the LDS Temple endowment. These similarities center around the use of a ritual dramathe story of Hiram Abiff is used by the Masons, while the LDS endowment uses the story of Adam and Eve and the creation (the LDS versions have parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship). some similar hand actions in the course of the rituals (the LDS versions having distinct parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship and early Christian usage).

Symbolist F. L. Brink suggested that Joseph Smith successfully provided an "innovative and intricate symbology" that suited well the psychic needs of his followers.

Two Aspects of Temple Worship

In order to understand the relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry it is useful to consider the temple experience. In the temple, participants are confronted with ritual in a form which is unknown in LDS worship outside of that venue. In the view of some individuals the temple endowment is made up of two parts: 1. The teachings of the endowment, i.e., the doctrines taught and the covenants made with God. 2. The method of presenting the endowment, or the "ritual" mechanics themselves. It is in the ritual presentation of the endowment teachings and covenants that the similarities between the LDS temple worship and Freemasonry are the most apparent. The question is, why would this be the case?

99

Joseph's Challenge
It is the opinion of some people that in developing the endowment Joseph Smith faced a problem. He wished to communicate, in a clear and effective manner, some different (and, in some cases, complex) religious ideas. These included such abstract concepts as

the nature of creation (matter being organized and not created out of nothing) humanity's relationship to God and to each other eternal marriage and exaltation in the afterlife

The theory is that Joseph needed to communicate these ideas to a diverse population; some with limited educational attainments, many of whom were immigrants; several with only modest understanding of the English language; all of whom possessed different levels of intellectual and spiritual maturitybut who needed to be instructed through the same ceremony. Joseph Smith's very brief experience with Freemasonry before the introduction of the full LDS endowment may have reminded him of the power of instruction through ritual and repetition. Some people believe that Joseph may have seized upon Masonic tools as teaching devices for the endowment's doctrines and covenants during the Nauvoo era. Other people are of the opinion that since these elements were previously present in the worship of the Kirtland Temple they were not 'borrowed' by the Prophet at all. Regardless, the use of symbols was characteristic of Joseph Smith's era; it was not unique to him or Masonry: Symbols on buildings, in literature, stamped on manufactured goods, etc. were not endemic to Mormons and Masons but were common throughout all of midnineteenth century American society (as even a cursory inspection of books, posters, buildings and photos of the periods will bear out.) So, assuming [Joseph] Smith felt a need to communicate specific principles to his Saints, he might naturally develop a set of easily understood symbols as were already in familiar use about him.

Confidentiality
The LDS temple ceremony was (and is) considered to be sacred. As such, it was not to be exposed to the view or discussion of outsiders. Joseph Smith was of the view that some of the Saints were not good at keeping religious confidences: The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday.

100

A few of the early leaders of the Church pointed out that one of the aims of Masonry was to teach adherents proper respect for promises of confidentiality. For instance,

Joseph Smith: "The secret of Masonry is to keep a secret." Brigham Young: "The main part of Masonry is to keep a secret."

This institutionalized Masonic principle was a trait that would be necessary for the Saints to incorporate into their lives once they were endowed, because certain elements of the temple ritual were considered to be very sacred and were not to be divulged to the uninitiated. This may be the key for understanding why the Prophet encouraged so many of the Nauvoo-era Saints to join the Masonic brotherhood.

Early Saints' Views

The Saints of Joseph Smith's era accepted the then-common belief that Masonry ultimately sprang from Solomon's temple. Thus, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball understood Masonry to be a corrupted form of a pristine ancient temple rite. One author later wrote that masonry as an "institution dates its origins many centuries back, it is only a perverted Priesthood stolen from the Temples of the Most High." Joseph Fielding wrote during the Nauvoo period: Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.... I have evidence enough that Joseph is not fallen. I have seen him after giving, as I before said, the origin of Masonry. Heber C. Kimball wrote of the endowment: We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the Priesthood which would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written so you must come and get them for yourself...There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect. Thus, to Joseph's contemporaries, there was much more to the LDS temple endowment than just warmed-over Freemasonry. None of Joseph's friends complained that he had simply adapted Masonic ritual for his own purposes. Rather, they were aware of the common ritual elements, but understood that Joseph had restored something that was both ritually and theologically ancient and God-given.

Timing of the Endowment Revelations

Critics have noted that Joseph's initiation into Freemasonry (1516 March 1842) predates his introduction of the full temple endowment among the Saints (4 May 1842). They thus

101

claim that Masonry was a necessary element for Joseph's self-generated "revelation" of the Nauvoo-era temple ceremonies. But one LDS author draws attention to the fact that there is much more to the history of the endowment restoration than critics of the Church are willing to admit. Plenty of evidence...is available that Joseph Smith had a detailed knowledge of the Nauvoo temple ceremonies long before he introduced them in May 1842 and long before he set foot inside a Masonic hall...While Joseph Smith was translating the book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri, he wrote a series of short explanations for three of the illustrations that accompanied his translation. The Prophet noted that in Facsimile 2, figures 3 and 7 were related in some manner to "the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood" and "the sign of the Holy Ghost." When he came to figure 8, he explained that this area on the Egyptian drawing contained "writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."... Other writers have used the Facsimile 2 material to sharpen the chronological argument against Joseph Smith. Facsimile 2 and its temple-related explanations were first printed in the 15 March 1842 edition of the Times and Seasons, the same day that the Prophet received the first of three Masonic initiation rites. Latter-day Saints have traditionally argued that this issue of the newspaper was published during the day while the Prophet's Masonic initiation did not occur until that evening. Thus Joseph Smith must have had temple knowledge before he had Masonic knowledge. But critics point out that the 15 March issue of the paper was not actually published until 19 March, several days after the Prophet witnessed the Masonic ceremonies. This is where terminology becomes crucial. Critics claim that the phrases employed by Joseph Smith in the Facsimile 2 explanations are Masonic and that it was not until several days after his Masonic induction that Joseph Smith "first spoke of 'certain key words and signs belonging to the priesthood.'" These critics assume the terms are necessarily "Masonic," yet it must be remembered that Freemasonry's rites are little more than borrowed baggage. Then what about the supposedly incriminating timing of these incidents? This is precisely the point at which the entire argument falls apart. On 5 May 1841 William Appleby paid a visit to Joseph Smith, who read to him the revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124, that was received 19 January 1841. After the two men discussed baptism for the dead, the Prophet got out his collection of Egyptian papyrus scrolls and, while exhibiting Facsimile 2, explained to Appleby that part of the drawing was related to "the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed." It is also clear from Doctrine and Covenants 124 that Joseph Smith was well aware of the main ritual elements of the Nauvoo endowment ceremony at least as early as 19 January 1841. (See DC :124.)

102

The note from Appleby is found in his journal under the date of 5 May 1841, a little less than a year before Joseph's initiation into the Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo. There is a great deal more historical evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith knew of Nauvoo-era endowment ritual, phraseology, vestments, and theology long before he ever became a Freemason. In evidence of this fact, we find that upon his initiation into Masonry Joseph Smith was already explaining things which the Masons themselves did not comprehend. According to one witness: "the Prophet explained many things about the rites that even Masons do not pretend to understand but which he made most clear and beautiful."

Differences
It is worth noting that some of the similarities between the endowment and Freemasonry which are highlighted by Church critics are only superficial. For example, critics typically focus on the common use of architectural elements on the Salt Lake Temple and in Masonry, even though the endowment makes no reference to such elements. In almost every case, shared symbolic forms have different meanings, and thus should not be seen as exact parallels. It should also be emphasized that the goals of Masonry and the LDS endowment are not the same. Both teach important truths, but the truths they teach are different. Masonry teaches of man's relationship to his fellow men and offers no means of salvation; i.e., it is not a religion. The temple endowment, on the other hand, teaches of man's relationship to God, and Latter-day Saints consider it to be essential for exaltation in the world to come. 44. The Church requires an oath of commitment from temple participants before the participant knows to what he or she is committing. Answer: Oaths or covenants constitute an important aspect of the Endowment: Mormons solemnly promise the Lord to be obedient, giving of self, chaste, and loyal to the restored Church of Christ and its cause; in return, God is enabled to fulfill promised blessings of joy, protection, progress, and eventual return to His glorious presence. Information is conveyed in a highly symbolic manner during the Endowment in Mormon temples. Members of the Mormon Church have the experience of noticing and understanding different things each time they read the scriptures, and in a similar way, the Endowment provides understanding at various levels and encourages a person to return more and more so as to develop that understanding and to draw ever closer to the Lord. 45. Until 1990, the temple ceremony contained violent penalties requiring members to make symbolic gestures of slitting their own throats and bowels. Recent Church leaders have been dishonest about these penalties.

103

Answer: Temple penalties involved promising to resist even extreme efforts to cause us to break temple covenants. They never contemplated or advocated inflicting such penalties on others, or the threat of having them inflicted upon us. Only the wicked would inflict such penalties; the endowed member simply covenanted to resist all such efforts. Critics misrepresent this part of the temple ceremony, which is relatively easy to do since members endowed since April 1990 will have had no direct experience with the penalties mentioned. Contrary to the critics' representation, the ceremony said nothing about what would happen to people if they revealed that which they had covenanted to keep secret. Nor did the ceremony encourage anyone to inflict penalties on another. Rather, the person making the covenant indicated what they would prefer to have done to themselves rather than reveal sacred things. (The penalties also had symbolic implications that are rooted in the Old Testament, which are beyond the scope of this article). So, the temple ceremony did not involve descriptions of what God (or others) would do to someone if they failed to keep their covenants, but instead illustrated the seriousness with which the participant should make the temple covenants. The penalties served, among other things, to teach us how determined we should be to resist those who would encourage us to violate covenants. The endowment said nothing about the consequences of violating covenants save that one would be judged by God for doing so. Such judgment of necessity remains always in the hands of God alone. (The Church might, of course, discipline a member for violation of covenants via excommunication, but this is the extent of the penalty which the Church can apply; see DC 134:10.) This important distinction was sometimes not well understood by some members, and this is likely one reason that penalties were removed from the current ceremony. The penalties confused people more than it helped them, in our era, and the presentation of the endowment has changed (and will likely continue to change) when necessary to administer the ordinances and associated doctrinal teaching in the most effective way.

Parallels
Still today, our common vernacular is laced with mentions of penalties. Solemn claims are often followed with, for instance, "cross my heart, hope to die" or "may Heaven strike me dead". Obviously, such penalties are not to be taken seriously, but rather to convey the veracity of a claim or the seriousness with which claims are made. 46. The removal of these penalties, among other changes, came not by revelation but as a result of a 1988 survey that found that many members were uncomfortable with the endowment.

104

Answer: Gods directives and how He deals with His people may vary according to His peoples understanding and needs. God doesnt tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes sometimes occur as a result of God dealing with His children according to their changing circumstances. We know that major changes in practices took place during Jesus Christs ministry. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and practices associated with that law were no longer necessary. Changes also took place after Christ's earthly ministry. For example, Christ originally taught the gospel only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 15:24) and forbade His apostles from going to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:56). After Jesus' death Peter was commanded by an angel to take the gospel to all people (Acts 10, Acts 11; Matt 28:19). Following Jesus Christs mortal ministry the practice of circumcision also became unnecessary (Acts 15, Galatians 6:15). Changes in the Church are sometimes necessary. Such changes, however, must be done by inspiration or revelation from the head of the Church, who is Jesus Christ. There are absolute truths and relative truths. Absolute truths (such as: God lives and Jesus is the Christ) do not change. Relative truths or practices (such as: circumcision, plural marriage, and age of priesthood ordination) do change. Many relative truths deal with procedural issues, and how absolute truths are presented, rather than the absolute truths themselves. As additional truths are revealed, our understanding of previous revelation is modified to accommodate additional light. That the temple ceremonies have undergone ocassional changes, improvements, and refinements, should cause no concern since -- as Joseph Fielding Smith noted -- the work of salvation for the dead came to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] like every other doctrine piecemeal. It was not revealed all at once.[1] President Brigham Young gave a brief definition of the endowment and thereby identified some of its essential elements. He said, "Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." [2] On 4 May 1842, after President Joseph Smith gave the first Nauvoo-era endowment to a small group of Latter-day Saints he told apostle Brigham Young that because of their limited spacial circumstances the overall experience was not arranged perfectly and he wanted Brigham to organize and systematize the ceremonies. This indicates there were some presentational modifications allowable in the rites while still preserving the core elements of the experience. Harold B. Lee emphasized that the means by which the endowment and its message are presented are subject to modification

105

Now, you think for a momentin the upper office over [Joseph Smith's] store, with no equipment like we have in our temples today, the endowment had to be given by lecture. The Prophet Joseph Smith through these, his counselors, and others as you heard their names, attended to the matters that we now have given in various ways. Sometimes our people who go through the temples are a bit startled because of the varied ways in which the endowment is presented. Perhaps, as under inspiration they studied the nature of the endowment, they thought to make it a little more meaningful to the patrons who would come: part by dramatization, part by question and answer, part by lecture, part by picturization on the walls of some of the temples. We have artists who have tried to put those who go through the temple in the mood of the lesson to be taught as they proceed through the temple. ....But it is the same message that was given by lecture by the Prophet Joseph Smith in his office over [his] store. Now, when we have that in mind, we will see why the Prophet, in the beginning of this dispensation, gave certain instructions to have the brethren stimulated in their thinking. As shown above there have been changes made to the endowment in the past and there may likely be more in the future depending upon Gods dealings with his people. This does not mean that the Church cannot find out popular opinion of its members. In doing so it does not constitute that any changes made after collecting that information were hinged upon the gathering of public opinion but rather it shows that the church is concerned for its members. For the members to claim that they are the reason for the change in the ceremony would be inconsiderate of Gods will and ability to change according to his peoples needs and understandings. 47. As disturbing as the temple penalties are, the fact that the ceremony changed is also troublesome because Joseph Smith taught that "ordinances instituted in the heavens are not to be altered or changed." Answer: Please see the above answer for 46 as it applies to this concern as well. 48. Leaders of the Church have allowed baptisms for dead Holocaust victims, despite promising not to do so. Answer: While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement. Furthermore, now that it is clear that some few members are not respecting the agreement, the databases will doubtless be monitored by interested parties, who can bring violations to the Churchs attention.

106

Those of the Jewish faith are to be commended for the spirit of dialogue and cooperation in which they have approached this matter, and their willingness to work with the Church to solve it. There have also been some moving expressions of friendship between Mormons and Jews; some Jewish authors have pointed out that belief and theology matter much less than behavior and brotherhood, and on this score Mormon-Jewish relations have always been excellent.[ In 1995after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptizedan agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously. Controversy over the matter flared again in 2002 when it was found that there was still thousands of Holocaust victims names in the Church's records. The Church responded by re-enforcing its policy for temple work, which requires that members only perform proxy baptisms for ancestors to whom they can demonstrate a familial link. Furthermore, the Church established a committee with Jewish leaders to investigate why the names of Holocaust victims remained in the database. More concern was expressed in 2006, when it was discovered that there were still many Holocaust victims' names in the database.

Mistakes in the database

Despite critics' claims, fingers should not be pointed at the institutional Church in this instance. Instead, the fault lies with a few misguided members, who took active steps to circumvent the Churchs policies: Gary Mokotoff [...] who will head the Jewish side of the joint commission, said that individual church members had managed to circumvent the current monitoring process by misspelling names. "There's guaranteed to be a trickle going through the screen," he said, "but it's been very embarrassing for the Mormons." Mike Otterson, director of media relations for the church, told the Post that the church was working on creating a mechanism to prevent "overzealous members" from violating the agreement.[2]

Counsel of LDS leaders

Church general authorities have asked members to concentrate on completing the work for their own ancestors. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve taught: Here, on this side of the veil, there are limitations of available time and temples. This means that choosing to identify and perform ordinances for our own kindred should receive our highest priority. The Spirit of Elijah will inspire individual

107

members of the Church to link their generations, rather than submit lists of people or popular personalities to whom they are unrelated. Now, we are mindful of those not of our faith who are concerned about or even offended by the practice of temple ordinances for the dead. To them we say, our Heavenly Father directed the restoration of keys of priesthood authority and surely intended no offense to any of His children. Quite to the contrary. He intended to bless them. This doctrine and its ordinances are laden with love and are intended to perpetuate the sweetest of all relationships in families forever. Nevertheless, the Church is sensitive to these concerns. The First Presidency has asked that, as far as possible, individual rights of privacy be protected. In 1972, they wrote, "Persons submitting names for other than direct ancestors [should] have obtained approval from the closest living relative of the deceased before submitting records of persons born within the last ninety-five years." In addition, reminders of rights of precedence and privacy appear each time our computer programs are used.

The Death of Joseph Smith and Succession Crisis

49. The Church portrays Joseph Smith as a martyr jailed and killed for being a "lover of the cause of Christ". He was actually killed for destroying private property, trying to marry other men's wives, sharing Masonic secrets, anointing himself King of the world, and other reasons. Answer: Most of these criticisms have been covered above such as trying to marry other mends wives and sharing of Masonic secrets. The Churchs official response was to call Joseph Smith a martyr. To seal the testimony of this book and the Book of Mormon, we announce the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Hyrum Smith the Patriarch. They were shot in Carthage jail, on the 27th of June, 1844, about 5 o'clock P.M., by an armed mob, painted black--of from 150 to 200 persons...They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in the jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail, is a broad seal affixed to 'Mormonism' that cannot be rejected by any court on earth; and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois with the broken faith of the State, as pledged by the Governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel, that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ that will touch the heart of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts, till He avenges that blood on the earth. Amen. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6, 629-631. So the question is raised, was Joseph a Martyr? Webster's Dictionary provides the following definitions of the word "martyr": 108

1. a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2. a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle Based upon this definition, we examine whether or not Joseph Smith qualifies as a "martyr."

Did Joseph voluntarily suffer death?

Joseph was a willing and innocent sacrifice on behalf of his people. He anticipated his death. Wilford Woodruff recorded Joseph's words in 1843 relative to his sacrifice: I understand my mishion [sic] & business. God Almighty is my shield.... I shall not be sacrafised [sic] untill [sic] my time comes. Then I shall be offered freely. Similarly in his speech to the Nauvoo Legion on June 18, 1844: I do not regard my own life. I am ready to be offered a sacrifice for this people; for what can our enemies do? Only kill the body, and their power is then at an end. Stand firm, my friends; never flinch. Do not seek to save your lives, for he that is afraid to die for the truth, will lose eternal life.... God has tried you. You are a good people; therefore I love you with all my heart. Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends. You have stood by me in the hour of trouble, and I am willing to sacrifice my life for your preservation. Hyrum and Helen Andrus describe Joseph's willingness and those who pleaded with him to not surrender: As Joseph contemplated the scene, he could picture in his mind the militia overrunning Nauvoo and committing the same autracites as were acted upon the Saints in Missouri. Thus on Monday the 24th of June, Joseph expressed his resolution as "hundreds gathered before the Mansion House early in the morning. In their midst, with head erect, towering above the rest, the Prophet stood gazing alternately on the devoted city and its much loved citizens. He listened to the entreaties of the throng not to give himself up or he would be murdered. A few brave-hearted men proposed to escort him to the West. Others, up north would have him go, while a fearless tar (sailor) proffered him a safe passage on a steamboat to whither he would go. A smile of approbation lit up the Seer's countenance. His lovely boys, hanging on to his skirts, urged on the suite and cried, "Father, O Father don't go to Carthage. They will kill you." Not least impressive were the pleadings of his mother: "My son, my son, can you leave me without promising to return? Some forty times before have I seen you from me dragged, but never before without saying you would return; what say you now, my son?" He stood erect, like a beacon among roaring breakers, his gigantic mind grasping still higher. The fire flashed in his eye. With hand uplifted on high, he spoke, "My friends, nay, dearer still, my brethren, I love you. I love the city of Nauvoo too well to save my life at your expense. If I go not to

109

them, they will come and act out the horrid Missouri scenes in Nauvoo. I may prevent it. I fear not death. My work is well nigh done. Keep the faith and I will die for Nauvoo." A guard from Carthage warned Joseph in Nauvoo before he left: "If you go there they will kill you." "I know it, but I am going. I am going to give myself for the people, to save them" Joseph said. Joseph told the company who were with him: I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer's morning. I have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward all men. If they take my life I shall die an innocent man, and my blood shall cry from the ground for vengeance, and it shall be said of me "He was murdered in cold blood!" On June 24, after Joseph's last visit with his family before going to Carthage, William Clayton writes: He appeared to feel solemn & though[t]ful, and from expressions made to several individuals, he expects nothing but to be massacred. This he expressed before he returned from over the river but their appearing no alternative but he must either give himself up or the City be massacred by a lawless mob under the sanction of the Governor. In Joseph Smith's letter to Emma written from the Carthage Jail, on the final day of his life, he wrote: "Dear Emma, I am very much resigned to my lot, knowing I am justified, and have done the best that could be done. Give my love to the children and all my friends."

Was Joseph willing to die for his faith?

Joseph was, and always had been, willing to die for his faith, his God, and his people. Danel Bachman, illustrating this willingness, cited an 1838 incident when Joseph and Hyrum were in the hands of their enemies and were sentenced to be executed. Did he resist? No! Joseph, speaking of his feelings at the time said: As far as I was concerned, I felt perfectly calm, and resigned to the will of my heavenly Father.... And notwithstanding that every avenue of escape seemed to be entirely closed, and death stared me in the face, and that my destruction was determined upon, as far as man was concerned; yet, from my first entrance into the camp, I felt an assurance, that I with my brethren and our families should be delivered. Yes, that still small voice, which has so often whispered consolation to my soul, in the depth of sorrow and distress, bade me be of good cheer, and promised deliverance. Hyrum said of the event:

110

I thank God that I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled, and which I had borne testimony to, wherever my lot had been cast; and I can assure my beloved brethren that I was enabled to bear as strong a testimony, when nothing but death presented itself, as ever I did in my life. My confidence in God was likewise unshaken." Joseph's history, words, and actions go contrary to McKeever and Johnson's picture of cowardliness. Joseph was well aware that the anti-Mormon sentiment was to "exterminate, utterly exterminate the wicked and abominable Mormon leaders, the authors of [their] troubles." 50. Church leaders teach that Joseph Smith destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor because it told anti-Mormon lies. In actuality, the newspaper truthfully exposed the Prophets extra-monogamous relationships, among other clandestine behaviors. Answer: The Expositor incident led directly to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, but it was preceeded by a long period of non-Mormon distrust of Joseph Smith, and attempts to extradite him on questionable basis. The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed. Joseph seems to have believedor, his followers believed after his deaththat the decision, while 'unwise' for Joseph, may have been in the Saints' interest to have Joseph killed. For a time, this diffused much of the tension and may have prevented an outbreak of generalized violence against the Saints, as occurred in Missouri. Supporting Data

William Law
A Canadian, William Law joined the Church in 1836 and moved to Nauvoo in 1839. After having lived near Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, William wrote to a friend: I have carefully watched his movements since I have been here, and I assure you I have found him honest and honourable in all our transactions which have been very considerable. I believe he is an honest upright man, and as to his follies let who ever is guiltless throw the first stone at him, I shant do it.[1]

Apostasy of John C. Bennett

May 1842 John C. Bennett is tried before a Church court. He confessed to wicked and licentious conduct toward certain females in Nauvoo,[2] and of past acts of exploiting of women he had attended as a doctor. He may also have performed abortions.[3] He had also frequented, and perhaps operated, a brothel.[4] (Bennett

111

was not alone in this; with his encouragement Chauncy and Francis Higbeewho would write attacks on Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Expositoralso participated in immoral acts and were disciplined for it.) Bennetts apostasy caused particular problems because he claimed that the doctrines he was using to seduce women in Nauvoo were the same as those taught privately by Joseph Smith with regard to plural marriage. Thus, Joseph and the Church spent a great deal of time denying Bennetts charges, while trying to keep plural marriage from becoming common knowledge for fear of the Churchs enemies. Bennett left the Church and Nauvoo, and spoke widely about the evils of the Church and its leaders to non-member audiences. He also wrote a book and made a good deal of money telling stories against the Mormons; he was later to be associated with Sidney Rigdons splinter group and the Strangite break-off group, but he soon left them as well. Orson F. Whitney said this about Bennett: In May, 1842, the treachery and rascality of a man whom the Mormon leader had befriended and loaded with honors, became known to his benefactor. That man was Dr. John C. Bennett, Mayor of Nauvoo, Chancellor of its University, and Major-General of its legion. He had become associated with the Saints soon after their exodus from Missouri. Though a great egotist, he was a man of education, address and ability. That he had little or no principle was not immediately apparent. Considerable of a diplomat and possessing some influence in political circles, he rendered valuable aid in securing the passage by the Illinois Legislature of the act incorporating the city of Nauvoo. Hence the honors bestowed upon him by the Mormon people. Prior to that, and subsequently, he was QuartermasterGeneral of Illinois. Bennett professed great sympathy for the Saints. He joined the Church and apparently was a sincere convert to the faith. Governor Thomas Ford, in his history of Illinois, styles Bennett "probably the greatest scamp in the western country." But this was not until long after the Mormons, thrice victimized, had become aware of his villainy.[5]

Assassination Attempt on Lilburn Boggs

6 May 1842 an unknown assailant shoots former Missouri governor Boggs through his window, severely wounding him. Later, John C. Bennett encourages Boggs to press charges against the Mormons for their alleged role in the attack. 8 August 1842 a warrant is issued for Joseph Smiths extradition to Missouri to face charges in the attempted murder of Boggs; the claim is that Joseph Smith was an accessory before the fact, and encouraged Orin Porter Rockwell in the deed. Joseph easily proved he had been in Illinois on the day of the shooting (hundreds of miles from Missouri) and obtains a writ of habeas corpus. December 1842

112

the state Supreme Court of Illinois finds that the writ voiding the governors warrant was illegal. However, Joseph went before a federal judge to again challenge the warrant, and this court found that the warrant lacked foundation since it went beyond the statements which Boggs had made in his affidavit. The state Legislative Assembly considers repeal of the Nauvoo charter, but does nothing. February 1843 Joseph Smith announces he will run for President of the United States. June 1843 Missouri again attempted to extradite Joseph for trial. Joseph proceeded to Nauvoo, was welcomed by cheering crowds, and was again granted a writ of habeas corpus by the Nauvoo municipal court, voiding the warrant. The city council then made it illegal to arrest Joseph within Nauvoo, and gave the mayor (Joseph Smith, since the excommunicatin of Bennett) power to approve any outside warrants. This only increased the non-Mormons sense that Joseph was combining religious and civil power in an effort to put himself beyond the law. 12 July 1843 Joseph dictates the first written record of the revelations on plural marriage: DC 132:.

William Law's apostasy

8 January 1844 William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William was injuring him by telling evil of him William considered his release to be illegal, since he had been called by revelation, but wrote I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."[6] One of Williams key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage. His non-member son, Richard, later recounted: About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment. During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday. Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being

113

exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration.[7] 18 April 1844 William Law excommunicated. Austin Cowles of the Nauvoo high council, James Blakeslee, Charles G. Foster, and Francis M. Higbee joined him in leaving the Church, and he was supported in his opposition to Joseph by his brother Wilson.[8] They announced the formation of a reform Church based upon Josephs teachings up to 1838, with William as president. William even decided that Joseph Smiths opposition to Missouri (and the treatment the Saints had received there) was unChristian"! The hostile spirit and conduct manifested by Joseph Smith, and many of his associates towards Missouri . . . are decidedly at variance with the true spirit of Christianity, and should not be encouraged by any people, much less by those professing to be the ministers of the gospel of peace.[9] William had economic quarrels with Joseph, and was probably too fond of his own financial state, rather than helping the poor of the Church. William and his brother Wilson had bought the higher land on the outskirts of Nauvoo; the Church (through Joseph) owned the land in the river bottom. Joseph declared that new arrivals should purchase lands from the Church (this was in part an effort to help liquidate the Churchs debts), but William objected to this plan as prejudicial to his own financial interests.[10] William was probably also troubled by the death of his wife and daughter even after Church leaders had prayed for them. Hyrum presented Law and his wife with the revelation on plural marriage. Long after the fact, William reported his reaction: Hyrum gave it [the revelation] to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it, and then be careful with it, and bring it back again[My wife Jane] and I were just turned upside down by itWe did not know what to do.[11] It is not clear whether Jane and William Law were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur and Hyrum Smith both reported that Joseph told William he could not seal him to Jane because the Lord forbade it; Neibaur indicated that this was because William was a Adulterous person.[12] There is no evidence of this other than Neibaur's statement however. In the clash that followed, William began casting the first stone, at Josephs supposed failings, and the man which he had once admired as honourable and without cause for complaint became, in his newspaper, a demon, a power-mad tyrant, a seducer, and someone who contributed to the early death of young women.

114

Publication of the Expositor

Prior to the publication of the Expositor, Hyrum Smith, Almon W. Babbitt, and Sidney Rigdon attempted to reconcile William Law to the Church. He announced he would reconcile only under conditions: I told him [Sidney] that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell.[13] 7 June 1844 the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Josephs practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a blood thirsty and murderousdemonin human shape and a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.[14]

Destruction of Expositor
8 June 1844 Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor. 10 June 1844 The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.[15] This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).[16] Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.[17] Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens. Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being "razed to the ground" at the unaninimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons.[18] The mob's ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.[19] The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages.[20] Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo

115

city council's decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever. Despite the fact that the Expositor's suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of riot.

Safety for the Saints?

One member recorded that Joseph told him that the destruction of the press was necessary for the Saints safety: Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed.[21] Given Josephs numerous presentiments of his own death, it may well be that he knowingly chose this course of action to spare the members lives at the cost of his own. Said Joseph to Elizabeth Rollins: I must seal my testimony with my blood. [22] And later: Some has supposed that Br Joseph Could not die but this is a mistake it is true their has been times when I have had the promise of my life to accomplish such & such things, but having accomplish those things I have not at present any lease of my life I am as liable to die as other men.[23]

Attempts to arrest Joseph

13 June 1844 The Nauvoo municipal court released Joseph on a writ of habeas corpus, finding that the charge of riot was unsubstantiated since the destruction of the press had been orderly. 14 June 1844 Thus cleared, Joseph Smith (as mayor) took his seat as judge over the municipal court, and cleared all others charged the day following his own release. This recurrent mix of religious, executive, and judicial power again infuriated the antiMormons. 17 June 1844 Joseph and others consented to be brought before another court, headed by a (then non-Mormon) justice of the peace, Daniel H. Wells. Wells again discharged them, but did not have the authority to acquit them.

116

18 June 1844 Joseph Smith declares martial law in Nauvoo and calls out the militia to protect the city from anti-Mormon mobs.

Prelude to the Martyrdom

22 June 1844 Governor Ford writes to tell Joseph that he must face charges before the same judge that issued the writ for his arrest, because only this will appease the public. This requires Joseph to appear in a very hostile community, where feelings against the Mormons run high. 23 June 1844 Joseph and Hyrum leave Nauvoo to seek refuge over the Mississippi. Some members appeal to Joseph to return, believing (contrary to Josephs promise) that the members of the Church would be despoiled and driven out if he did not. Joseph agrees to return, stating, If my life is of no value to my friends it is of none to myself. 25 June 1844 the state governor (Thomas Ford) believed that only a state trial would calm the furor over the Expositor. Joseph and fifteen others therefore received guarantees of safety and presented themselves in Carthage. They were freed on bail pending the October arrival of the circuit court. However, Joseph and Hyrum were jailed by a writ issued by Robert F. Smith, a Methodist minister, justice of the peace, and captain of the Carthage Greys militia. Joseph and Hyrum were accompanied to the jail by John Taylor, Willard Richards, Dan Jones, Stephen Markham, and John S. Fullmer. The latter three left to run errands, and were not readmitted, leaving only Joseph, Hyrum, John Taylor, and Willard Richards. 26 June 1844 Governor Ford meets with the prisoners. He then disbands all the militia companies, except the hostile Carthage Greys. 27 June 1844 Ford leaves for Nauvoo, leaving two companies of Carthage Greys to guard the jail, while Ford takes a third to Nauvoo. He did not keep his promise that the prisoners could go with him to Nauvoo. After Fords departure, the discharged Warsaw militia company attacked the jail. The Carthage Greys gave only token resistance; they had loaded their weapons with gunpowder but no bullets. The Warsaw company stormed the jail, and murdered Joseph and Hyrum. John Taylor was severely injured; Willard Richards was unharmed. 51. Joseph Smith claimed that he was going to Carthage "like lamb to the slaughter". What the Church doesn't teach is that Joseph had a gun in jail and shot and killed two of his attackers. Answer: There is overwhelming evidence that from the earliest days following the martyrdom, to the present, that both official and unofficial Church publications have repeatedly mentioned Joseph's pistol.

117

It seems clear that: 1. Joseph and Hyrum were martyrs by the accepted definition of the termthey suffered death for their beliefs. (Note that martyrs can die for worthy or ignoble causes, but this makes them no less martyrs.) 2. The Church has not hidden this fact, but published it from the beginning and includes it in the History of the Church twice. 3. Joseph was not guilty of murder, because no one died from his shots, and his actions would have been justifiable as self-defense and defense of others even if deaths had resulted. In order to make their argument tenable, the critics must do three things. First, they must take some creative liberties with the English language. In this case, the word being redefined is the term martyr. Websters New World Dictionary defines a "martyr" as a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles.[1] The online resource, Dictionary.com, defines a martyr as one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles. [2] Both are nearly identical and fairly standard definitions, and neither includes a requirement or qualifiers of any sort. However, some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at selfdefense on his part whatsoever. Critics are free to use such a definition, but it belongs to them alone; it is not the standard use of the word, and not what Church members mean when they refer to the "martyrdom" of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage. Throughout Christian history, "martyrs" have been understood to be those who suffered quietly, and those who resisted, even with violence, and even to the death of those who persecuted them for their beliefs. (See FAIR wiki article: Martyrdom in Christian history.) The first anti-Mormon argument thus focuses on the fact that Joseph had a firearm and that he used that firearm to defend himself. Critics claim that Joseph's announcement that he was going as a lamb to the slaughter is false, since he fought back. Anyone who has ever worked on a farm or in a slaughterhouse knows that sheep do not go willingly to the slaughter. They kick and buck, bleat, scream, and make every attempt to escape their fate. In fact, they make such a haunting sound, that the title of an extremely popular Hollywood film was based on it: The Silence of the Lambs. The term lamb to the slaughter simply refers to the inevitability of the final outcome. No matter

118

how valiantly they struggle, the fate of the sheep is sealed. If we apply this understanding to Joseph Smith and his brother, it is clear that they truly were slaughtered like lambs. Fight as they might, they were doomed.

Hiding History?
The critics' second tactic is to rely on their target reader being uninformed about trivial aspects of LDS history. Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and this is especially true of new members or less-active members) are not aware of all the excruciatingly minute details of the history of the Church. It has become a common tactic among some anti-Mormon aficionados of Mormon history to use this historical ignorance as a weapon. These writers often claim to expose these minor events of Church history in a sensationalistic attempt to shock members of the Church with hidden revelations or secret accounts about various episodes in Church history. They will often claim that the Church has kept this knowledge under wraps for fear that if it was generally known it would cause many members of the Church to immediately renounce their faith and result in the ruination of the Church. Unfortunately for the critics, Joseph's attempt to defend himself, his brother, and his friends, and his possession of a pepperbox gun, is clearly spelled out in the History of the Church: In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door. Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians... Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.[3] The next volume of the History of the Church tells the story from John Taylor's point of view: I shall never forget the deep feeling of sympathy and regard manifested in the countenance of Brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and, leaning over him, exclaimed, 'Oh! my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Wheelock from his pocket,

119

opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged.[4] If the Church wished to hide these facts, why did they publish them in the History of the Church not once, but twice?

Murder?
The critics' third attack is to insist that since Joseph fired his gun six times (only three shots discharged) and he hit two of the mobbers, he is a murderer. Joseph's actions were clearly self-defense and defense of others under the common law. However, this point is moot since the attackers who were hit were not killed (as was first reported in some Church publications) but only wounded. They were alive and well at the trial held for mob leaders, and were identified by witnesses. Their good health allowed them to receive gifts because of their role in the assault on Joseph, Hyrum, and the other prisoners. According to Dallin Oaks and Marvin Hill: Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window. [Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 675] According to Hay, Wills, whom the Mormon prophet had shot in the arm, was an Irishman who had joined the mob from his congenital love of a brawl.[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844, Brigham Young correspondence, Church Archives.] Gallaher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face.[Hay, "The Mormon Prophet's Tragedy," 669, 675. Another source says Wills was a former Mormon elder who had left the Church. Davis, An Authentic Account, 24.] Hay described Voras (Voorhees) as a half-grown hobbledehoy from Bear Creek whom Joseph shot in the shoulder. The citizens of Green Plains were said to have given Gallaher and Voras new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing. [Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844] 52. Joseph Smith set apart his son, Joseph III, to succeed him as prophet. Brigham Young admitted this, but ultimately refused to cede his own leadership to Joseph III. Answer: There is indeed substantial evidence that Brigham Young was to succeed Joseph Smith as the leader of the Church.

120

Did Brigham promise that Joseph Smith III would eventually take over the Church?
The Wikipedia article "Joseph Smith, Jr." makes this rather interesting assertion: Indeed, as late as 1860, Brigham Young assured the bulk of Smith's followers that young Joseph would eventually take his father's place. (Journal of Discourses, 8:69.) The source provided does not support the assertion that Brigham stated that "young Joseph would eventually take his father's place." Brigham said, What of Joseph Smith's family? What of his boys? I have prayed from the beginning for sister Emma and for the whole family. There is not a man in this Church that has entertained better feelings towards them. Joseph said to me, "God will take care of my children when I am taken." They are in the hands of God, and when they make their appearance before this people, full of his power, there are none but what will say "Amen! we are ready to receive you." The brethren testify that brother Brigham is brother Joseph's legal successor. You never heard me say so. I say that I am a good hand to keep the dogs and wolves out of the flock. I do not care a groat who rises up. I do not think anything about being Joseph's successor. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:69.) Brigham's comment "we are ready to receive you" applied to all of Joseph's children, not just Joseph Smith III. Mark Hofmann forged a document known as the The Joseph Smith III blessing, which falsely represented itself as a fathers blessing given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 17 January 1844 to his son, Joseph Smith III, to the effect that this son was his appointed successor. (See Ensign, May 1981.) off-site

Statements indicating that Brigham would be Joseph's successor

Benjamin Franklin Johnson Of Brigham Young as President of the Church, I will again bear this as a faithful testimony that I do know and bear record that upon the head of Brigham Young as chief, with the Apostleship in full, was by the voice of the Prophet Joseph in my hearing, laid the full responsibility of bearing of[f] the kingdom of God to all the world . . . . [When Brigham Young first met Joseph Smith and spoke in tongues in the Adamic languaue the Prophet] at that time, made the prediction upon the head of Brigham Young that at some period he would become the leader of the Church, and that there would be one danger to beset him, and that would be his love of wealth. These things were told to me by [Lyman R.] Sherman [i.e., Johnsons brother-in-law] at near the time of their occurrence (E. Dale LeBaron, Benjamin Franklin Johnson: Friend to the Prophets [Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1997], 232, 233).

121

Brigham Young I can say of a truth that Joseph told me not three months before he was killed, and I did not seek the information he gave mewe were talking upon counseling, governing and controllingthat if I am moved out of the way, you are the only man living on this earth who can counsel and direct the affairs of the kingdom of God on the earth ("Remarks by President Brigham Young at the Semi Annual Conference, Great Salt Lake City, Oct. 8, 1866," LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar modernized). William Nelson I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say, I will give you a key that will never rust. If you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray (Young Womans Journal, December 1906, 54243). Oliver Cowdery There was no salvation but in the valley and through the priesthood there. (Letter, Phineas Young to Brigham Young, April 25, 1850, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Martin Harris "Brigham is governor" (----------). Mosiah Hancock "When the Prophet had his hand upon my father's head, I said to myself, 'I trust that I will be as true to young Joseph, the Prophet's son, as my father is to his father.' Afterwards at home, I told my father of my thoughts, and he said, 'No, Mosiah, for God has shown to Brother Joseph that his son, Joseph, will be the means of drawing many people away from this Church after him. Brother Joseph gave us to understand that it was our duty to follow the Twelve. The majority of this people will be right" (Amy E. Baird, Victoria H. Jackson, and Laura L. Wassell, comp., "Autobiography of Mosiah Hancock (18341865)," typescript copy, BYU Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Provo, Utah, 27-29. Joseph Smith where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve [TPJS, 106]. (ftnt. #23): Some recent historians have asserted that this statement is not found in the original minutes of the 1836 meeting. Even so, the insertion in the Joseph Smith history in the 1850s can still be accepted as valid, for the compilers of that history, Wilford Woodruff and George A. Smith, were contemporaries of the Prophet and were eye and ear

122

witnesses of nearly all the transactions recorded . . . , and, where they were not personally present, they have had access to those who were (quoted in Dean C. Jessee, The Writing of Joseph Smiths History, BYU Studies 11 (Summer 1971): 473). President Brigham Young understood this concept, as have all other Church Presidents who have authoritatively used this statement as a key principle in succession to the presidency. (Brent L. Top and Lawrence R. Flake, Ensign, August 1996)

Failed Prophecies, False Doctrine, and Modern Revelation

53. Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited, and that its inhabitants were 6 feet tall and dressed like Quakers. Brigham Young also taught that the moon is inhabited, as well as the sun. Answer: Modern prophets and general authorities will sometimes cite newspaper articles or books to illustrate the points which they wish to make. In doing so, they are not endorsing such articles or books as being prophetically correct in all particulars. Rather, they are using the science and information of their day to enhance their preaching of the gospel. LDS doctrine was not provincial, since it provided for "worlds without number" (Moses 1:33) created by Christ. These worlds held those who would require the gospel, since by Christ "the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (DC 76:24) Information given to the 19th century Saints by the authorities of the day were consistent with these doctrines, and so they believed them, and occasionally mentioned them in a religious context. As always, prophets and believers are products of their time. Biblical authors, for example, clearly accepted a geocentric (earth centered) cosmos, with a flat earth and heavens supported by four pillars. Like the authors of the Bible, modern prophets are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts, except where corrections in those concepts are needed to permit the gospel to be understood and applied. This does not mean, however, that prophets of any era do not receive revelation about matters of eternal significance. The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said.[1] Hyrum Smith[2] and Brigham Young[3] both expressed their view that the moon was inhabited. A patriarchal blessing given to Huntington also indicated that "thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven, & preach to the inhabitants of the moon or planets, if it shall be expedient."[4] Huntington later wrote an article about the concept for a Church magazine: 123

As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph Smith] said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years. He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.[5] So, it would seem that the idea of an inhabited moon or other celestial body was not foreign to at least some early LDS members. It is not clear whether the idea originated with Joseph Smith. However, it should be remembered that this concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"[6] Other scientists announced that they had discovered "a lunar city with a collection of gigantic ramparts extending 23 miles in either direction."[7]

The 1835 Hoax

In addition to these pronouncements from some of the most prominent scientists of the day, a clever hoax in 1835 only added to the belief in lunar inhabitants. John Herschel, son of the famous William, went to South Africa to study stars visible only in the southern hemisphere. This was the cause of considerable public interest, given Herschel's involvement. (William Herschel was the preeminent astronomer of his generation. He had discovered Uranus, and was also of the view that the moon was inhabited.[8]) On 23 August 1835, Richard Locke published the first article in the New York Sun of what purported to be reports from Herschel's observations. Over a total of six installments, Locke claimed that Herschel was reporting lunar flowers, forests, bison, goats, unicorns, bipedal tailless bevers who cooked with fire, and (most provocatively) flying men with wings: They appeared to be constantly engaged in conversing, with much impassioned gesticulation; and hence it was inferred, that they are rational beings. Others, apparently of a higher order, were discovered afterwards. . . . And finally a magnificent temple for the worship of God, of polished sapphire, in a triangle shape, with a roof of gold.[9] These reports were widely believed and caused a minor sensation. They were carried in the Painsville Telegraph, adjacent to Mormon Kirtland.[10] The Sun eventually hinted that the matter was a hoax:

124

Certain correspondents have been urging us to come out and confess the whole to be a hoax; but this we can by no means do, until we have the testimony of the English or Scotch papers to corroborate such a declaration.[11] No more than this was forthcoming, and the Painsville Telegraph made no mention of the possibility of a hoax. Popular belief in lunar inhabitants persisted for decades. Herschel initially found the episode amusing, but he eventually grew frustrated with having to continually explain to the public that the whole matter was a hoax, with which he had nothing to do: he would later refer "the whole affair as 'incoherent ravings'".[12] In a private letter, Hirschel's wife indicated how skillfully the hoax was carried out: Margaret Herschel was more amused. She called the story 'a very clever peice of imagination,' and wrote appreciately..."The whole description is so well clenched with minute details of workmanship...that the New Yorkists were not to be blamed for actually believing it as they did...."[13]

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency: Here we must have in mindmust knowthat only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church.... When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President. Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures," [original title "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"] Immortality and Eternal Life: Reflections from the Writings and Messages of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Vol, 2, (1969-70): 221; address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in Church News (31 July 1954); also reprinted in Dialogue 12/2 (Summer 1979): 6881. Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church: All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the

125

war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man." I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445. GospeLink (requires subscrip.)) This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website): Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007) offsite] In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote: Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible? Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed

126

infallibility. Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912). 54. Through revelation, Joseph Smith assembled an army of saints to walk to Missouri to redeem Zion. Known as Zion's camp, this march resulted in the death of 14 men and did not accomplish what it set out to do. However, the church still teaches that this chapter of church history was actually a test for future leaders and ultimately a success. Answer: Zion's Camp was a Latter-day Saint expedition from Kirtland, Ohio, to Clay County, Missouri, during May and June 1834. The Mormon settlers in adjacent Jackson County, Missouri, had been driven out in the fall of 1833 by hostile non-Mormon elements, and the initial objective of Zion's Camp was to protect those settlers after the Missouri militia escorted them back to their homes. The camp was to bring money, supplies, and moral support to the destitute Saints. A revelation to Joseph Smith in July 1831 (D&C 57) designated Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, as the site of Zion, a gathering place for the Saints and the location for the New Jerusalem spoken of in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. By the summer of 1833, the Latter-day Saints numbered about one-third of the population in Jackson County. Their increasing numbers and distinctive beliefs troubled the other settlers, who shortly demanded that the Church members leave. When these demands were not immediately complied with, the Missourians attacked the settlements, compelling the Saints to flee. Most went north across the Missouri River to Clay County in November 1833. Lyman Wight and Parley P. Pratt brought word of their plight to Joseph Smith and the main body of Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, on February 22, 1834. Wight and Pratt informed the Prophet that after their conversation with Governor Daniel Dunklin, Attorney General Robert W. Wells of Missouri promised to supply a force to escort the exiles back to their homes. With this in mind, Joseph Smith saw the wisdom of sending a force to protect his people from further attacks once they were safely back in Jackson County. A revelation on February 24, 1834 (D&C 103), commanded the Saints to send to Missouri a relief force consisting of at least 100 and as many as 500 volunteers. Eight Church leaders were told to recruit participants for the March, which later was called Zion's Camp. Four teams of two men each went east to obtain men, money, and supplies. A fifth pair, Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum Smith, went to Michigan and Illinois. The northern group was to join the marchers from Kirtland at the house of James Allred, a Church member living on the Salt River in eastern Missouri about one hundred miles northwest of St. Louis. An advance party of 20 left Kirtland on May 1, 1834, to prepare the first camp at New Portage, near present-day Akron, Ohio, and the main group of about 85 joined them on May 6. When Joseph and Hyrum's contingents rendezvoused at the Allred settlement, east of Paris, Monroe County, Missouri, there were approximately 200 men, 11 women,

127

and 7 children. Included in these figures were the 20 men, women, and children comprising Hyrum's company from the Pontiac, Michigan, area. The marchers were well armed, carrying muskets, pistols, swords, and knives, and they attempted to prevent the Missourians from knowing of the expedition. But Jackson County residents learned of their coming and burned down virtually all the remaining Mormon buildings. Lacking in military training, the members of Zion's Camp conducted military exercises and sham battles along the way of the 900-mile journey. They were organized into groups of ten and fifty, with a captain over each. After the rendezvous at the Salt River on June 8, Lyman Wight, a veteran of the War of 1812, was elected general of the camp, and William Cherry, a British dragoon for twenty years, was made drill master. Contrary to the attempted military discipline, the men sometimes quarreled among themselves. On June 3, as the group approached the Mississippi, Joseph warned them that in consequence of their misconduct a scourge would strike the camp. His words proved prophetic when, at the conclusion of their journey on June 23 at Rush Creek in Clay County, Missouri, cholera struck the camp. Some sixty-eight men were afflicted, and thirteen of them and one woman died of the disease. Earlier at Fishing River a band of about 300 armed Missourians threatened to invade the camp, but a fierce hailstorm drove them off and prevented a conflict. In the meantime, negotiations were conducted between the Zion's Camp leaders, Missouri State officials, and the citizens of Jackson County. Joseph Smith learned that, contrary to expectations, Governor Dunklin would not provide troops to escort the Mormons into Jackson County, fearing a civil war if he did. The two sides exchanged proposals for buying out each other's property in Jackson County, but these efforts broke down. On June 22, 1834, while still at Fishing River, the Prophet received a revelation that rebuked some members of the Church for not sufficiently supporting Zion's Camp, but accepted the sacrifice of the camp members. They were not to fight but to wait for the Lord to redeem Zion (D&C 105). The experience had been intended to test their faith. The revelation directed the Saints to build goodwill in the area in preparation for the time when Zion would be recovered by legal rather than military means. Since there was little more to be done to help the displaced Jackson County Saints, the remaining Zion's Camp supplies were distributed to the refugees, and the camp disbanded on June 30, 1834. Most of the troops soon returned to Ohio. Zion's Camp failed to achieve its ostensible purpose of protecting the Jackson County Saints. In retrospect, however, Brigham Young and other participants felt that they learned valuable lessons. In subsequent migrations, the Mormons used the organizational experience gained in Zion's Camp. Most importantly, they had answered the Lord's call (D&C 103). Nine of the first twelve apostles and all of the first Quorum of Seventy (seven presidents and sixty-three members) were later called from the ranks of Camp members.

128

Zion's Camp failed to achieve its ostensible purpose of protecting the Jackson County Saints. In retrospect, however, Brigham Young and other participants felt that they learned valuable lessons. In subsequent migrations, the Mormons used the organizational experience gained in Zion's Camp. Most importantly, they had answered the Lord's call (D&C 103). Nine of the first twelve apostles and all of the first Quorum of Seventy (seven presidents and sixty-three members) were later called from the ranks of Camp members. 55. After Joseph Smith's prophecy to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon failed, he explained it away by saying that some prophecies come from the devil. Answer: David Whitmer claimed that Joseph Smith received a revelation and prophesied that Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page should go to Canada where they would find a man willing to buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon. When they failed to sell the copyright, Whitmer states that Joseph admitted that the revelation had not come from God. The primary evidence supporting the negative aspects of the Canadian Mission story come from David Whitmer, who was not a participant in the event, and who had left the church many years before. With the discovery of the Hiram Page letter of 1848 showing that the actual participants involved in the trip felt that Joseph Smith delivered an accurate revelation of what would transpire on the Mission, and in fact even found the event uplifting rather than negative, it is evident that no individual contemporary to the event felt that this represented a false prophecy by Joseph Smith. What we do see is excellent evidence in fulfillment of the teachings of Deuteronomy 12 and 18 that Joseph Smith was perceived as a true prophet of God by those involved in the Mission to Canada in early 1830. Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada. Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with some conditions placed upon their success. ...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the Copyright & they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto me Salvation through mine only Be{\gotten} Behold I am God I have spoken it Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go seeking me continually through mine only Be{t\gotten} & if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me. amen & I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a

129

copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation {\or} th{\eir} salvation. The text of the revelation was published in the The Joseph Smith Papers: The Revelations and Translations Series. According to Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and Recorder, Another interesting development from work on the Revelations and Translations Series has been the identification of a previously unpublished revelation on securing a copyright for the Book of Mormon in Canada. David Whitmer, after he left the Church, recalled that the revelation promised success in selling the copyright, but upon return of the men charged with the duty, Joseph Smith and others were disappointed by what seemed like failure. Historians have relied upon statements of David Whitmer, Hiram Page, and William McLellin for decades but have not had the actual text of the revelation. Revelation Book 1 will provide that. Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smiths own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a failed revelation is not warranted. The Lords directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers. [1] Hiram Page, who was one of the individuals sent to Canada, laid out the event in a letter in 1848.[2] Page wrote that the revelation Joseph Smith received conditioned success upon whether those individuals in Canada capable of buying the Book of Mormon copyright would have their hearts softened. When unable to sell the copyright, the four men returned to Palmyra. Hiram Page stated he for the first time understood how some revelations given to people were not necessarily for their direct benefitin fact, Hiram Page believed that the revelation was actually fulfilled.

Historical Development of the Erroneous Story

Hiram Pages 1848 account of the Canadian Mission trip was sent to William McLellin. Because it was private correspondence, its existence and details were unknown until the 1930s, when the letter was donated to the RLDS Churchs archives as part of a larger collection of McLellin materials.[3] The content of the letter was not broadly known until after the document was stolen in 1985, but a copy of the original was donated by a private collector around the year 2000 who had made a copy prior to the theft of the original. In 1872 William McLellin wrote about the journey to Canada.[4] He had no first hand knowledge of the event, as he did not join the Church until 1831. He apparently got the description of the event from Martin Harris, who was likewise not there and had no first hand knowledge. From the published account, McLellin ignores Hiram Pages 1848 letter, and asserts that all involved in the Canadian Mission viewed it as a complete failure. Since all involved were dead, and the only known account by one of the

130

participants, who obviously viewed it as a success, was in McLellin's possession, he apparently did not worry about being corrected. In 1881 or shortly thereafter a man by the name of J.L. Traughber wrote a letter to a German correspondent, who published it in 1886, retelling McLellins second or third hand knowledge of the event.[5] Beginning in 1886, David Whitmer reports for the first time of the Canadian Mission.[6] Initially Whitmer reports the event in the third person, but by the time of his 1887 pamphlet An Address to All Believers in Christ, 57 years after the event occurred, he reports to having been a first hand witness, and Joseph Smith having given a false prophecy. Whitmer states, Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.[7] One must remember that not only was Whitmer looking for evidence to support his theory that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, but he also wrote with no fear of contradiction, as all the witnesses to the event were dead.

Comparing Whitmer's account to those of the eye witnesses

Whitmer's account is at variance in several ways with Hiram Pages account. Whitmer gets the destination city in Canada wrong (he says Toronto, the other accounts, and the revelation itself, say Kingston) and he did not correctly identify all of the participants (he identified Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery, while Page noted Joseph Knight and Josiah Stowell). Note that the text of the revelation itself finally clears up the issue of exactly who the revelation was directed to, ...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing...

131

Page also makes no mention or even a hint at disappointment in Joseph Smith, nor is there an accusation that the trip was based upon a "false prophecy," so naturally no subsequent "revelation" is noted by Page explaining the missions failure. In Whitmers 1887 account we learn for the first time of the supposed post-mission revelation where Joseph Smith is told that some revelations are from God, some from devils, some from men. This account is in all likelihood a fabrication. Unlike his consistent, life-long statements concerning the witness of the Gold Plates, this account, which is probably a second-hand retelling of events 57 years after their occurrence, suddenly appears and is wrong on several of the documentable facts, as well as being inconsistent with the first-hand testimony of Hiram Page, given 40 years earlier than Whitmer and by comparison much closer to the actual event.

Response of LDS scholars prior to Page's letter coming to light

The letter from 1848 by Hiram Page was not publically available until the 20th Century. As a result, various LDS responses to the accounts by Whitmer and McLellin of necessity must explain why the apparent anomalous revelation does not make Joseph Smith a fallen prophet. Such was the case when B.H. Roberts expressed doubt as to the accuracy of the story, and suggested that David Whitmer may not have recalled all of the details correctly, yet went on to address the claim anyway. Roberts concluded: Does that circumstance vitiate his claim as a prophet? No; the fact remains that despite this circumstance there exists a long list of events to be dealt with which will establish the fact of divine inspiration operating upon the mind of this man Joseph Smith. The wisdom frequently displayed, the knowledge revealed, the predicted events and the fulfilment thereof, are explicable upon no other theory than of divine inspiration giving guidance to him. [8] As it happens, the passage of time and the uncovering of additional information has vindicated that confidence. 56. Joseph Smith made a number of other prophecies that never came to pass. Apologists use manipulative tactics to justify Joseph's failures. Answer: Because this concern is vague in the specific revelations that it claim never came to pass I will leave a link to the FAIR LDS website that covers the concerns on numerous prophecies that people claim were failures when in fact they were not. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies 57. Brigham Young taught that Adam is our father and God, a teaching that later prophets have admitted as not true. More broadly, apostles have told us that the Lord permits false doctrine to be taught within the church.

132

Answer: Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latterday Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable. Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church. If there are any particles of truth to anything surrounding the Adam-God doctrine, one would expect those things to harmonize with what has already been revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed would be able to clear up many points surrounding that doctrine. Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy. He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852: Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spokenHe is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.[1] Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

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

133

Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.[2]

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.[3] While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.[4]) The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century. Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (190118) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God. One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[5] In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God: We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[6]

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

134

The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes D&C 78:1516].[7] It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent. Scribal error A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject. "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr." LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.[8] Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them. Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This

135

would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things. Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression. Brigham was wrong Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.[9] Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.[10] We don't know A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional

136

explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote: Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not computewe cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.[ 58. Wilford Woodruff pronounced "the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." Unfortunately, this promise has been proven to be untrue. Answer: I am going to assume that the Brigham Young Adam-God teaching is the untrue teaching that is being assumed lead the saints astray. If this is the case I would argue that it did not lead the saints astray. It has been well known that although it has been highly disputed and discussed there have always been parties on both sides of the teaching that have been some of the most prominent, active and strongest members of the church and did not lead them away from their belief in God and in his Son Jesus Christ. It shows that a prophet of God is still human and is still prone to human faults and opinions. With that said the Church's system of councils provides protection against the fallibility of a single man or leader. President Smith explained: An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be.

137

Dallin H. Oaks explained how the Lord allows all His children to grow through struggling with problems: Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit. The Lord will not help his children avoid all stumbling and error; He will protect them from permanent harm to His work, as Boyd K. Packer taught: Even with the best of intentions, [Church government] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work. Does this mean that members must simply have "blind trust" in their leaders? Hardly, says President Lorenzo Snow: There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise. 59. Members of the Church are taught that prophets talk to God and speak for God. But some modern-day prophets admitted that they had never seen, heard, or received revelations from God. Answer: Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, chosen by God to testify, to lead and teach His children and to manage the affairs of His Church. Whether it be 2000 years ago when they wore robes and sandals, or today when they wear suits and ties, apostles are special witnesses of Christ and we are blessed to have them on the Earth today. It is necessary to point out that all who believe in and have faith in Jesus Christ and have made covenants to take upon themselves the name of Christ are to be witnesses of Christ, His gospel, His doctrines, His life, His death, and His resurrection. Members of FAIR, like all members of the Church, consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ. Many reading this will also consider themselves to be witnesses of Christ. This can be done without a literal vision.

Special Witnesses
Apostles are certainly more than a "regular" witness of Christ. They are rightly considered "special witnesses." Apostles are also placed in a position to lead and guide the Church and the Saints. They are called of God and are deemed by Him to be worthy

138

and equal to the task. This has not changed since the first days of the Church of Jesus Christ, two thousand years ago. However, what are the criteria to be considered an apostle? Beyond what we have already stated, nothing need be added. They are called and ordained by God, through other apostles. But, does the descriptor of "special witness" mean that they have literally seen the resurrected Savior? Is this a requirement or some kind of automatic benefit for becoming an apostle? While varying opinions have been expressed, the scriptures are silent on the matter, and other prophetic utterances that may confirm or deny such a belief are unavailable. In other words, to consider a literal viewing of Christ as an apostolic requirement has no official doctrinal basis.

Proclaiming Visions and Experiences

Further, it must be noted that many of the modern-day apostles have spoken of these special experiences, as special witnesses, although very carefully. That the apostles exercise great care in proclaiming these experiences is not surprising, when one considers that these must be held as most sacred as pearls of their testimonies. We are all familiar with the command from the Master not to cast our pearls before the swine (Matthew 7:6). Thus, it should be no surprise that modern day apostles do not shout from the rooftops or speak to reporters or even refer frequently in General Conferences to such experiences. This doesn't mean that they don't share them at all. They simply choose to do so in a more private setting (e.g., in regional or stake conferences) or in other more private situations. For example, Allen Wyatt, of FAIR, shares this entry in his personal journal from February 3, 1990, Today is the first day of our stake conference. I am the executive secretary of our stake. Elder James E. Faust is here to replace our stake presidency. I was sitting in the priesthood leadership session, and Elder Faust was bearing his testimony. It is, without a doubt, the strongest testimony I have ever heard. He said (paraphrasing) 'I have always believed in the Church; I come from good blood. But through thousands of spiritual experiences, so many now that I have at least one a day--we had one earlier today (referring to meeting with the new stake presidency)--I have gained a testimony to the point I can say, as did the brother of Jared, "I saw the finger of the Lord and the veil could not withhold Him from me, therefore I no longer believed, for I had knowledge." As the brother of Jared stated, so say I--I know that Jesus is the Christ.' Is it a requirement? We don't know, nor do we have a basis for concluding that it is. Does it happen? Clearly, in at least some cases.

139

The biblical and apostolic requirements

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters use this supposed requirement to eliminate the LDS apostles as real apostles, and they attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their rejection. How do we respond? Let us take a look at what the Bible says regarding the matter. Most of the critics will use Acts 1:21-26: Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. The problem here is that Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement, yet few Christians would not view Paul as an apostle. Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. Now if this is all we knew about additional apostles, it might be a tough call. But this is not the case. Most LDS critics will admit that Paul was an exceptionwhich makes the requirements stated in Acts 1 potentially inapplicable to at least some future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven. For some reason, however, the critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

Additional apostles?
Regardless, all can usually agree that Paul is an exception. But were there other Apostles? Did we see the pattern continue? Well, up to now, we are certain of 14 Apostles (the original 12, Matthias and Paul). Let's take a look. First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,"

140

There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9, And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against anotherFor I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. Then, there was James, the brother of Jesus Christ, who was not one of the original Twelve (there were two other apostles named James). In Galatians 1:19, Paul says, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." And there was Silvanus and Timotheus: in 1 Thessalonians, we find Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, writing: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2) Then later, we find them referencing themselves as Apostles... But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. (1 Thessalonians 2:4-6) There are two others that could be considered apostles, but it's not absolutely clear, given the language used by Paul in Romans 16:7: Using the New Testament text, then, we have identified at least 19, perhaps 21, men given the title of apostle. Did all 19 or 21 see the resurrected Lord? We don't know. If they did, it is not recorded in our current New Testament. Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original twelve. And while the original eleven (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, this was never declared a universal requirement and we have numerous examples of apostles who don't meet that requirement. 60. The Quorum of the Twelve and members of the First Presidency are sustained as "prophets, seers, and revelators". Regardless, they haven't prophesied, seen, or revealed much of anything over the last 100 years. Answer: Prophets continue to receive revelation this days, so we can be successful in this life. They are like a bishop, but for the entire world. They are men that are capable of making mistakes, but Latter-Day Saints believe that if they follow the modern day prophet, they will be blessed. The teachings of the prophets are based on the scriptures,

141

and when God decides to reveal new doctrine, he will do it by his prophets. When prophets receive revelation, it does not always necessarily mean that we are going to hear the prophets teach us new doctrine. Here are a few examples in the 20th Century of modern day revelation to prophets and apostles. Hugh B. Brown reported an event that his nephew, Harold B. Lee, recorded in his journal and later shared: He [Elder Brown] said it was not a vision, but the Lord appeared to him, very informal, the same as I was sitting talking to him. The Lord said, You have had some difficult times in your life. Uncle Hugh responded, Yes, and your life was more difficult than any of us have had. In the conversation Uncle Hugh asked when he would be finished here, and the Lord said, I dont know and I wouldnt tell you if I did. Then He said, Remain faithful to the end, and everything will be all right.[10]

Henry B. Eyring
I am grateful that I know as surely as did the Apostles Peter, James, and John that Jesus is the Christ, our risen Lord, and that he is our advocate with the Father. I know that the Father bore direct witness of His Beloved Son by introducing the resurrected Lord to the boy Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove. I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated by the Prophet Joseph through the power of God. I know that the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood were restored by those who received them from the Savior and that President Gordon B. Hinckley is now the only person on earth authorized to direct the use of all those keys. I bear solemn testimony that this is the true Church of Jesus Christ, in which the ordinances and the covenants are offered, which if accepted and honored produce peace in this life and assure us eternal life in the world to come. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[11]

James E. Faust
Mine is the certain knowledge that Jesus is our divine Savior, Redeemer, and the son of God the Father. I know of his reality by a sure perception so sacred I cannot give utterance to it. I know and testify with an absolute awareness that Joseph Smith restored the keys of the fulness of times and that every President of the Church has held those keys, as does President Gordon B. Hinckley today.[12]

David B. Haight

Elder Haight recounted a lengthy vision granted to him during a serious illness in Ensign (November 1989): 59-60. See below for Elder Haight on the 1978 revelation.

142

Harold B. Lee
With all my soul and conviction, and knowing the seriousness and import of that testimony, I tell you that I know that he lives. I am conscious of his presence much of the time when I have needed him most; I have known it out of the whisperings of the night, the impressions of the daytime when there were things for which I was responsible and on which I could receive guidance. So I testify to you and tell you that he is closer to the leaders of this Church than you have any idea. Listen to the leaders of this Church and follow their footsteps in righteousness, if you would learn not only by study but also by faith, which testimony I bear most humbly and sincerely in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.[13] [I will tell you of] an experience I had when I first came into the Council of the Twelve. I had wondered what it took to be a special witness of the Lord and Master. How frightening it was now that I was named to be a special witness! So that I could say without any hesitance and with all the declaration of my soul that I knew He lived, I had to have an experience. When the reality of the story of His life, ministry, His crucifixion, and His resurrection were as real as though I had been there, this is what I was saying. I didn't have to go stand on those places in the Holy Land to know, because it was as though I had seen them before.[14] May I bear my own testimony. Some years ago two missionaries came to me with what seemed to them to be a very difficult question. A young minister had laughed at them when they had said that Apostles were necessary today in order for the true Church to be upon the earth. They said that the minister said, "Do you realize that when the Apostles met to choose one to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Judas, they said it had to be one who companied with them and had been a witness of all things pertaining to the mission and resurrection of the Lord? How can you say you have Apostles, if that be the measure of an Apostle?" And so these young men said, "What shall we answer?" I said to them, "Go back and ask your minister friend two questions. First, how did the Apostle Paul gain what was necessary to be called an Apostle? He didn't know the Lord, had no personal acquaintance. He hadn't accompanied the Apostles. He hadn't been a witness of the ministry nor of the resurrection of the Lord. How did he gain his testimony sufficient to be an Apostle? And the second question you ask him is, How does he know that all who are today Apostles have not likewise received that witness?" I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord.[15] I bear my witness to you this morning. There are some witnesses I cannot give now, perhaps sometime later. Many things are too sacred to share at this time. I have received a witness that I cannot or dare not deny. When I see Jesus, I cannot mistake His identity. I know that He lives![16]

Spencer W. Kimball
I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives, said John Taylor, my predecessor, for I have seen him. I bear this testimony to you brethren in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."[17] 143

Dallin H. Oaks
Why don't our talks in general conference and local meetings say more about the miracles we have seen? Most of the miracles we experience are not to be shared. Consistent with the teachings of the scriptures, we hold them sacred and share them only when the Spirit prompts us to do soIn bearing testimonies and in our public addresses we rarely mention our most miraculous experiences, and we rarely rely on signs that the gospel is true. We usually just affirm our testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and give few details on how we obtained it. Why is this? Signs _follow_ those that believe. Seeking a miracle to convert someone is improper sign seeking. By the same token, it is usually inappropriate to recite miraculous circumstances to a general audience that includes people with very different levels of spiritual maturity. To a general audience, miracles will be faith-reinforcing for some but an inappropriate sign for others.[18] Visions do happen. Voices are heard from beyond the veil. I know this. But these experiences are exceptional. And those who have these great and exceptional experiences rarely speak of them publicly because we are instructed not to do so (see D&C 63:64) and because we understand that the channels of revelation will be closed if we show these things before the world.[19]

Boyd K. Packer

There has come, these last several years, a succession of announcements that show our day to be a day of intense revelation, equaled, perhaps, only in those days of beginning, 150 years ago But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto mennot to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the worldbut of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called usand of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witnessLike all of my Brethren, I too come from among the ordinary people of the Church. I am the seventyeighth man to be accepted by ordination into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in this dispensation. Compared to the others who have been called, I am nowhere near their equal, save it be, perhaps, in the certainty of the witness we share. I feel compelled, on this 150th anniversary of the Church, to certify to you that I know that the day of miracles has not ceased. I know that angels minister unto men. I am a witness to the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father; that He has a body of flesh and bone; that He knows those who are His servants here and that He is known of them. I know that He directs this Church now, as He established it then, through a prophet of God. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
[20]

144

Dreams and visions and visitations are not uncommon in the Church and are a part of all that the Lord has revealed in this dispensation. Thus a worthy Church member may be the recipient of a marvelous spiritual experience. I have come to know that these experiences are personal and are to be kept private. Recipients should ponder them in their heart and not talk lightly about them.[21] I did not accept it [my spiritual witness] as a commission or a setting apart. It was a testimony, a witness, the witness. From that time to this, my challenge has not been with obedience, nor with resolution or diligence; it has been with restraint! The challenge has been to temper myself and bridle my impulsive Danish personality. It has been to keep sacred and keep private that which each of us must learn for one's own self. Such an experience is at once a light to follow and a burden to carry.[22] Revelation continues with us today. The promptings of the Spirit, the dreams, and the visions and the visitations, and the ministering of angels all are with us now. And the still, small voice of the Holy Ghost is a lamp unto [our] feet, and a light unto [our] path. (Ps. 119:105.) Of that I bear witness, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.[23] All teachers are, of course, themselves students. While as teachers there are some difficult questions that we can hardly attempt to answer, likewise as students there are some questions that we could not in propriety ask. One question of this type I am asked occasionally, usually by someone who is curious, is, "Have you seen Him?" That is a question that I have never asked of another. I have not asked that question of my Brethren in the Council of the Twelve, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspirationindeed, some authorizationeven to ask it. Though I have not asked that question of others, I have heard them answer itbut not when they were asked. I have heard one of my Brethren declare, "I know, from experiences too sacred to relate, that Jesus is the Christ." I have heard another testify, "I know that God lives, I know that the Lord lives, and more than that, I know the Lord." I repeat: they have answered this question not when they were asked, but under the prompting of the Spirit, on sacred occasions, when "the Spirit beareth record." (D&C 1:39.) There are some things just too sacred to discuss: not secret, but sacred; not to be discussed, but to be harbored and protected and regarded with the deepest of reverence.[24]

"Have you seen Him?' That is a question that I have never asked of another. I have not asked that question of my brethren in the Quorum, thinking that it would be so sacred and so personal that one would have to have some special inspiration, indeed, some authorization, even to ask it. I have come to know what the Prophet Alma meant:

145

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. "And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full." (Alma 12:9-10.) There are those who hear testimonies borne in the Church, by those in high station and by members in the wards and branches, all using the same words-"I know that God lives; I know that Jesus is the Christ," and come to question, "Why cannot it be said in plainer words? Why aren't they more explicit and more descriptive. Cannot the Apostles say more?" Some seek for a witness to be given in some new and dramatic and different way. To one who is honestly seeking, the testimony borne in these simple phrases is enough; for it is the Spirit that beareth record, not the words.[25]

I want our family to know that they have heard grandpa bear his testimony. I know that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives, that the gospel is true, and that I know Him when I see Him, and I know His voice when I hear Him. I want you little ones to remember that you heard your grandfather bear a special witness of the Lord Jesus Christ.[26]

George F. Richards
The Lord has revealed to men by dreams something more than I [President Kimball] ever understood or felt before. I heard this more than once in quorum meetings of the Council of the Twelve when George F. Richards was president. He was the venerable father of Brother LeGrand Richards who has just spoken to us. He said, I believe in dreams, brethren. The Lord has given me dreams which to me are just as real and as much from God as was the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar, which was the means of saving a nation from starvation, or the dream of Lehi who through a dream led his colony out of the old country across the mighty deep to this promised land, or any other dreams that we might read in the scriptures. It is not out of place for us to have important dreams, he said. And then more than 40 years ago I had a dream which I am sure was from the Lord. In this dream I was in the presence of my Savior as he stood mid-air. He spoke no word to me, but my love for him was such that I have not words to explain. I know that no mortal man can love the Lord as I experienced that love for the Savior unless God reveals it to him. I would have remained in his presence, but there was a power drawing me away from him. As a result of that dream, I had this feeling that no matter what might be required of my hands, what the gospel might entail unto me, I would do what I should be asked to do even to the laying down of my life. And so when we read in the scriptures what the Savior said to his disciples, In my Fathers house are many mansions: I go to prepare a place for you that

146

where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:23.) I think that is where I want to be. If only I can be with my Savior and have that same sense of love that I had in that dream, it will be the goal of my existence, the desire of my life.[27]

Marion G. Romney
[In his journal, Marion G. Romney wrote:] I don't know just how to answer people when they ask the question, "Have you seen the Lord?" I think that the witness that I have and the witness that each of us has, and the details of how it came, are too sacred to tell. I have never told anybody some of the experiences I have had, not even my wife. I know that God lives. I not only know that he lives, but I know him.[28]

1978 Revelation
Many witnesses described the 1978 revelation on the priesthood. Wrote the past LDS Church Historian: As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . . Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve -- at least two who have said so publicly -- were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . . At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the church members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God -- an ineffable experience. Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.[29] Elder David B. Haight said of the same experience:

147

I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience. But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper -- little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it.

Revising and Suppressing History

61. The Church has changed the dates of events in the D&C in order to make Joseph's conflicting claims appear more plausible. Answer: The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU. If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the samewas Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.

148

How do the LDS understand prophetic revelation?

It is important to realize that the LDS Church does not believe in a doctrine of prophetic inerrancy. Prophets are not fax machines; they do not simply "download" messages from God. Rather, God inspires prophets through a variety of means: the prophet may be given precise words to speak or simply receive information which he is to communicate in any way which suits his listeners. Many critics come from conservative Protestant backgrounds and religious traditions which endorse doctrines of Biblical inerrancy. (Some members of the Church may also have absorbed some 'fundamentalist' ideas about scripture and prophets.) Both groups of people will be troubled by this doctrine because it does not match their preconceptions, but Joseph Smith cannot be faulted for not following a prophetic model which he never endorsed and which the Church does not teach. Furthermore, revelation is not always an instantaneous eventit may often be a process of studying a matter out, and applying reason and effort to achieve greater clarity and understanding.[1] The Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that: Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.DC 1:24 Thus, the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledges the weakness of the prophets through which they came, and insists that the wording is in the manner of their language, not direct, word-for-word divine sound bites. Brigham Young (who authored one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants DC 136: described the process in similar terms: I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities... The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive...[2]

149

And, there were even times when others besides Joseph were assigned to collaborate in writing the revelationsclear evidence that there was not "only one true" version of the revelation. (See DC 124:12-16.)

Who made the changes?

Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote: First Presidency members were assigned to compile "the items of the doctrine" of the Church from the standard works, including "the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date or shall be, until such arrangement is made" (Kirtland High Council Minute Book, 24 September 1834; also cited in History of The Church, 2:165. BYU Studies link). This resolution might suggest the correction of former wording through revelation. [The revised D&C was] issued in August 1835 with a 17 February 1835 preface signed by the Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, the revision committee.[3] Thus, the First Presidency of the time supervised the revisions.

Reasons for the changes

Wrote Elder Marlin K. Jensen in 2009: One of Joseph Smiths tasks in reviewing the manuscripts prior to their publication was to correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit. Joseph knew from experience that the human process of writing down revelations, copying them into manuscript books, and then passing them through various hands in preparation for publication inevitably introduced unintentional errors. Sometimes changes were required to clarify wording. Occasionally, later revelations would supersede or update previously received revelations, necessitating the editing of documents to alter previous versions. Various other changes were also made from time to time. Most of these, such as dividing the text into verses or clarifying meaning, did not involve substantive corrections. Joseph seemed to regard the manuscript revelations as his best efforts to capture the voice of the Lord condescending to communicate in what Joseph called the crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language of men." The revealed preface to the published revelations also seems to express this principle: I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language (DC 1:24). Joseph and his associates were appointed by the actions of Church conferences to prepare the revelations for publication by correcting the texts. Recent analysis of both manuscript revelation books reveals how and when many of the changes were made. For example, some changes were made before selected items were published in Missouri, while others were made in Ohio before the 1835 publication of the Doctrine and Covenants.

150

One common example involves changes made by Sidney Rigdon. He often changed the language in the revelations from the biblical thee, thy, and thine to the modern you, your, and yours. Many of these changes were later reversed. He also corrected grammar and changed some of the language to clarify and modify words and meaning. In a few cases, more substantive changes were made as revelations were updated for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. For example, section 20 was originally received in 1830, before much of the leadership structure of the Church as we know it today was revealed to Joseph Smith. By 1835 Joseph had organized many offices and quorums by revelation. To include this newly revealed ecclesiastical order, several text changes and additions were incorporated into section 20. Our current verses 6567 on ordaining men to priesthood offices, for instance, had been revealed after the 1833 publication and were subsequently added to the 1835 publication. Joseph Smith reviewed many of his associates editorial changes and made slight alterations in his own hand before A Book of Commandments was published in 1833. He made additional changes, including adding surnames to individuals mentioned in the revelations, just before the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835. Sometime around 183435 in Kirtland, Ohio, Revelation Book 2 was used for the preparation of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and all but eight items in the manuscript book were published in that 1835 volume. In contrast, just three of the revelations copied into the book were published in A Book of Commandments in 1833. Two of the manuscript books revelations were first published in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants. Subsequent editing changes through the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants involved occasional word changes, but the major substantive changes occurred under the Prophet Josephs guidance for the 1835 edition.[4]

Changes were not hidden from the Church

Critics attempt to trouble Latter-day Saints who have not considered the fact one aspect of the prophet's mission includes the editing and modification of revelation prior to publication. The critics often act as if these changes are a type of "dirty secret" which the Church is "hiding" from its members. Unfortunately for the critics, there is plenty of evidence that the Church has done nothing to hide the fact that changes were made.

Nineteenth century discussion

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

151

On the revelations we merely say, that we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original. We had given them a careful comparison, assisted by individuals whose known integrity and ability is uncensurable. Thus saying we cast no reflections upon those who were entrusted with the responsibility of publishing them in Missouri, as our own labors were included in that important service to the church, and it was our unceasing endeavor to have them correspond with the copy furnished us. We believe they are now correct. If not in every word, at least in principle. For the special good of the church we have also added a few items from other revelations. [5] Oliver clearly understood that some changes were corrections, and some were additions given by revelation which were made prior to publication. In 1854, Orson Pratt discussed changes: We often had access to the manuscripts when boarding with the Prophet; and it was our delight to read them over and over again, before they were printed. And so highly were they esteemed by us, that we committed some to memory; and a few we copied for the purpose of reference in our absence on missions; and also to read them to the saints for their edification. These copies are still in our possession. When at length the time arrived to print the manuscripts, it was thought best not to publish them all, on account of our enemies, who were seeking every means to destroy the Prophet and the Church. It was concluded, through the suggestions of the Spirit, that by altering the real names given in the manuscripts, and substituting fictitious ones in their stead, they might thus safely appear in print without endangering the welfare of the individuals whose real names were contained therein. It may be asked, had the Prophet a right to alter names given by revelation and substitute fictitious ones in their stead? We reply, that it is only the printed edition that contains the substituted names, while the original manuscripts, that are safely preserved in the hands of the church, contain the names as they were originally given. Moreover, the substitution of fictitious names for persons and places does not alter or destroy the sense or ideas contained in the revelations. But what the Prophet did in relation to this thing, was not of himself; he was dictated by the Holy Ghost to make these substitutions. And by revelation line was added upon line to several of the sections and paragraphs about to be published. But some may inquire, are not the Almightys revelations perfect when they are first given? And if so, where was the propriety of the Lords adding any thing to them, when they were already perfect? We reply that every word of God is perfect; but He does not reveal all things at once, but adds line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little, revealing as the people are able to bear, or as circumstances require. The Lord, therefore, adds to His own revelations whenever he thinks proper.[6] In 1857, the Millennial Star noted:

152

Joseph, the Prophet, in selecting the revelations from the Manuscripts, and arranging them for publication, did not arrange them according to the order of the date in which they were given, neither did he think it necessary to publish them all in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but left them to be published more fully in his History. Hence, paragraphs taken from revelations of a later date, are, in a few instances, incorporated with those of an earlier date. Indeed, at the time of compilation, the Prophet was inspired in several instances to write additional sentences and paragraphs to the earlier revelations. In this manner the Lord did truly give line upon line, here a little and there a little, the same as He did to a revelation that Jeremiah received, which, after being burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed over again with great numbers of additional words (See Jeremiah 36:32)[7]

Present day discussion

The official Church magazine, the Ensign has published several discussions of the editing process: Robert J. Woodford, "The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign (December 1984), 32. off-site Robert J. Woodford, "How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled," Ensign (January 1985), 27. off site

Melvin J. Petersen, "Preparing Early Revelations for Publication," Ensign (February 1985), 14. off-site Elder Boyd K. Packer also discussed the changes to the revelations in general conference: Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books. The Prophet Joseph Smith was an unschooled farm boy. To read some of his early letters in the original shows him to be somewhat unpolished in spelling and grammar and in expression. That the revelations came through him in any form of literary refinement is nothing short of a miracle. That some perfecting should continue strengthens my respect for them. Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.

153

Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true. After compiling some of the revelations, the ancient prophet Moroni said, if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mormon 8:17) And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. (Mormon 8:12)[8] It is difficult to understand how detailing changes and discussing them in general conference constitutes "hiding the truth." Church members pay comparatively little attention to such matters, however, because the mechanism by which revelations are produced are of far less importance than the content of the revelations, and whether the revelations are true. And, B.H. Roberts also wrote of the publication of the revelations in 1833 that they were revised by the Prophet himself in the way of correcting errors made by the scribes and publishers; and some additional clauses were inserted to throw increased light upon the subjects treated in the revelations, and paragraphs added, to make the principles for instructions apply to officers not in the Church at the time some of the earlier revelations were given. The addition of verses 65, 66, and 67 in sec. XX of the Doctrine and Covenants is an example.[9] With the advent of the Joseph Smith papers project, Church Historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen wrote an extensive article about changes and their rationale:

Marlin K. Jensen, "The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books," Ensign (July 2009), 4651. off-site

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

What changes were made?

Grammar and spelling changes

Many changes involved matters of grammar, spelling, and the like. (These examples all taken from one article in the Ensign. Those interested in further examples can see the Further Reading section below.[10]) We have found the following errors in the commandments, as printed: fortieth chapter, tenth verse, third line, instead of corruptible, put corrupted. Fourteenth verse of the same chapter, fifth line, instead of respector to persons, put respector of persons. Twenty-first verse, second line of the same chapter,

154

instead of respector to, put respector of. Fourty-four chapter, twelfth verse, last line, instead of hands put heads.[11] 62. In the 1980's Church leaders bought forged documents that they believed to be authentic, with the intention of suppressing them. Not only does this event discredit the notion that the Brethren have the spirit of discernment, it also shows the extent to which the Church will try to hide information that disproves the Church's exclusive Truth claims. Answer: Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the First Presidency, purchased several apparently nineteenth-century documents from Mark Hofmann. They later turned out to be forgeries. Critics say that if Gordon B. Hinckley were a true prophet, he would not have been fooled into buying the forgeries. Prophets do not generally act to take away the free agent choices of others. President Hinckley's decision to purchase the documents allowed them to be examined, and kept them available for further study so that the forgery could be discovered. (Had a private collector, especially one hostile to the Church, acquired the documents, access might have been much more difficult.) Hofmann made the decision to lie and cover his lies with murder. Tragic as such choices are, LDS doctrine would not expect God to typically intervene via a prophet, or personally, to prevent a person bent on making wicked choices from carrying out his or her plans.(See DC 10:37) If God did so routinely, unfettered choice would be threatened. Critics claim that the Church behaved itself improperly with regard to the Salamander letter. They argue that the Church acquired the letter with the intent of 'suppressing' it, or 'hiding history.' However, the historical record is clear that the Church did nothing to hide the Hofmann "Salamander Letter," even though to some it appeared to pose problems for the Church's story of its origins. As with many criticisms, this one stems from incorrect expectations of what a prophet is. Prophets are not omniscient nor infallible. The Church bought the documents when assured by experts that they were genuine. Furthermore, President Hinckley, at a Young Adult fireside broadcast from Temple Square, spoke about Martin Harris and others mentioned in the Salamander Letter, and advised caution in accepting the documents' authenticity. He was careful not to proclaim that they were authentic: As most of you know, recently there have been great stirrings over two old letters. One was purportedly written in 1825 by Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell. If it is genuine, it is the oldest known product of Joseph Smiths handwriting. It concerns the employment of Joseph by Mr. Stowell, who was engaged in a mining operation looking for old coins and precious metals. The other carries the date of October 23, 1830, and was purportedly written by Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps.

155

I acquired for the Church both of these letters, the first by purchase. The second was given to the Church by its generous owner. I am, of course, familiar with both letters, having held them in my hands and having read them in their original form. It was I, also, who made the decision to make them public. Copies were issued to the media, and both have received wide publicity. I knew there would be a great fuss. Scholars have pored over them, discussed them, written about them, differed in their opinions, and even argued about them. I am glad we have them. They are interesting documents of whose authenticity we are not certain and may never be. However, assuming that they are authentic, they are valuable writings of the period out of which they have come. But they have no real relevancy to the question of the authenticity of the Church or of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Much has been said about the Martin Harris/W. W. Phelps letter. I ask: Shall two men, their character, their faith, their lives, the testimonies to which they gave voice to the end of their days, be judged by a few words on a sheet of paper that may or may not have been written by the one and received by the other? If you have been troubled in any way by press reports concerning this letter, I ask only that you look closer at the man who presumably wrote it and at the man who presumably received it Martin Harris and W. W. Phelps. The letter is dated subsequent to the declaration of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, one of whom was Martin Harris. In language unequivocal and certain he and his associates had declared to the world: "Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record,...And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.... And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon." Would Martin Harris have mortgaged his farm, eventually losing it, to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon if he had thought of that book as a fraud? He endured ridicule, persecution, and poverty. He lived to the age of ninety-two and died in full faith, voicing his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon to the end of his life. What about W. W. Phelps? Five years subsequent to the date of the letter, he wrote: "Now, notwithstanding my body was not baptized into this Church till Thursday, the 10th of June 1831, yet my heart was there from the time I became acquainted with the Book of Mormon; and my hope, steadfast like an anchor, and my faith increased like the grass after a refreshing shower, when I for the first time, held a conversation with our beloved Brother Joseph whom I was willing to acknowledge as the prophet of the Lord, and to whom, and to whose godly account of himself and the work he was engaged in, I owe my first determination to quit the folly of my way, and the fancy and fame of this world, and seek the Lord and His righteousness." This is the same man who wrote that majestic and marvelous hymn of tribute to the Prophet Joseph "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus

156

anointed that Prophet and Seer. Blessed to open the last dispensation, Kings shall extol him, and nations revere." He had no doubt concerning the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the divine calling of him who was the instrument in the hands of the Almighty in bringing it forth. William W. Phelps died as a high priest in Salt Lake City in full faith. Marvelous and enduring love and loyalty of the kind shown by these two men do not come from an experience with a "salamander" as we generally interpret that word. Would these two men have so endured, so declared their testimonies, and so lived out their lives in faith had there been any doubt about the way in which the Book of Mormon plates were received from the hands of Moroni and translated by the gift and power of God? It is clear, though, that the Church did not seek to hide the potentially damaging letter or its text. Mark Hofmann gave anonymous tips to the media,[1] informing them that the Church had a hidden "Oliver Cowdery History" in their vaults.[2] This claim was repeated uncritically. The Church denied having such a document.[3] It is, of course, virtually impossible to prove such a negativehow could the Church prove it didn't have something or didn't destroy it? Ironically, some modern critics continue to spread Hofmann's lies about his forgeries after he has confessed them. And, a retired CES teacher, Grant Palmer, published a book whose explanation of the Book of Mormon's origin derived from material in Hofmann's forgery, twenty years after it was shown to be a fraud. For more on Mark Hoffman and the time line of these fraudulent events please check the following link. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mark_Hofmann/Church_reaction_to_forgeries 63. The "Teachings of Brigham Young" manual dishonestly implies that Brigham was a monogamist by listing only two non-concurrent wives. Church editors have also changed all of Brigham's mentions of "wives" to "wife". Answer: In January 1998 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced a new curriculum for mens Priesthood and womens Relief Society classes: Lessons would be taught by gospel subject using selected statements and teachings of latter-day prophets. The first two years (1998-1999) focused on President Brigham Young. The Church-published instruction manual for this period was Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young.1 The manual is composed of extracts from Brigham Youngs sermons to the early Saints,2 arranged topically. Twenty-four works are cited as source material,3 although

157

the majority of the quotes appear to come from John A. Widtsoes Discourses of Brigham Young.4 An April 1998 news story by Salt Lake City Associated Press correspondent Vern Anderson reported complaints that the manual claimed Brigham Young did not practice polygamy.5 Andersons story begins with confusion over and criticism of the manual: Valeen Tippetts Avery, a professor of history at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, had never met the perplexed young woman who came knocking at her door. Newly married to a Mormon, the student had been reading up on the faith and attending Relief Society, the churchs auxiliary for women. She was confused now, and someone had suggested she talk to Avery. Dr. Avery, she said, I just got the new Relief Society manual, which is about Brigham Young, and he only has one wife. Avery, a Mormon who knew the pioneer leader had 55 wives, couldnt explain why the lesson manual being used since January by male and female church members in 22 languages paints Americas most famous polygamist as a monogamist. But she had some advice. The Mormon church is trying to say to the new people coming into the church, as well as to the larger American society, that there was nothing questionable in the Mormon past, Avery told the woman. And if you want answers to these kinds of sticky questions, youre not going to find them inside accepted Mormon manuals and doctrines. The AP story was immediately picked up by secular and sectarian critics of the Church and used as proof that the Church was covering up embarrassing historical facts.6 A review of the manual itself, however, reveals that it does not claim Brigham Young only has one wife, nor does it paint [him] as a monogamist. In fact, it primarily concentrates on Brighams teachings, and only briefly touches on his personal life. Brief biographical information on Brigham appears in a one-page Historical Summary.7 Chapter 1, The Ministry of Brigham Young, also has some biographical data, although it almost exclusively focuses on his conversion, missionary experiences, calling to the Quorum of the Twelve, and colonization and leadership of Utah. The Historical Summary and Chapter 1 both mention his marriage to and the death of his first wife, Miriam Works,8 and his subsequent remarriage to Mary Ann Angel.9 Other than that, they do not discuss his marriage relationships or family life. In Chapter 23, Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, two instances of the term wives were modified to [wife], with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brighams own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for todays Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.

158

The next manual in the instructional seriesTeachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smithincludes this clarifying statement in the Historical Summary of President Smiths life: This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.10 This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.11 The Brigham Young manual and the manuals that followed it include selected teachings on selected subjects that have application to subjects of concern to todays Latter-day Saints. They do not teach history, but how to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite the complaints of its detractors, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not engaged in a cover up, nor is it attempting to hide an embarrassing past. 64. For years, Church leaders have told the untrue story that Thomas B. Marsh left the church over "milk strippings". In truth, Marsh left in large part because he didn't agree with the violent practices of the Danites. Answer: The story of the milk strippings and Thomas B. Marsh goes something like this: While the Saints were in Far West, Missouri, Elizabeth Marsh, Thomass wife, and her friend Sister Harris decided they would exchange milk in order to make more cheese than they otherwise could. To be certain all was done fairly, they agreed that they should not save what were called the strippings, but that the milk and strippings should all go together. Strippings came at the end of the milking and were richer in cream. Sister Harris was faithful to the agreement, but Sister Marsh, desiring to make some especially delicious cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Sister Harris the milk without the strippings. This caused the two women to quarrel. When they could not settle their differences, the matter was referred to the home teachers to settle. They found Elizabeth Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement. She and her husband were upset with the decision, and the matter was then referred to the bishop for a Church trial. The bishops court decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved and that Sister Marsh had violated her covenant with Sister Harris.

159

Thomas Marsh appealed to the high council, and the men comprising this council confirmed the bishops decision. He then appealed to the First Presidency of the Church. Joseph Smith and his counselors considered the case and upheld the decision of the high council. Elder Thomas B. Marsh, who sided with his wife through all of this, became angrier with each successive decisionso angry, in fact, that he went before a magistrate and swore that the Mormons were hostile toward the state of Missouri. His affidavit led toor at least was a factor inGovernor Lilburn Boggss cruel extermination order, which resulted in over 15,000 Saints being driven from their homes, with all the terrible suffering and consequent death that followed. All of this occurred because of a disagreement over the exchange of milk and cream. 5 The following quote was taken from President Thomas S. Monsons Oct 2009 Conference talk School Thy Feelings O Brother. From this talk and others it could seem that the main focus of Thomas B. Marshs apostasy was due to the milk strippings incident. It may have played a role in his apostasy but was definitely not the sole cause of his apostasy. In searching Wikipedia it offers another cause of his apostasy. It was the role of a group called the Danites. The Danites were a vigilante group who took it upon themselves to defend the church especially against the dissenters. According to Marsh, these men swore oaths to support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong. Marsh did return to the Church in 1857 and had this to say about his apostasy: 1. I became jealous of the Prophet, and then I saw double, and overlooked everything that was right, and spent all my time in looking for the evil; and then, when the Devil began to lead me, it was easy for the carnal mind to rise up, which is anger, jealousy, and wrath. I could feel it within me; I felt angry and wrathful; and the Spirit of the Lord being gone, as the Scriptures say, I was blinded, and I thought I saw a beam in brother Josephs eye, but it was nothing but a mote, and my own eye was filled with the beam; but I thought I saw a beam in his, and I wanted to get it out; and, as brother Heber says, I got mad, and I wanted everybody else to be mad. I talked with Brother Brigham and Brother Heber, and I wanted them to be mad like myself; and I saw they were not mad, and I got madder still because they were not. Brother Brigham, with a cautious look, said, Are you the leader of the Church, brother Thomas? I answered, No. Well then, said he, Why do you not let that alone? Well, this is about the amount of my hypocrisyI meddled with that which was not my business. But let me tell you, my brethren and friends, if you do not want to suffer in body and mind, as I have done,if there are any of you that have the seeds of apostacy in you, do not let them make their appearance, but nip that spirit in the bud; for it is misery and affliction in this world, and destruction in the world to come.

160

Unfortunately when stories like the one above by President Monson are shared they give the impression that the sole reason for the apostasy was due to the milk strippings when in all actuality there was more to the story. Elder David Bednar in touching on the story (November 2006, And Nothing Shall Offend Them.) noted that Marsh became offended and eventually left the Church. This would seem to me that Elder Bednar is stating that although Marsh became offended he eventually left over a deeper and more spiritual problem and not merely due to the milk strippings incident. 65. Brigham Young said "I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." Despite this prophetic utterance, later church leaders have dismissed as non-scriptural the Journal of Discourses, from which this quote and many other of Brigham's teachings come. Answer: This statement actually has two points of concern. First Brigham Youngs statement, "I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." This actual quote is as follows: "Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this [discourse] go to the people with "Thus saith the Lord," and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and he may preserve us as we desire. (JD 13:95, 2 January 1870) Brigham explained his meaning, but the critics generally do not tell us what he means: Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nationsthat Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there. (JD 13:264, 6 October 1870) The prophets are not perfect, but they are called of God. They may speak as men, but may speak scripture as well. Every person may know for themselves whether they speak

161

the truth through the same power that their revelation is given: the power of the Holy Ghost. A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been (Ether 12:6). Elder Neil L. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (November 2012).

The Church's response

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four standard works of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Approaching Mormon Doctrine (May 4, 2007) As far as the Journal of Discourses is concerned, critics claim that the Church is trying to "completely distance itself" from the Journal of Discourses. While the Journal of Discourses is not, and has never been regarded as scripture or officially binding in itself, it contains a great deal of value. Present-day Church members have had extensive exposure to the Journal of Discourses in their priesthood and Relief Society manuals which focus on teachings of past presidents of the Church. Critics may not be aware that these quotations are in the Journal of Discourses, since other primary or secondary sources are sometimes cited in the footnotes.

162

For Church leaders who lived and spoke during the time that the Journal of Discourses was in publication, there are many talks that have been cited in recent manuals:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (1997). Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor (2001). Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff (2004). Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith (1998).

Contrary to critics' claims, members have probably been exposed to more material in the Journal of Discourses by way of the Priesthood and Relief Society manuals than any Church classes in the last few generations. Some talks in the above works date from the same time period, but were not printed in the Journal of Discourses. Thus, the manuals draw on a wider collection of talks than the Journal of Discourses alone. 66. Boyd K. Packer and other church leaders have openly advocated obscuring and editing history by teaching us that "some things that are true are not very useful." Answer: The quote some things that are true are not very useful. Comes from Elder Boyd K. Packers talk The Mante is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Packer then made some remarks that have been particularly vulnerable to misrepresentation, and opportunity for considerable derision: There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.[8] This has been portrayed by critics as an invitation to hide the truth or unsavory facts. But again, critics often omit the context. Here Elder Packer does address himself to historians, saying: Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficultoften impossibleto verify.[9] Elder Packer is not objecting to such things because they are truebut, because one may (as discussed earlier) use a "true" statement (e.g., some person said X about Joseph Smith) in such a way or context as to give a misleading or even false impression. Note that he emphasizes that such things can be "impossible...to verify"thus, the full, more global truth cannot be established. But, one can use one truth to give a false impression about the larger (and more important) "global truth."

163

This interpretation is made clear by Elder Packer's discussion of a historian who, he felt, had committed this error: Some time ago a historian gave a lecture to an audience of college students on one of the past Presidents of the Church. It seemed to be his purpose to show that that President was a man subject to the foibles of men. He introduced many so-called facts that put that President in a very unfavorable light, particularly when they were taken out of the context of the historical period in which he lived. Someone who has not theretofore acquainted with this historical figure (particularly someone not mature) must have come away very negatively affected. Those who were unsteady in their convictions surely must have had their faith weakened or destroyed.[10] In this case, the historian may well have used true statements ("so-called facts"), but he focused upon them. He chose to include some material and exclude other material. And, most importantly, he did not adequately prepare his audience, since he did not ground them in a proper understanding of "the context of the historical period in which he lived." Thus, true statements can be made to serve the cause of misrepresentation. Thus, Elder Packer's criticism is grounded not in a desire to "suppress" the truth, but an insistence that proximal truth telling not distort the broader, over-arching truths of Church history. Elder Packer's claim that "some facts are not very useful," has come in for particular ridicule. However, this statement is virtually self-evident. Facts about the price of rice during Ming Dynasty China surely is not very useful for teaching Church history. Unsubstantiated gossip by Joseph Smith's neighbors may likewise be of little use in discussing the foundational events of the restoration, though it may illustrate attitudes toward the Smith family.[11] For any truth to be useful for teaching any subject, it must be verifiable, and one must have the time, ability, and audience preparation to allow adequate contextualization. Since all class time is limited, any subject will have true matters related to it which simply cannotor should notbe mentioned to avoid either leaving a misleading impression that cannot be dispelled without further work or ignoring material of equal truth and greater importance. For example, should an introductory physics class digress into adjusting for friction in all its calculations? Friction is certainly "true," and it is important. Indeed, one cannot do real-world physics without it. But, other vital concepts might be short-changed, ignored, or made confusing beyond recognition if friction is introduced every time it applies.[12] Elder Packer also points out that one leader told him "how grateful he is that a testimony that the past leaders of the Church were prophets of God was firmly fixed in his mind before he was exposed to some of the so-called facts that historians have put in their published writings."[13] And, given that the goal and mission of CES is to develop testimonies, is it any wonder that Elder Packer wants his audience to focus first on helping students gain that testimony? Elder Packer makes this point explicit:

164

That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faithparticularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faithplaces himself in great spiritual jeopardy.[14] Again, we note the emphasis that his audience consists of those "employed specifically to build faith." And, Elder Packer's opprobrium is directed at those "who delight...in pointing out the weakness or frailties of present or past leaders." These then, are not motivated solely by a desire to "tell the truth," but to use the truth to focus on only one facet of it: weakness, failure, or frailties. This is a bias and misrepresentationthough usually an unadmitted oneas much as an apologetic or unreservedly-celebratory history is. 67. The Church stifles honest scholarship of Mormonism, going as far as excommunicating people who find and publish history that contradicts the Church's narrative. Answer: This seems like a loaded statement with the phrase honest scholarship. Im sure the author of these 95 theses questions would have a different definition of that phrase than the Church or most pro-LDS apologists or scholars. The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakingssuch as those involving science and historythe Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position. Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research) can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to the attention of FAIR, they strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that FAIR, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.

Does the Church avoid mentioning the work of LDS apologists in any public forum sponsored by the Church?
No. For example, the work of pioneer apologist Hugh Nibley has been repeatedly cited even in general conference. The Church's official website also links to various apologetic individuals and groups. For example, their section on DNA and the Book of Mormon refers to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, and work by Dr. Daniel Peterson, Dr. John Butler, and Dr. Jeff Lindsay. FAIR's response to an anti-Mormon DVD was also given prominent attention at lds.org.

165

The September 6
As far as excommunicating people is concerned I assume this is in reference to the September 6. The September Six were six members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the LDS Church in September 1993, allegedly for publishing scholarly work on Mormonism or critiquing Church doctrine or leadership. The term "September Six" was coined by The Salt Lake Tribune and the term was used in the media and subsequent discussion. The LDS Church's action was referred to by some as evidence of an anti-intellectual posture on the part of LDS leadership. While the LDS Church sometimes announces when a prominent member has been excommunicated, LDS leaders' policy is to refuse to publicly discuss details about the reasons for any excommunication, even if details of the proceedings are made public by that person. Thus any statement as to why the person has been excommunicated would be a one sided argument. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the six members who excommunicated or disfellowshipped. Keep in mind that only 5 of the 6 were excommunicated and of those 5 two have since be re-baptized and are active members of the Church. Except for Lynne Kanavel Whitesides, all of the September Six were excommunicated; Whitesides was disfellowshipped, a lesser sanction that does not formally expel one from church membership. To date, three of the September Six have retained or regained church membership: Avraham Gileadi and Maxine Hanks, who were rebaptized, and Lynne Whitesides, who is still disfellowshipped.[citation needed] While the LDS Church sometimes announces when a prominent member has been excommunicated, LDS leaders' policy is to refuse to publicly discuss details about the reasons for any excommunication, even if details of the proceedings are made public by that person. Such disciplinary proceedings are typically undertaken locally, initiated by leaders at the ward or stake level, but at least one of the September Six has suggested his excommunications was orchestrated by higher-ranking LDS Church leaders. Procedures pertaining to the organization of these disciplinary councils is found in the sacred LDS text Doctrine and Covenants, Section 102, as well as in the Church's administrative Handbook of Instructions; when a member is brought into these councils they are notified beforehand by the local leaders of the Church in that area. Other than the summons sent to each of the six (specifying them as "contrary to the laws and order of the church"), the LDS Church's point of view is missing as to why each of the September Six was excommunicated. Based on their own comments and other sources, the following brief bios offer some perspective regarding the six individuals' discipline and their current relationship to Mormonism.

166

[edit] Short biographies of the six individuals

[edit] Lynne Kanavel Whitesides
Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. Whitesides was the first of the group to experience church discipline. She was disfellowshipped September 14, 1993. Though technically still a member, Whitesides claims that she "burst" out of the Church and her marriage in 1993, and now considers herself a practitioner of Native American philosophies. In 2005, Whitesides was named in a US district court legal action as manager of the peyote-distributing Oklevueha EarthWalks Native American Church.

[edit] Avraham Gileadi

Avraham Gileadi is a Hebrew scholar and literary analyst who is considered theologically conservative. He authored two books, one about Isaiah and one about the last days, which were published by LDS-owned Deseret Book. The second book, which took a more conservative interpretation of its subject than Mormon theology generally accepts, was later pulled from the shelves. The reasons for his excommunication on September 15 are unclear. According to Margaret Toscano, whose husband was among the September Six and who would also later be excommunicated, Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine." Gileadi has been re-baptized and is an active member of the church. He has since written works on Isaiah, including The Literary Message of Isaiah (2002) and Isaiah Decoded: Ascending the Ladder to Heaven (2002).

[edit] Paul Toscano

Paul Toscano is a Salt Lake City attorney who co-authored with Margaret Merrill Toscano a controversial book, Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology (1990), and, in 1992, co-founded The Mormon Alliance; he later wrote the book The Sanctity of Dissent (1994) and its sequel The Sacrament of Doubt (2007). He was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on September 19, 1993; the reasons for his excommunication, as reportedly given by church leaders, were apostasy and false teaching. According to Toscano, the actual reason was insubordination in refusing to curb his sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism

167

His wife Margaret faced her own ecclesiastical tribunal for her doctrinal and feminist views and was excommunicated on the 30th of November 2000. Technically, she was part of the September Six (or "seven") summoned in 1993, but ecclesiastical focus shifted to her husband so Margaret's discipline was delayed until 2000.

[edit] Maxine Hanks

Maxine Hanks is a feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism (1992). She was excommunicated September 19, 1993 (along with fellow contributor D. Michael Quinn). In February 2012, Hanks was re-baptized as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit] Lavina Fielding Anderson

Lavina Fielding Anderson is a feminist writer who edited the books Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective (1992), and Lucy's Book, the definitive edition of the Lucy Mack narrative. She is a former editor for the Ensign and served as editor for the Journal of Mormon History from 1991 until May 2009. She was excommunicated September 23. Anderson attends LDS church services as a non-member. She writes on Mormon issues, including editing the multi-volume Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, an ongoing collection of interviews with Mormons who believe they were unfairly disciplined by the Church.

[edit] D. Michael Quinn

D. Michael Quinn is a Mormon historian. Among other studies, he documented LDS Church-sanctioned polygamy from 1890 until 1904, after the 1890 Manifesto when the Church officially abandoned the practice. He also authored the 1987 book, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk magic and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and divining rods. He was excommunicated September 26. Quinn has since published several critical studies of Mormon hierarchy, including his two-volume work that starts with his dissertation The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and a companion volume The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. He also authored the 1996 book Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example, which argues that homosexuality was not uncommon among early Mormons, and was not seen as a serious sin or transgression. Despite his excommunication and critical writings, Quinn, who is openly homosexual, still considers himself to be a Latter-day Saint.

Other Dishonest Practices

168

68. The Church reports inflated and inaccurate membership numbers. Answer: At its base, this complaint is a variant of the appeal to the majority, or argumentum ad populum. In this fallacy, a belief is assumed to be false because few people hold it, or true because many people hold it. Critics might attempt to question LDS membership figures because they fear (rightly or otherwise) that the Church or a member is using this fallacy to argue that because of its relatively high growth rate, the Church is true. In either case, the truth or falsity of the Church does not change, regardless of whether only one person believes its tenets, or whether everyone does. Truth is not decided by vote or consensus. Critics claim that the Church reports raw membership numbers (i.e., the number of members "on the books," without regard for whether such members are active, believing, etc.) This is done, it is charged, for public relations purposes: larger numbers and higher rates of growth are supposed to encourage the faithful. The critics ignore that calculating membership in any organization or church can be fraught with inaccuracy. Individuals may be on the records of more than one denomination. It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the actual level of belief which a member may have: someone who is outwardly "active" in the faith could harbor doubts, while someone who has not attended church for years might be a believer who does not attend for other reasons. Critics ignore that claims about the Church's growth rate usually come from outside observers. The Church is not particularly concerned about making claims about its growth rate relative to other faiths: According to the National Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States. However, despite its increasing numbers, the Church cautions against overemphasis on growth statistics. The Church makes no statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination despite frequent news media comments to that effect. Such comparisons rarely take account of a multiplicity of complex factors, including activity rates and death rates, the methodology used in registering or counting members and what factors constitute membership. Growth rates also vary significantly across the world. Additionally, many other factors contribute to the strength of the Church, most especially the devotion and commitment of its members. 69. The 12th article of Faith states that "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." One way in which the Church ignores its own counsel is by baptizing illegal immigrants, and even giving them leadership callings.

169

Answer: On 17 March 2011, the Church's official website posted the following: A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune highlighted the fact that the Churchs Presiding Bishop, H. David Burton, attended the signing of a comprehensive set of immigration reform bills passed by the Utah legislature. The article said: One thing is clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has abandoned its claims to neutrality on these bills. This needs a clarification. While the Church does not endorse or oppose specific political parties, candidates or platforms, it has always reserved the right to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that have significant community or moral consequences. Immigration is such an issue. Before the 2011 Utah legislative session began, the Church announced its support for the Utah Compact. Our hope was that lawmakers would find solutions that encompassed principles important to Mormons and other people of goodwill: We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of neighbor includes all of Gods children, in all places, at all times. We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society. We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nations laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Our focus during the legislative session was to encourage laws that incorporated these principles. The Church did not dictate what kinds of bills should be proposed. Like many others on Capitol Hill, Church officials voiced their views and trusted the states elected officials to do their job. We consider the comprehensive package passed by lawmakers to be a responsible approach to a very complicated issue. Bishop Burton was invited, along with other community leaders, to witness the signing of a series of immigration bills by Utah Governor Gary Herbert and to show support for the diligent efforts of lawmakers in this area. We expect that our country will continue to struggle with this complicated issue, which the federal government will have to address. Our hope is that good people everywhere will strive for principle-based solutions that balance the rule of law with the need for compassion. The Church's most recent official statement on the matter reads: As a worldwide church dealing with many complex issues across the globe, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promotes broad, foundational principles that have worldwide application. The Church regards the declaration of

170

the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform. It is consistent with important principles for which we stand: We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of neighbor includes all of Gods children, in all places, at all times. We recognize an ever-present need to strengthen families. Families are meant to be together. Forced separation of working parents from their children weakens families and damages society. We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nations laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Public officials should create and administer laws that reflect the best of our aspirations as a just and caring society. Such laws will properly balance love for neighbors, family cohesion, and the observance of just and enforceable laws. 70. The Church has knowingly allowed and at times encouraged unethical missionary recruiting practices including baseball baptisms in the U.K. and soccer baptisms in Latin America. Answer: The idea behind this concern is that in the 1960s and 70s that many LDS leaders promoted a New Era of missionary work and referred to it as the Youth Baptism Program. It was during this time that missionaries employed questionable missionary tactics to get conversions. These included baptisms of youth by advising them that if they got baptized they could play on a church sponsored sports team (baseball, basketball or soccer). Other tactics included inviting youth who had never seen a beach or an ocean to the ocean and stating that they had to get baptized in order to go and using church owned missionary buses to make these trips. There is no doubt that during these timeframes that Mission Presidents and other Church leaders promoted missionary work and may have even pressured the missionaries to get a lot of baptisms by being focused mainly on numbers instead of the actual conversion. I have seen instances like this during my own mission but not to this degree. With that said the Church itself has never promoted these types of questionable missionary tactics and when leaders hear of these types of practices being done reprimands to some degree are usually in line. If these tactics were indeed practiced it would more than likely have been something that was promoted by the missionaries themselves. We have to remember we are dealing with 18-20 year olds here whos compassion for the work and in some cases the numbers may have got out control. Most if not all missions and missionaries set goals for monthly baptisms, daily contacts and discussions taught but if leadership places to much focus on these numbers instances like this are likely to happen. Church leaders do recognize that retention with converts is a huge problem and programs have been placed in order confront this such as giving new members a calling and responsibility and advising older members to be more open and friendly so that these new converts feel more welcomed.

171

71. Leaders moved forward with plans to build a nine-story addition to the Missionary Training Center, despite having promised that no MTC building would ever exceed four stories. (The Church eventually backed off of their plans due to negative press). Answer: The Churchs official statement was as follows "Church leaders have determined that, due to a number of complexities and concerns, we will not move forward with the nine-story building originally proposed," church spokesman Michael Purdy said in a news release. "Expansion of the MTC is necessary, but we are confident we can find a solution that builds upon the long-standing working relationship between the MTC, BYU, and the community at large. On January 31, 2013 the Church announced the following: Church leaders announced today that the Church-owned high school Benemerito de las Americas near Mexico City will become a training center for missionaries who will serve in Mexico and other counties of North, Central and South America. Church leaders made the decision after considering every immediate alternative that could alleviate the demand at the Churchs other missionary training centers around the world, including the MTC in Provo, Utah. With the announcement having been made it appears that the Church did indeed stick to its word and did not exceed the four stories limit in Provo for the MTC and found an alternative method to handle the influx of missionaries. As they also promised any future plans for the Provo, UT MTC will involve communication with the community. 72. Church leaders teach members to bear testimony in order to obtain one. This is a manipulative practice that leads to confirmation bias. Answer: This is in now way official Church Canon so any leaders teaching this would be only their opinion and nothing more than that. With that said the practice of bearing ones testimony can lead to a strengthened testimony assuming that person already has a testimony. If someone does have doubts or concerns and does take a leap of faith and bears their testimony this can be followed by feelings of the spirit that may assist that individual to realize they actually have more of a testimony that they may have originally thought. The best way to obtain a testimony was taught by a Book of Mormon prophet named Alma when he likened obtaining the faith required for a testimony to a seed. (Alma 32:27-43). In which he stated:

172

7 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselvesIt must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness. 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand. 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? 36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. 37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

173

38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. 40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life. 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and withapatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life. 42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst. 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

73. When asked whether Mormons believe that God was once a man, Gordon B. Hinckley dishonestly said "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." Answer: Critics claim that, in an effort to appear more "mainline" Christian, the Church is downplaying the importance of some doctrines taught late in Joseph Smith's lifetime. Prominent among these is the doctrine of human deification. To bolster their argument, critics usually quote from a 1997 Time magazine interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley. On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it. Critics have claimed that this means that President Hinckley has admitted to altering LDS doctrine, or discarding a teaching from the past. A combination of an ambiguous question, a complicated and little-understood doctrine, and TIME's incomplete representation of both the question and the answer contributed to the confusion.

174

It is amusing, though, to see anti-Mormons scramble to find faultas if President Hinckley would announce a change of doctrine in a magazine interview!

What was Gordon B. Hinckley's opinion about the King Follett Discourse?
In 1994, Gordon B. Hinckley emphasized the importance of the King Follett Discourse: On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Dont Drop the Ball, Ensign, Nov 1994, 46) Note that President Hinckley is talking about how man may become like God. Note also that he makes no comment about God once being a man. He does not comment on the statements made by Joseph Smith or Lorenzo Snow that God was once a man, but he does emphasize what these two men said about man becoming like God. This is an important distinction, since the questions asked of President Hinckley by the media were with respect to the question of God once being a man. Critics claim that Gordon B. Hinckley "lied publicly" by saying that he didn't think it was doctrine and didn't know if it was taught. President Hinckley was answering the question asked, which is if "God the Father was once a man as we were." The concept was taught by early Church leaders, but President Hinckley noted that it is not emphasized today.

TIMEs report
It is important to note thatTIME's report did not include the entire citation, and President Hinckley was not denying or downplaying Joseph Smith's statements in the King Follett Discourse. It is important to note which question was being asked. Lorenzo Snow's famous "couplet" on deification reads as follows: "As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be." There are two parts of the couplet:

As man is now, God once was As God is now, man may be.

175

President Hinckley was asked about the first part of the couplet, as the citation above demonstrates. (The second part of the couplet is typically the focus of LDS doctrine and practice, since it is something over which mortals have some degree of influence.) The exact question asked was: Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet. A: Yeah. Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

The complete response

President Hinckley's complete response was: A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [The portion in italics was omitted from TIME's reporting.] He did not deny or renounce the doctrine. Quite simply, President Hinckley asserted that:

we don't emphasize it. we don't tend to teach it much in public discourse. he doesn't know much about this topic, though he understands the philosophical underpinnings. no one else in the Church has much information on it either.

Ambiguity
The question is also somewhat ambiguous. TIME says they asked "whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man." But, the actual question was "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" {emphasis added) "Teaching" can be understood in at least two senses:

"doctrine"/"belief," in the sense of "does the church still hold this belief?" "something that is taught or preached," "actively taught"

The reporter seems to have meant the question in the first sense; President Hinckley seems to have responded in the second sensethe first part of his answer was "I don't

176

know that we teach it" (emphasis added). That is, it is not topic upon which the Church or its leaders spend much time, simply because very little is known about it. This misunderstanding of the sense it which "teach" is understood is a good example of the logical fallacy of amphibology at work. Furthermore, President Hinckley seems to have understood the question as he did because of the reporter's prelude to the question. The interviewer noted that "[t]his is something that Christian writers are always addressing." I suspect that he meant that "This is a point of LDS doctrine which always troubles non-LDS Christian authors, and they write a lot about it." President Hinckley's reply that "I don't know that we emphasize it" seems a clear response to this ideaother writers or other denominations may spend a lot of time on the issue, but we don't. Again, this shows that he understood "teaching" in the second sense, and not the first.

Why didn't he say more?

Finally, it should be remembered that this doctrine requires a great deal of "background" to understand even the little that the Church does know. Providing that background in an interview for the general public is virtually impossible. Anti-Mormon authors are always quick to pounce on "strange" things they can use to alienate other Christians from LDS theology; one might suspect that President Hinckley did not want to confuse matters by attempting what probably would have been an unsatisfactory explanation of the doctrine. Also the responses a reporter receives in an oral interview are, by the nature of the interview itself, unprepared and off-the-cuff. Frequently, interviewees will give hasty answers that reflect a misunderstanding of the question or are the result of not expecting certain questions in the first place. Had the reporter submitted his questions in writing and asked for written responses, it's quite likely that President Hinckley's response to this question would have been clearer.

President Hinckley responds

Clearly aware of the controversy that his comments had engendered, President Hinckley raised the subject in October 1997 General Conference: The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

177

President Hinckley quotes Lorenzo Snow

Finally, any claim that President Hinckley did not believe the King Follett Discourse or the Lorenzo Snow couplet has to deal with this contemporary public statement from a talk he gave in October 1994 General Conference: ...[T]he whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. Although he did not mention the other half of President Snow's statement ("As man is, God once was"), it's quite clear from the context that President Hinckley was aware of and agreed with it.

Violent History
74. Brigham Young and other Church leaders taught that some sins were so serious that they were beyond the reach of Christ's atonement. These sins, Young taught, could only be atoned for by literally spilling the blood of the sinner upon the earth. Answer: Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly. The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday: In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives. However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-

178

encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people. Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from antiMormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as The Destroying Angels of Mormondom[4] and Abominations of Mormonism Exposed. The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part: Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury. We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed. 75. In the past, the Church tried to deny Young's violent teaching. Now, most leaders admit that it was taught but denounce it as a false doctrine. Answer: As one historian noted, That the doctrine [of blood atonement] was preached by high officials is a matter of record; the intent of the sermons became a matter of conjecture; and the results therefrom set vivid imaginations working overtime. Blood fairly flowed through the writing of such men as Beadle in Life in Utah or the Mysteries of Mormonism and Polygamy, in Linn's The Story of Mormonism, and even Stenhouse's anonymous chapter on Reformation and Blood Atonement in his Rocky Mountain Saints. Numerous killings, including the Mountain Meadows massacre, were credited as the fruits of the doctrine.... Omitted from quotations used by the anti-Mormons were restraining clauses such as follow from Brigham Young:

179

. . . The time has been in Israel under the law of God that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. The doctrine of blood atonement which involved concern for the salvation of those to be subjected to it, could have little meaning in the [p.62] Mountain Meadows massacre, or any other of the murders laid unproved on the Mormon threshold (emphasis added).

Brigham Young's preaching style

Furthermore, critics have often misunderstood or misrepresented Brigham Young's (and others LDS preachers') preaching style, seeing them in ways differently than the Saints of the day did: There grew between the Mormon leader and his congregation a bond that permitted...irreverence [toward Brigham personally]. Brigham cast himself as the Saints' gruff but loving father, alternately scolding and befriending his flock. As lawgiver, he felt he should preach without compromise. "I will tell you what this people need, with regard to preaching," he said. "You need, figuratively, to have it rain pitchforks, tines downwards.... Instead of the smooth, beautiful, sweet, still, silk-velvet-lipped preaching, you should have sermons like peals of thunder." True to his word, Brigham gave saints and sinners pitchforks aplenty. The latter might be especially hard hit if guilty of malicious anti-Mormonism.... But his outbursts were the exception rather than the rule, and even when thundering he often softened his blows with humor....He conjectured that some women's dresses might conceal a six-horse team, with "a dozen dogs under the wagon."....Far from rankling under his thrusts, the Mormon membership came to tolerate, expect, and even enjoy the show.... One did not have to go far to find the keys to his speaking popularity. For one thing, his audience sensed that behind his strong words lay a genuine concern". my heart yearns over [the Saints]... with all the emotions of tenderness, so that I could weep like a child," he said, but I am careful to keep my tears to myself." He assured his people that he never intended malice. "There is not a soul I chasten but what I feel as though I could take them and put them in my bosom and carry them with me day by day." Brigham believed that his strong words had not separated him from his flock. "Although I may get up here and cuff... [the people] about, chastising them for their forgetfulness, their weakness and follies, yet I have not seen a moment when they did not love me The reason is, because I love them so well." He had rebuked with caution, he thought, employing a primary rule: "When you have the chastening rod in your hands, ask God to give you wisdom to use it, that you may not use it to the destruction of an individual, but to his salvation."...

180

The Saints also understood that there was little bite to his celebrated bark. Young admitted as much. "I have had some people ask me how I manage and control the people," he once remarked. "I do it by telling them the truth and letting them do just as they have a mind to."... Thus, Young's words and platform manner were often calculated for effect. For a typical Tabernacle congregation, he thought normal and respectable words were like "wind," going "into the ear and... [soon] forgotten," Therefore, he used stronger measures. "When you wish the people to feel what you say," he once said revealingly, "you have got to use language that they will remember, or else the ideas are lost to them. Consequently, in many instances we use language that we would rather not use. 76. The Church has never truthfully admitted to, or apologized for, its involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a tragedy in which 120 emigrants were brutally slaughtered by Mormons at the command of Church leadership. Answer: 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

181

continued to grow, and settlement expanded outward into present-day Idaho, Canada, Nevada, California, Arizona, Wyoming, and Northern Mexico. The Utah War In 1850, Utah was established as a U.S. territory, with Brigham Young as its first governor. Because of its territorial status, the federal government retained the right to appoint officials at various levels, in addition to actual federal offices 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 newscombined with the efforts to hide the movement of the troopsas 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 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

182

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 everincreasing 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.

183

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 animalsboth beasts of burden and any livestockcould 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 articles: Brigham Young ordered Mountain Meadows Massacre? and 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.

184

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 Haights plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until

185

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, Lees 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.[1] 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

186

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 menMormonswere attacking the emigrants was not well received. If any of the emigrants should escape to California and tell the story, prejudice against the Mormonsalready quite highwould 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.[2] 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

187

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

188

these things will be proven to heaven and earth. Perhaps I had not ought to enter into these things, but it came to me.[3] 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.[4] 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
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.

189

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.[5] 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 bestknown of the recent polemical accounts are: 1. Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 1.. This work attempts to argue that Brigham Young actually ordered the massacre of the Fancher Party.

190

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. 2. Sally Denton, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, (Secker & Warburg, 2003), 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. 3. Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (Anchor, 2004), 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!

191

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.[6]

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 completethe absolutetruth 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."[7] 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

192

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, lawabiding 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:[8] "The book is about a singular cause of male violence the perpetrators sense of threat to one of his most valued possessions, namely, his reputation for strength and toughness. In many of the worlds cultures, social status, economic wellbeing, 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 punishedwith 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,

193

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 punishedwith violence or even death. A particularly important kind of insult is one directed at female members of a mans 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. 77. Brigham Young wrote a letter to Bishop Warren Snow of Manti, approving of violent actions taken by Snow. The Bishop had castrated a young man who was courting a woman Snow wanted to take as his own plural wife. Answer: The castrated males were guilty of sexual assault or incest, not merely competing for a woman's affections. Despite these sexual crimes or perversions, Brigham and other Church leaders did not approve the action taken by the local members. Critics try to use these as an example of a "tip of the iceberg," problem, implying that many such extra-legal castrations occurred in Utah, and that the Church or its doctrines or leaders are somehow to blame. Such a characterization is unfair. Given that in the 19th century there was a common tendency among non-Mormons for "frontier justice" to be carried out extra-legally, especially in the case of sexual crimes, its occurrence in areas far from central Church control on one or two occasions is not particularly surprising.

194

Supporting Data
Critics (often relying on D. Michael's Quinn's treatment) have over-simplified and sensationalized this event. Critics claim that Bishop Warren S. Snow forcibly castrated twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis, whose crime was wanting to marry a young woman that was desired by an older man as a plural wife. Critics also claim that Brigham Young wrote in a letter his approval after the fact in 1857. The full story gives a somewhat different picture of these events. Warren Snow's biographer explains the matter thusly: 1. These events occurred during the Mormon Reformation, when inflammatory rhetoric called for harsh punishment for sin and crime. For Brigham the time for the actual implementation of such punishment was not yet, and partly hyperbole designed to stir a sinful population to improvement. Some listeners like Snow took things literally. 2. The rumor that Lewis was being punished for competing against an older polygamist is likely false. Kathryn Daynes gives another example where Brigham Young advised a young woman to marry a single, young man against her parents wishes that she marry a older polygamist. 3. Even if there is an element of truth in point #2, Lewis was being transported to the penitentiary for a sexual crime. He was not attacked simply for desiring a marriage. 4. While being transported at night, Snow and his gang secretly intercepted Lewis and carried out the castration. 5. Joseph Young (Brigham's brother) of the Presidents of the Seventy later learned about the incident and was incensed and entirely disapproved of it. 6. When Brigham Young heard about Lewis' sex crime and the punishment, he reiterated his stance that the time for such measures was still in the future, and not to be implemented in the here-and-now. 7. Brigham did not think Warren Snow did what was right, but felt Warren was trying to do right and that he should be sustained in his calling as Bishop. 8. Warren wanted Brigham to write a letter to members in Sanpete county to explain Warrens action. Brigham declined to do, indicating that that would make matters worse. Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it and it will soon die away amongst the people, Brigham counseled. 9. Snow's life and experience had given him a "violent and vengeful world view," which helps in understanding his motivation to attack and maim Lewis. 10. Federal marshals and judges were aware of the Lewis incident, and sought Snow's capture. However, they were eventually instructed by political leaders in Washington to let the matter drop. It was a Gentile political decision not to prosecute Snow for his actions.

195

A second such event?

One other event from journals in 1859 reports an unnamed bishop supposedly castrating someone because they wanted to marry their girlfriend. Snow is named by one source in the 1859 account; given Brigham's reaction to the first event, it seems unlikely that Snow would do the same thing again. His inclusion in an account of the second event may well be due to conflation, which may demonstrate how unusual such events were. It may be that rumor and frontier "urban legend" confused the Snow story with the passage of time. As a presiding Bishop, Snow became increasingly unpopular with members in his area, and by 1860 was accused of malfeasance with tithing funds. Snow admitted to mismanagement, but denied any attempt to willfully defraud the Church. (The same patience for Snow's weaknesses was also manifested in this case; he was forgiven by his congregation and the general authorities, even while they still insisted that he bore responsibility for his mismanagement.) The Lewis affair was much talked about among Snow's critics in 1860; it may be that the rumor mill was already in motion by 1859. There are no names given for the 1859 "event," and it is not known if this was just rumor, or who the participant(s) and victim were.

Hosea Stout diary

There is an account in Hosea Stout's diary which reads: Saturday 27 Feb. 1858: "This evening several persons disguised as Indians entered Henry Jones' house and dragged him out of bed with a whore and castrated him by a square & close amputation." Jones was later killed, and the anti-Mormon newspaper Valley Tan printed an affidavit from Nathaniel Case claiming that Jones' bishop had plotted his death with several other members. If true, Jones was not attacked for trying to marry someone, but for adultery with a prostitute. Reportedly, the murder of Jones and his mother sprang from accusations of incest. There is no evidence linking the attack on Jones to anyone but local members. Joseph Hancock was found guilty of second degree murder in 1890.

Treatment of Blacks, Women, and Homosexuals

78. Even though Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood, the Church institutionally denied individuals of African descent full blessings of membership for over 100 years. 196

Answer: The Churchs position is clearwe believe all people are Gods children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding. We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. "Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church," LDS Newsroom, Feb. 29, 2012. Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why He does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on His part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we do know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time. Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics. Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with. Members of the Church who were considered to be of African descent were restricted from holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood prior to 1978. The reason for the ban is not known. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. There is no known written revelation instituting the ban. In 1949, the First Presidency, led by President George Albert Smith, indicated that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord." The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949

197

The First Presidency went on to state that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate." Because of this, understanding the reason for the implementation of the priesthood ban is difficult. Several 19th and 20th century Church leaders (most notably Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen) offered rather specific opinions on what they believed was the purpose of the priesthood ban. Some believe that Church leaders implemented the ban in order to respond to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures persisted. Upon the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie stated, Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted. This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence. The sub-articles listed below explore various aspects of the priesthood ban in detail. 79. For many years, leaders of the Church taught that dark skin is a curse that is caused by inferiority and sub-par valiance in the pre-existence. Some leaders have even suggested that dark skinned "members of the Church are changing to whiteness and delightsomeness." Answer: As stated in the answer for the previous question (78). Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with. 80. Despite overwhelming evidence of racism in the early modern Church, leaders continue to claim that the reason for the priesthood ban is unknown. As such, the Church has never admitted error or apologized for excluding blacks from the priesthood.

198

Answer: As stated in the answer for question 78. For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding. We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. "Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church," LDS Newsroom, Feb. 29, 2012. Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why He does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on His part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we do know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time. Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics. 81. For many years, Church leaders taught that African Americans could only enter the Celestial Kingdom as servants. Answer: The reasoning behind this teaching is that for many years African Americans could not hold the priesthood (up until 1978). Along with not being able to hold the priesthood they could not be sealed in the temple. The temple sealing is one of the requirements for entering the celestial kingdom as more than just a servant. Now that African Americans can hold the priesthood they can be sealed in the temple and obtain all of the promised blessings that are part of that ordination including the possibility of obtaining the highest blessings of the Celestial Kingdom. 82. Unbeknownst to most members of the Church, early Latter-day Saint women were given a form of the priesthood, which they used to bless others by the laying on of hands. Despite this precedence, women in the Church today do not hold the priesthood. Answer: God is the Father of all humanity, and no onemale or femaleis more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to

199

seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it. Priesthood is Gods authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant (Matthew 20:27). The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture 2Ne 26:33. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them. Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession. [1] Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

Women Serving in the Church

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Churchs childrens organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not. Women sit as members on councils in local wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Churchs General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

200

Contrary to critics complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play no role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in childminding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion. Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

Priesthood and Temple Admission

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony. The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommendworthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a mans progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood. Certainly, the reason for this isnt because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What were lacking isnt the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ, those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely

201

parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked. 1Cor 12:22-24 One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be feeble and uncomely compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, mens spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the comely parts, the women of the Church, have no need. Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this tempering of the body of Christ a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior. If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesnt seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts. Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior. The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because were undeserving or unable but because, for us, its unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like theyre all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But theres actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we dont need glasses, we dont wear them. And if we, LDS women, dont need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we arent ordained to it.

202

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women arent serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as ordinance workers. Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.

Gifts of the Spirit

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Pauls teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said these signsshould follow all that believe including women who believe.

Motherhood
Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying. The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it near to divinity. However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as inherent and natural. However, its unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young. Whats more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, the spirit and the body are the soul of man (and woman). DC 88:15 By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well. Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,

203

"While we tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word mother has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so before she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began before we were born." Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood. The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible its actually quite commonplace for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ. The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to, cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of menthe heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that manhe is left unto himself. DC 121:37-38 In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on mens access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isnt to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. Its just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. DC 131:2-3 This has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together. Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives. From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24

204

This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh. Mark 10:8 The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained. Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as the prophetess. Isa 8:3. The use of the term here could be twofold. As Isaiahs female counterpart, its fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it. As it did for Isaiahs wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as leaders in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these womens influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the mens and the entire Church benefits. Richard G. Scott explained, as the Lord intendsa married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan. (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, November, 1996.) This oneness doesnt end when couples are physically separated. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration. Perhaps speaking of Relief Society presidents as the female analogs of males who preside in the priesthood misses an important point. A look at women serving in callings as companions to theirs husbands -- such as temple matrons and the wives of mission presidents -- may reveal the true pattern for amplifying women's leadership roles in the Church. Our influence grows as we and our husbands focus on strengthening and improving oneness in marriage relationships and serving together as a sealed, unified whole. Calling for expansions of the roles of women called to Church auxiliary organizations will probably not do as much to increase the influence of women in the Church as improving charity and equality within individual marriages could accomplish. And this is what Church leaders -- both male and female -- have been calling for all along. 83. The Church has a long history of discriminating against women and teaching that they are to be subordinate to men.

205

Answer: Any discriminating history is not the teachings of the church. Please refer to the previous question (82) in order to see that this just is not the case. Any discriminating teachings would be opinion of the individual giving that opinion and is not the official teachings of the Church. 84. In campaigning against marriage equality on Prop 8 in 2008, the Church violated requirements of tax exempt organizations. These actions contradict the charge to obey, honor, and sustain the law. Answer: The Church did not violate the requirements of tax a tax exempt organization. From the Internal Revenue Service: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public officePolitical campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues: Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. [4] According to Barry Lynn, executive director of "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" (and who, for the record, was "outraged by the Prop. 8 victory"): "They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption...While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives." [5] Nonprofit 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities. "The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollarsif not billionsto violate their tax-exempt status."

85. Many homosexual members feel guilt, depression, and shame as a result of the stiff anti-gay rhetoric taught by church leaders. Some have even been driven to suicide.

206

Answer: The Church does not reject those who experience same-sex attraction. It is possible to experience same-sex attraction and be a faithful member in full fellowship. If those feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered a sin in the same manner as when heterosexual feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship outside of marriage.

The Church's response

I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married. Gordon B. Hinckley, Why We Do Some of the Things We Do, Ensign, Nov 1999, 52. The Church distinguishes between having same-sex attraction versus acting upon those feelings. Elder Dallin Oaks notes the distinction between having feelings of same-sex attraction and acting upon those feelings, [W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, the Presidency added: Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. Dallin H. Oaks, Same-Gender Attraction, Ensign, Oct 1995, 7. The church recognizes that both being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction is a difficult circumstance. There are many instances where such members have heard more emphasis on the doctrine teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong and less emphasis on the doctrine that simply feeling same-sex attraction is only a temptation like many others and that feeling temptation is not a reason to feel guilt, shame, or alienation. There are also instances where family and friends of those with same-sex attraction have unkindly contributed to distress and depression. These things happen despite the church's deliberate work to teach the opposite. However, the existence of such events does not prove a link between the church's teaching and suicide, especially considering the church's efforts to put in place exactly the factors that have been shown to prevent suicide. If critics are truly worried that church members with same-sex attraction are susceptible to suicide, they should focus on the

207

church's statements of inclusion and compassion, of reaching out with love to all, of open communication and strong family bonds, and of the doctrine that those who suffer temptation need feel no shame or guilt and that those who have violated the standards set by the church are still loved and welcomed. This would help those at risk more, presumably, than does harping on the fictional "hatred" felt by the church toward those with same-sex attraction. 86. In the 1970's, LDS-owned Brigham Young University conducted electroshock therapy on gay students to try to make them straight. Answer: The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it. Like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU. Aversion therapy at BYU In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated. Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in previous studies at other institutions. Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis. Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for

208

McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation. Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation: Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction. Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation: It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them. Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women. Less frequently, medicines were administered to induce nausea while viewing the male pictures. Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBrides study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure. In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated. It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

209

Vomiting was not used McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. A FAIR podcast with Dr. Thorne revealed vomiting was never used in any of the therapy. Recently BYU made the following statement: The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[1] Most of the accusations of using vomiting come from a person who admits he never underwent therapy and from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition, which contains several false accusations as detailed here. Even those two accounts do line up with each other. No reliable sources have ever documented the use of vomiting at BYU. Participation was voluntary Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did. Did the Church perform aversion therapy? The Church has never conducted aversion therapy. It doesn't conduct psychological therapy of any type. The LDS Church is a church, not a medical institution. People who happen to be LDS or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a Mormon or for everything done by someone at BYU (not everyone at BYU is a Mormon). In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's samesex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

210

LDS Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy. The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote: "The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we dont accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we cant endorse every kind of technique thats been used." President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

Church's relationship to BYU

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests. As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[2] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice. In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the LDS Church.

211

Academic freedom at BYU

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the schools academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university. It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. Doctrine and Covenants 58:26 reads: For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said: I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]

Finances and Commercial Ventures

87. The Church refuses to disclose its finances, even to its tithe-paying members. This fact is even more discouraging given President Hinckley saying that financial "information belongs to those who made the contribution". Answer: Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are similar to other non-profit and religious organizations, where the principal source of funding comes from the donations of its members and the principal expense is in constructing and maintaining facilities. When the LDS Church takes in more donations than it pays out in period expenses, it uses the surplus to build a reserve for capital expenditures and for future years when period expenses may exceed donations. The LDS Church invests its reserve to maintain the principal and generate a reasonable return and directs its investments into incomeproducing assets that may help it in its mission, such as farmland- and communicationrelated companies (see below). The LDS Church has not publicly disclosed its financial statements in the United States since 1959. The LDS church does disclose its financials in the United Kingdom and Canada where it is required to do so by law. In the UK, these financials are audited by the UK office of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

212

The LDS Church maintains an internal audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that LDS Church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with LDS Church policy. In addition, the LDS Church engages a public accounting firm (currently Deloitte & Touche) to perform annual audits in the United States of its not-for-profit, for-profit, and some educational entities. 88. In Kirtland, Joseph Smith set up an illegal bank that ultimately failed and caused many of the saints to lose their money. There is also evidence showing that Joseph intentionally misrepresented the solvency of his institution. Answer: The Kirtland Safety Society was an unwise venture that was probably illegal, though legal counsel was divided on that matter at the time. The intent of Church leaders does not seem to have been to break the law, but to solve a vexing problem which thousands of others also faced. The failure of the bank was not due to mismanagement or a desire to enrich individuals, but due to the relatively fragile nature of the times financial infrastructure, and the economic conditions of 1837. The lack of a charter was the KSS's biggest weakness and the most ill-advised decision connected with it. Arguably, even had the bank possessed a charter, the outcome would have been little different, save that the Church leaders would have suffered fewer legal problems and harassment. The Kirtland Safety Society is an excellent example of why Latter-day Saints do not put their trust in men, but in God. It also demonstrates that the Saints will continue to support fallible men as prophets of God. 89. Despite being "lay clergy", mission presidents receive a significant amount of financial benefits from the Church. What is more disturbing, however, is that these leaders are explicitly told not to disclose information on funds received, even to tax advisers or the government. Answer: Critics claim that Mormonism prides itself in having unpaid clergy as one proof of the Church's truthfulness. They then point to the fact that some General Authorities, mission presidents, and others do, in fact, receive a living stipend while serving the Church, and point to this as evidence of the hypocrisy of the Church.

Church leaders are "called" by leaders in greater authority to occupy positions such as Bishop, Stake President, or Area Authority 70. One does not campaign for nor apply for such positions, and such an effort would undoubtedly be considered grounds for disqualifications to serve in such a significant role. Article of Faith 5 states: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof." (A+of+F 1:5) What is more, those who fill these positions are not compensated. No tithing funds provide for General Authorities' living stipends; such funds are drawn from business income earned by Church investments.

213

The Latter-day Saint practice of not paying our ecclesiastical leaders is not evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. As with other issues, the real question regarding the "truthfulness" of the Church hinges on the endowment of priesthood keys and authority on those who lead the Church. Temporal matters and how they are handled are governed by spiritual principles. Leaders who serve faithfully should be sustained regardless of their personal finances or needs for modest financial assistance.

The Church does not train or employ a professional clergy

There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy. Much of the day-to-day ministering that goes on in the Church takes place at the local, i.e., ward and/or stake level. Leaders at the local level -- that is, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, elders quorum presidents, and other leaders or auxiliary workers -- do not receive any kind of pay for the temporary, volunteer service they render. They likewise do not receive any kind of scholastic training to prepare them for their service.

Some General Authorities receive a modest living stipend

Some members of the Church are unaware that at least some General Authorities do receive a modest living stipend. While it is true that some Church leaders receive a living allowance while they serve in a given position, it cannot be said that the Church has a professional ministry in the traditional sense.

Receiving a living stipend does not qualify as priestcraft

Church members have a particular sensitivity to issues surrounding paid ministries particularly due to admonitions in the Book of Mormon relative to a practices known as priestcraft, which is "that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (see 2 Nephi 26:29). However, it should be noted that priestcraft as it has been defined is a condemnation of intent (to get gain and praise, and not for the welfare of Zion), and not about an individual receiving support.

Church employees are not compensated for ecclesiastical service

While a small number of Church members seek full-time teaching positions within the Church Education System as instructors, they are not compensated for ecclesiastical leadership or service. No tithing funds are used to pay Church employees. Their salaries come from church investments in companies that deal with real estate like Deseret Management Corporation and Deseret Ranches, communications (TV, radio, Internet) like Bonneville Communications and Deseret News, and property management and services like Zion's Securities Corporation and Temple Square Hospitality.

214

90. The Church spent billions of dollars for the recently completed City Creek Center. That the "only True and living Church on the face of the earth" would spend so much on a self-serving, for-profit venture is discouraging. Answer: Critics of the Church, most commonly ex-Mormons, claim that the Churchfunded redevelopment project in downtown Salt Lake City known as City Creek Center is funded using tithing. Critics claim that the City Creek project cost $5 Billion. These claims are ill-informed and simply false. The motivation for the Church's involvement in a project of this scope is described in an extensive interview with Presiding Bishop H. David Burton: "Mormon leaders and Salt Lake City work together to transform land," Deseret News (7 March 2010). The 5 billion dollar figure refers to the cost of the entire Salt Lake City downtown redevelopment project, referred to as "Downtown Rising." The City Creek Center cost $1.5 Billion. Other projects include the following:

Utah Performing Arts Center Frank E. Moss Federal Courthouse Six Gateway Questar Corporate Headquarters Jessie Eccles Quinney Center For Dance and Capitol Theatre Renovation Public Safety Building Public Market Convention Center Hotel Utah Theater City Creek Gallivan Plaza Harmons City Creek The Leonardo 222 South Main O.C. Tanner

Details about these projects may be viewed at Downtown Rising The Church has repeatedly stated that no tithing money is being used for construction of City Creek Center, including in the official Church magazine, the Ensign: The Church first announced three years ago it was planning to redevelop the downtown area to energize the economy of the city that houses its headquarters and to bolster the area near Temple Square. No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment. "Church Releases Plans for Downtown Salt Lake", Ensign, Dec. 2006, 7680.

215

The entire project is being financed through the church's commercial real estate arm, Property Reserve, Inc. These funds come through for-profit, tax-paying businesses owned by the Church. This Deseret News article has more information on the construction and financing: Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures. - Doug Smeath, "Downtown renovation project", Deseret News March 27, As can be seen the City Creek Development is not meant as a self serving, for profit venture but rather as a way to energize the economy of the city and redevelop and bolster the downtown area. 91. Even if no tithing funds were used for City Creek, as the Church claims, nearly all non-tithing funds in possession of the church are derived from tithing. Answers: As stated on the previous questions answer Ex-Mormon claims regarding the financing of City Creek often include complaints that tithing money that they paid while believing members were used for this project. Some even claim that this is the reason that they left the Church. Perhaps the issue underlying this complaint is a lack of trust in the leaders who run the Church. When the Presiding Bishop gives assurances that tithing monies were not used to finance the Property Reserve's business ventures, such assurances are satisfactory to believing members who aren't worried about the truthfulness of Church leaders' reports 92. The Church, which preaches and expects modesty in dress and abstinence from alcohol, is hypocritical in its advertising of the City Creek mall. Answer: Some have wondered if the mall will be required to adhere to LDS standards (e.g., no sale of alcohol, no Sunday openings). The City Creek development (which includes other establishments and housing in addition to the mall) is a joint venture between a real estate developer owned by the LDS church and another developer that is not affiliated with the church. It appears that alcohol will be served at some venues, and some venues will be open on Sundays, but that this will only be permitted at venues which are owned by the partner developer, NOT at the venues which are owned by the LDS church's development company

Defending the Faith

93. The Church relies on FAIR, FARMS and other apologists to defend the faith, but intentionally keeps some distance in order to maintain plausible deniability. Answer: This same question was answered above but I will repost it again. The Church and its leaders are rightly cautious about officially endorsing any material that has not 216

been approved by the correlation process of the Church. For most secular undertakings such as those involving science and historythe Church gives no official endorsement nor takes any official position. Apologists prefer it this way. For example, FAIR can and does make mistakes. If they are brought to our attention, we strive to correct them. But, the Church cannot be held responsible for any errors that we, as private members, might make. The Church and its leaders focus on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments. Thus it is not to maintain plausible deniability but because the Church focuses on preaching the gospel of Christ and administering the saving ordinances. 94. Church leaders often teach us that "warm feelings" are more valid in determining truth than actual, verifiable scholarship. Answer: This is most commonly used as a way to verify the truthfulness of Book of Mormon and other scriptures. A knowledge of the truth of the Book of Mormon is not something that is casually obtained. It is not enough to simply "ask God" without putting forth some effort. The Lord requires that we be sincere and that we actually study the contents of the book in order to know of its truthfulness. As Moroni says, we must have "real intent" while "having faith in Christ." Those that read the Book of Mormon solely for the purpose of finding flaws in order to tear it down do not have "real intent" to know of its veracity. Non-Mormons often claim that the Bible is the only true "yardstick" for determining truth. Ironically, the Bible refutes this, and clearly shows that the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Truth will lead us to all truth (John 14:26, John 15:26, 1 Jn 5:6). By claiming the Bible as the only source of truth, non-LDS are in fact minimizing the power of prayer and the role of the Holy Ghost. The LDS believe that the most significant verse of scripture, the scripture which has had the greatest impact on the history of the world is found in James 1:56: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. (James 1:5-6) This verse led a young man, Joseph Smith to follow that counselto offer a humble prayer of faith, being willing to accept the answer, no matter how difficult to accept that answer might be. That prayer led to the beginning of the restoration of the gospel.

217

Through Joseph Smith, the Lord has revealed other keys to prayer. One is that we are to "study it out" in our minds, then go before the Lord and ask for confirmation that our decision is correct. We are then instructed that if our decision is correct, we will feel the fruits of the Spirit, and if incorrect, we will have a "stupor of thought". Thus, serious seekers of truth cannot fully claim they have studied the Book of Mormon until they have read it in its entirety. The LDS encourage critical analysis of the Book of Mormon, specifically by prayerfully asking if anyone could have fabricated the book. Everyone who asks himself that question with every page will find, somewhere between the first page and the last, that the answer is 'no'that the Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is convincing evidence of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith. One must only turn to the pages of the Bible to find out what the fruits of the spirit (Holy Ghost) are. If you look in Galatians 5:22-23 which reads, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:against such there is not law. If we are to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit or fruits of that Holy Spirt to teach us all things than yes warm feelings would be considered more valid in determining truth than actual verifiable evidence. The verifiable evidence can only add to the testimony that was built upon faith of something previously unseen or unknown. 95. The Church ignores the issues and questions of sincere truth-seeking members of the Church. We earnestly petition the Church to provide official, honest, and complete responses to these issues. Answer: The Church and many of its associates including FAIR and FARMS (the Neal A Maxwell Institute) and many other groups have offered answers to many of the above noted questions. Any sincere truth seeking members of the Church will take the time to review all opinions and evidences and pray about the matter at hand. It will be through the fruits of the spirit that they will find the answers to the honest questions. Some answers may not come immediately or we may have to wait until the after life to get answers on the Lords dealings with his people. Other The above 95 theses questions were posted through the following website http://www.mormonreformation.blogspot.com/ which is a product of a website called mormonthink.com. Many of the creators, editors material producing members of Mormon Think claim to be members and are actually not members at all. FAIR has done an analysis of some of the claims of some of the members of Mormon Think and I have listed these below and advise people who refer to that website and those associated with it to do so with caution. I fantasize about a full-blown faith-destroying session. In real life, I did put the bishop in his place over polygamy. He kept saying I was wrong about Joseph having

218

other wives and being illegal and such. I proved him wrong and he ate crow. MormonThink's first managing editor, posting as "SpongeBob SquareGarments" on Recovery from Mormonism, Feb. 21, 2012 My dream and hope and aspiration: Members of the 1stP and the Q12 are walked out of the [Church Office Building] or their homes in handcuffs for tax evasion, racketeering, money-laundering,...Add the gender discrimination and fraud suits that many will pile onto the criminal charges, and I think 2013-14 just might be a banner moment. Maybe I'm dreaming. But some of us are working on it. MormonThink's second managing editor, posting as "Jesus Smith" on Recovery from Mormonism, December 26, 2012. I prophesy, in the honorable name of Jesus Smith, that 2013 will be the beginning of the 'Mormon Apocalypse'. The gig is up. MormonThink's third and current managing editor, posting as "anointed one" on Recovery from Mormonism, January 3, 2013. Am I still an active member of the LDS Church? Yes. I no longer believe it is the one, true church. I stay in primarily to help others just discovering the truth about Mormonism. We at MT think every member has the right to know about the true origins of Mormonism. Poster "mormonthink," 'I am the webmaster of MormonThink.com AMA', posted on ex-Mormon subreddit, January 28, 2012. MT is a lot more impartial than FAIR. The quotes they claim were said by MT are not anywhere on MT they were apparently taken from various message boards and from private email correspondence from individuals and not from the MT organization itself assuming they are even accurate quotes. Poster "mormonthink," 'MormonThink questions', posted on ex-Mormon subreddit, January 12, 2013

219

220