Summary of Topics
FAIR Apologetics
- FAIR biases
- This is the Show
Treasure Seeking
- Joseph Smith was involved in treasure-seeking
- D&C 111 is about treasure-seeking
Translation Issues
- Book of Mormon translation used seer stones instead of Urim & Thummim
- Book of Mormon translation used seer stones instead of gold plates
- Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon
- Did Joseph translate the fraudulent Kinderhook plates?
- JST was plagiarized from Adam Clarke’s Bible commentary
- Examples of reformed Egyptian currently used don’t match known documents
- Charles Anthon claims the characters are a fraud
- Charles Anthon was not an Egyptian expert
- The prophecy about Charles Anthon was written a year after the visit
- Selective quoting is used to hide the details of the Anthon visit
- Book of Abraham is not a translation
- Church was aware of book of Abraham translation issues in 1912
- Priesthood Ban came from book of Abraham
Changes to the Book of Mormon
- Summary of Significant Changes
- Grammatical Changes
- “God” Changed to “the Son of God”
- Benjamin changed to Mosiah
- Securing and Selling a Copyright to the Book of Mormon
Martyrdom of Joseph Smith
- Joseph was arrested for destroying a printing press and treason after declaring martial law
Temple Changes
- Summary of changes to the temple
- Masonry and the temple
- Temple not linked to ancient temples or priesthood
- Priesthood ban was also temple ban - effectively a ban on interracial marriage
- Oath of Vengeance in the temple
- Oath led to Mountain Meadows Massacre
- 50 years of no temple work for the dead & sealings of adoption
- Polyandry as a sealing ordinance
- Jane Elizabeth Manning James was sealed as an eternal servant
- Adam-God Theory taught in the temple
- Penalties removed from endowment
- A child molester directed temple movies
Priesthood
- Priesthood retroactively discussed
- Women Were Healers
- Priesthood & Temple Ban - Sao Paulo Brazil Temple
Brigham and Emma
- Brigham accused Emma of poisoning Joseph in a conference talk
Polygamy
- My opinion that God would not want an unequal system for His children
- D&C section 101 forbade polygamy
- Hyrum Requested D&C 132 Revelation
- D&C 132 Threatens Women with Destruction
- Happiness Letter was written to persuade Nancy Rigdon to marry Joseph
- D&C 132 Sunday School lesson skims over polygamy
- D&C 132 home lesson has more material – responsibility shifted to parents
- Fanny Alger, a young house servant, was Joseph’s first plural wife
- Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated for calling Joseph’s plural marriage a dirty affair
First Vision Accounts
- Four accounts of First Vision – 1832 account mentions “the Lord” only
- 1832 account removed from books and hidden in a safe until 1960s
- Silence on vision until 1831, basically unknown until 1839, seen as irrelevant
- Contemporary accounts of similar visions predate Joseph’s account
Church History Folklore
- Transfiguration of Brigham Young
- Miracle of the Gulls
- Sweetwater Rescue
- Crushing Fine China to Adorn the Temple
- Temple Work for Founding Fathers
Magical Objects
- Overview
- Coffin Canes
- Divining Rods
- The Silk Handkerchief
Names in the Book of Mormon
- Book of Mormon names of Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi
Lack of DNA Evidence
- DNA connects Native Americans to East Asians, not Israel
- Excommunication for scientists Simon Southerton and Thomas Marsh
- New claim that other people inhabited the Americas
- New claim that Native Americans are not Lamanites
Moon and Sun are Populated
- The Moon & Sun are Populated
Extermination Order
- Breakdown of Three Extermination Orders
Focus on the Living Prophet
- “Mormon” is a Victory for Satan
- 2015 Exclusion Policy
Word of Wisdom
- Joseph did not follow the Word of Wisdom
- The revelation came during the cholera pandemic and endangered followers
Adam-ondi-Ahman
- Adam-ondi-Ahman is downplayed as an irrelevant peripheral doctrine
Mound Builder Myth
- Popular myth in the 1800s about Israelites who predated the Native Americans
What I Wish I Had Known
In my journey of leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have been learning so much that I had not known as a member. Some of the material I have learned is now being taught by the church with more transparency than in the past. Other issues are still unknown to many active members.
I strongly believe in the principle of full disclosure. People should be making decisions with as much information as possible, not as much as another person or organization feels they should have. Ultimately, withholding information doesn’t end well. People often feel betrayed when they realize that information was withheld. This can lead to anger as people leave the church. As people leave, it tears friends and families apart. Withholding information may be a temporary win to gain a convert or keep a member, but an eventual loss.
Recently, I met with a leader who told me that there isn’t enough time to teach anything controversial at church. He also indicated that individual members don’t have time to do their own research. I have the time, so I’m happy to share my research.
I also feel like it is important for me to share my own story. I know the accusations of a member leaving – that they weren’t strong enough, want to sin, or are lazy. I have been told these insults directly. People may not understand that my journey out began when I dedicated myself to understanding doctrine more completely.
Often members believe there are no legitimate reasons for leaving the church. This puts the members and former members in opposition to each other and damage relationships. My greatest desire is for these damaged relationships to begin to heal and this starts with knowledge. My hope is that understanding can lead to greater compassion.
I am going to take some time to cover some details I wish I had known earlier in my life. My effort is to make each topic brief and readable. I will do my best to only share information from sources faithful to the church. I will sometimes give my perspective on the facts while always understanding that our perspectives and conclusions will likely be different. I encourage every reader to do their own research.
I will be using faithful church sources as much as possible in my research. These include:
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (institute manuals, church history topics, Now You Know video series, gospel topics essays etc.)
- Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)
- Joseph Smith Papers
- Deseret News
- BYU Religious Studies
- BYU Studies
- Saints Unscripted
Occasionally, I will cite Wikipedia or other websites. I do this only when necessary. Please take the time to read from the sources I provide as I am attempting to keep my posts brief.
I will not be presenting apologetic approaches for each of the issues. I will be extracting the foundation of the issue from the apologetic approach so the reader can understand the church’s foundational teaching and draw their own conclusion.
I realize that what I have to say will not be comfortable. I am often criticized for speaking up, but I feel that I have the right to speak just as much as a faithful member has the right to speak.
I hope you will stay with me through this journey – even if it is uncomfortable. I believe I have an important perspective to share. As always, I am happy to have further discussions online, on the phone, or in person.
**This project was originally written to have a topic per day posted on Facebook. This will be evident in how each entry reads. This was also written in two parts which is why there are two final letters. The sources for each entry are found at the bottom of the page.
FAIR Apologetics
Part 1
FAIR Biases
I would like to start by introducing FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research). I will be referencing FAIR frequently as they offer explanations for the difficulties in church history and doctrine. FAIR is seen by members as both faithful and scholarly so members frequently turn to them for answers. I will use FAIR as a source on almost every post as they often address the difficult issues with which the church is challenged.
According to Merriam-Webster, an apologist is, “Someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something that is typically controversial, unpopular, or subject to criticism.” Current church apologists contribute to FAIR, although other organizations were active in the past. This organization is said to be privately funded and separate from the church.
Kerry Muhlestein, a BYU professor and church apologist who often contributes to FAIR, has been honest about his approach to his work. At a FAIR conference, he stated:
I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. …There are those who will assume that it’s not true, and on these points we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But we will understand one another better when we understand how our beginning assumptions color the way we filter all of the evidence that we find.
I appreciate his honesty about how church apologists operate. Beginning with the conclusion already determined is not the approach a typical scholar would take when researching a topic. It’s important to understand FAIR’s bias as we read the work of the apologists.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/about
FAIR Apologetics
Part 2
FAIR - This is the Show
In 2020, FAIR released a series of videos titled This is the Show. They have since been removed from their website and YouTube. However, as the post-Mormon community analyzed each video as they were released, the videos still remain in this sphere. Unfortunately, the original videos are no longer available and those that do exist are interrupted with commentary. Even so, I will be including them in this post. I would encourage you to watch one or more of the videos.
I found the approach of This is the Show to be surprising to the point where I questioned if they were authentic. I wasn’t satisfied that these videos were real until I found information on the FAIR site claiming them as their own. I think FAIR was trying to reach a younger crowd through humor, but the videos were not well received. In the links below, I will include two links where FAIR takes ownership of the original This is the Show videos.
These series show church apologetics at its worst, which is likely why they have been removed. As such, I shared from a channel that is not a faithful source. I am including them here as they do touch on difficult topics and I think it is important in understanding who FAIR is as the source of church apologists.
I hope I have done an adequate job explaining why the videos I included come from a post-Mormon source.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/this-is-the-show-faq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qultxve4ZHw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7yWmJV6J-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtwlO8uabJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRO4PHehQQc
Treasure Seeking
Part 1
Treasures Seeking of Joseph Smith
Joseph Smith had a seer stone he found in a field. Joseph used his seer stones to make money by charging members of his community find lost treasure. The church acknowledges, “As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.”
In 1826, Joseph was sued for fraud as the practice of treasure digging was illegal. “His arrest appears to have been based on a statute in New York state law outlawing ‘pretending . . . to discover where lost goods may be found.’” You can read more about this trial on the church’s website from the links provided below.
FAIR tries to make two seemingly conflicting claims: Joseph wasn’t successful with using his stones for treasure digging but his stones were effective in receiving revelation.
Was not Joseph Smith a money digger? Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.
Many people believed that he could see things in the stone. There are testimonials that suggest that he could see things in the stone yet no record that he could find any treasure.
At the same time FAIR argues that the stones were useful in spiritual matters.
With regards to his success, it is, at the very least, plausible that he could see things in the stone that were invisible to the naked eye--just not treasure. There is, in fact, no recorded instance indicating that Joseph could see and locate treasure in the stones. There is, however, evidence that he could use the stone for more righteous purposes.
The stones can simultaneously work and not work: be unable to find treasure, but able to be used for higher purposes of receiving revelation.
There were multiple seer stones that Joseph used. The Urim and Thummim were taken by an angel and another was given to Oliver Cowdery. “Joseph's second (white) stone is also in the possession of the LDS First Presidency.”
Does it matter that Joseph was a treasure digger?
Does it make a difference if he did or did not find treasure using the seer stones?
Does the current leadership use the seer stone in their position to receive revelation?
Each person must ponder these questions for themselves.
Additionally, the seer stones were the primary method used for the translation of the gold plates – not the gold plates or the Urim and Thummim. These will be the topics of the next posts.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-trial?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/treasure-seeking?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1esI8cbCtc
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith%27s_use_of_seer_stones_as_a_youth
Treasure Seeking
Part 2
Treasure Seeking in D&C 111
Apologists claim that Joseph’s treasure digging was fruitless but prepared him to become a prophet. They also claim he ended treasure digging to instead pursue spiritual gains.
FAIR states that, “Beginning in 1823, after the claimed appearance of the angel Moroni, Joseph oriented himself away from treasure seeking.”
The church’s essay on Treasure Seeking claims that, “As Joseph prepared to translate the Book of Mormon, he was commanded to have nothing further to do with those who sought treasure and instead use his gift to translate and seek revelation.”
Joseph’s treasure digging did not end after 1823 as many believe. Interestingly, D&C 111 is about treasure seeking in Salem, Massachusetts in the year 1836. No treasure was found in this instance, a trend that followed Joseph through all his treasure-digging years.
The heading to D&C 111 reads as follows:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. At this time the leaders of the Church were heavily in debt due to their labors in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim, along with preaching the gospel. The brethren transacted several items of Church business and did some preaching. When it became apparent that no money was to be forthcoming, they returned to Kirtland. Several of the factors prominent in the background are reflected in the wording of this revelation.
Members sometimes claim that the treasure in these verses refers to the people who would later join the church. However, verses 4 and 5 specifically refer to silver and gold:
4 And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours.
5 Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.
B.H. Roberts gives further information on the search for treasure recorded in D&C 111.
There came to Kirtland a brother by the name of Burgess who stated that he had knowledge of a large amount of money secreted in the cellar of a certain house in Salem, Massachusetts, which had belonged to a widow (then deceased), and thought he was the only person who had knowledge of it, or of the location of the house. The brethren accepting the representations of Burgess as true made the journey to Salem to secure, if possible, the treasure. Burgess, according to Robinson, met the brethren in Salem, but claimed that time had wrought such changes in the town that he could not for a certainty point out the house “and soon left.”
It is clear that the treasure seeking did not end in 1823 through the verses found in D&C 111. In addition, Joseph was taken to court in 1826 for treasure digging.
Treasure seeking followed Joseph into his years as a prophet as recorded in D&C 111. As was the trend in his youth, no treasure was found.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/treasure-seeking?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-1826-trial?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/111?lang=eng
https://rsc.byu.edu/you-shall-have-my-word/treasures-witches-ancient-inhabitants-dc-111
Translation Issues
Part 1
Translation Used Seer Stone not Urim and Thummim
I was taught that the Urim and Thummim were contained with the gold plates. The Urim and Thummim were to be used for the translation of the gold plates. What I didn’t know was that Joseph didn’t actually use the Urim and Thummim. Rather, he used the seer stone that he found years earlier.
The church addresses this in an essay on the translation of the Book of Mormon:
According to witnesses of the translation, when Joseph looked into the instruments, the words of scripture appeared in English. One instrument, called in the Book of Mormon the “interpreters,” is better known to Latter-day Saints today as the “Urim and Thummim.” Joseph found the interpreters buried in the hill with the plates. Those who saw the interpreters described them as a clear pair of stones bound together with a metal rim. The Book of Mormon referred to this instrument, together with its breastplate, as a device “kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” and “handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages.”
The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.
Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters.
While the Urim and Thummim were included with the gold plates as interpreters they were not used by Joseph. The seer stone Joseph already had in his possession and had used to unsuccessfully search for lost treasure was the primary mechanism for translation.
If Joseph could use the stone he found in the field, then why was there an additional device “’kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord’ and ‘handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages?’”
Why were we taught that he used the Urim and Thummim and not a stone he found years earlier?
In addition, the gold plates were not part of the translation process. I will talk about this in the next post.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng#lds
3:30 mark
Translation Issues
Part 2
Translation Used Seer Stones Instead of Gold Plates
I grew up with a standard picture of Joseph Smith translating the gold plates in my mind. In this picture, he was sitting at a table with the plates open in front of him as he translated the text into English. I was surprised to learn that this picture and accompanying narrative is not accurate. Instead, the plates were often wrapped up or not present at all. Joseph instead used seer stones in a hat to provide the words.
The church released a video in the Now You Know series about the seer stones. The link is found in the comments. I encourage you to watch this video.
Richard Bushman, one of the leading church historians who is over the Joseph Smith Papers Project, gave further insight on a FAIR podcast. Richard Bushman is a faithful church member who is well known for his book on Joseph Smith titled Rough Stone Rolling. The quote begins 48 minutes into the podcast.
I will begin by saying that we still have pictures on our Ward bulletin boards of Joseph Smith with the Gold Plates in front of him. That has become an irksome point and I think it is something the church should pay attention to. Because anyone who studies the history knows that is not what happened. There is no church historian who says that is what happened and yet it is being propagated by the church and it feeds into the notion that the church is trying to cover up embarrassing episodes and is sort of prettifying its own history.
So, I think we ought to just stop that immediately. I am not sure we need a lot of pictures in our chapels of Joseph looking into his hat, but we certainly should tell our children that is how it worked... It's weird. It's a weird picture. It implies it's like darkening a room when we show slides. It implies that there is an image appearing in that stone and the light would make it more difficult to see that image. So, that implies a translation that's a reading and so gives us a little clue about the whole translation process. It also raises the strange question, 'What in the world are the plates for? Why do we need them on the table if they are just wrapped up into a cloth while he looks into a seer stone?
Richard Bushman questioned the need for gold plates when the plates were not actually used. It seems that most scholars and apologists agree that the plates were not used in the translation process. I included a link to a Saints Unscripted apologist video offering their explanation for the other reasons to require the plates.
Why is Joseph depicted as using the plates as part of the translation process if this is not what happened?
Will we replace these pictures with Joseph looking in a hat?
Should incorrect pictures be removed as soon as possible to show the correct narrative?
How is this process being taught today at church?
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2010/10/12/fair-podcast-episode-3-richard-l-bushman-p-1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZAmqah-ZPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1esI8cbCtc
3:30 mark
Translation Issues
Part 3
Anachronisms in Book of Mormon
According to an article written by Brant A. Gardner and published by BYU,
An anachronism is something that appears in a text prior to the time that it could have been present. When a clear anachronism is found in any document claiming to be an original historical record, it immediately marks the document as false.
There are many items mentioned in the Book of Mormon for which there is no evidence existed in the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans in the 1500s. The story of Ammon is an example of this. Ammon was watching the king’s flocks (sheep) when thieves come. He chopped their arms off with swords. He later prepared the horses and chariot for the king. The anachronisms in this story include: flocks (sheep), swords, horses, and chariots.
There are some who may argue that the flocks may have been a different animal than sheep. I included a few links to church sources that show them as sheep. The video about Ammon shows swords, sheep, and horses as we would see them today.
In the article, Gardner further states,
They have noted references to donkeys, bees, cattle, elephants, sheep, goats, silkworms, swine, wheat, and barley—all creatures and plants not associated with pre-Columbian America. Others identify biblical references that are either incorrect or would not have been available to the Nephites, such as the words of Malachi, New Testament text, Jerusalem as the site of Christ’s birth, and references to the Holy Ghost before the birth of Christ. In addition, there are coins, a compass, and cement, which are objects and substances not associated with that era in America. Taken together, the stack of supposed anachronisms can seem quite daunting and disastrous to a historical claim regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
All the items and texts listed in the quote above were common in the 1800s in America (except the elephant) but did not exist in America prior to European colonization. While both the horse and elephant (mammoth) existed here anciently, they had become extinct thousands of years prior to the time covered by the Book of Mormon. These anachronisms create a problem for those who see the Book of Mormon as a historical book.
There are some apologetic responses to these problems. The first explanation is that the anachronisms came as a result of translation and were not an issue in the original text.
Many have assumed that anachronisms in the Book of Mormon should similarly prove that it must be false, and it is a modern text only posing as an ancient one. That would be as true for the Book of Mormon as it is for any other text if the Book of Mormon claimed to be an ancient text, but it does not. It claims to be a translation of an ancient text, and that is a very important difference.
The authors are saying that Joseph used words he was familiar with to describe the unfamiliar things he saw or read. If the words had not been translated, they would have been appropriate for the time and place.
However, Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon is seen as nearly perfect. We are taught that it is the, “most correct of any book on earth.” Joseph Smith History 1:24 claims that Charles Anthon said, “The translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian.” One would think the most correct translations in the world would not lead to so many anachronisms.
There are two more problems with the translation argument. The first is the way the translation process worked. The seer stone provided the words Joseph read. The words were written by a scribe. An article published by BYU Religious Studies states,
Harris claimed that he knew how Joseph was translating. He explained that by the “aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [Martin], and when finished he would say, ‘Written,’ and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected.” Harris was apparently an active participant in the translation, and his audible exchanges with Joseph made it apparent to him that words were appearing on the seer stone or stones in the hat. Harris believed that this process eliminated the possibility of any volition on the part of Joseph Smith. Joseph did not determine what was included in the text of the Book of Mormon; the translation apparently came directly from that which appeared on the seer stones.
If each word appeared on a stone, would Joseph change it into something he understood? Or did the stone give Joseph the word he would understand even if it was not an accurate description?
This becomes the second issue as shown in Ether 9:17-19:
17 Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things;
18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.
19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
No one knows what cureloms and cumoms are that are mentioned in verse 19. The names were given to Joseph Smith with no explanation. In the same verse it mentions elephants, horses, and asses. The prior two verses mention silk, cattle, oxen, cows, and sheep. None of these were found in the Americas.
Why would some unknown animals be named uniquely and other animals have familiar names substituted?
It is also important to consider the anachronisms of omission. The book does not mention many of the animals or foods commonly found throughout North and South America. These would include squash, corn, beans, and cotton. Cacao was a very important part of life in ancient South America for thousands of years. Depending on where you believe the people of the Book of Mormon lived, animals such as turkeys, llamas, alpacas, iguanas, jaguars, guinea pigs, and monkeys would be relevant. None of these culturally significant plants or animals were mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
There are additional cultural and scriptural anachronisms which I will not cover at this time.
Saints Unscripted claims that many anachronisms have been partially or completely validated.
But since 1965, 122 anachronisms have been disproved, for a total of 143. Also, now a total of 27 are trending towards being debunked, leaving only 34 that are still unaccounted for, or about 17-percent. As it stands, about 83-percent of alleged anachronisms have either been debunked or are headed that way.
Saints Unscripted do not provide a list of the anachronisms or provide evidence for their claims so it is difficult to know how reliable this statement is.
How many anachronisms have to exist before we question a historical source? For example, if a new Shakespeare play were discovered and a character had a cell phone, would we believe it to be authentic? Is a single anachronism enough to question the historicity of a book? If not, how many need to exist?
Each reader needs to consider both sides of the issue of anachronisms and draw their own conclusion.
https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Anachronisms_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/book-mormon-coloring-book-ammon-bc27ba3?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/ammon-defending-kings-sheep-bab9bcb?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-03-0630-ammon-defends-the-kings-flocks-alma-17-18?lang=eng
https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/firsthand-witness-accounts-translation-process
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Principles_for_assessing_anachronisms
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/animals-in-the-book-of-mormon-challenges-and-perspectives/
Translation Issues
Part 4
Kinderhook Plates
In 1843, a group of men executed a plan to trick Joseph Smith. They had some plates created with markings that resembled ancient characters on them. These are often referred to as the Kinderhook Plates. Everyone in and out of the church agrees that the plates were a fraud.
There is a disagreement about whether or not Joseph Smith attempted to translate the fraudulent plates. In an article about the Kinderhook plates, the church makes the claim is made that, “No translated text resulted from this short-lived excitement,” and “Joseph evidently did not attempt a revelatory translation,” and “He quickly lost interest in them.”
On the other hand, “Joseph apparently examined the plates and, according to his clerk William Clayton, remarked that they contained ‘the history of … a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt.’”
FAIR sheds a little more light on what Joseph did with the plates:
However, Joseph Smith “translated” a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (GAEL). (The GAEL was composed in Kirtland about the time of the translation of the Book of Abraham.) Joseph found one of the most prominent characters on the plates to match a character on the second page of characters in the GAEL. Both were boat shaped. The GAEL interpretation of this boat-shaped character included everything that William Clayton said Joseph said.
It should be noted that there are irreconcilable issues with the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language that Joseph created. In the church’s essay on the Book of Abraham, this is said about the GAEL.
Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”…The relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood. Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.
If Joseph compared the markings to those on the Egyptian papyri and made a statement about the meaning, is that a translation?
Is it important that Joseph failed to recognize the plates as a fraud?
The reader should draw their own conclusion about whether or not Joseph translated the fraudulent Kinderhook plates.
I will include the same FAIR response video to the Kinderhook plates as I have previously shared. As a reminder, these videos have been removed and only exist as others provided commentary on them at the time they were posted.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kinderhook-plates?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRO4PHehQQc
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_are_the_Kinderhook_Plates%3F
Translation Issues
Part 5
Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)
As church members, we are taught that the Bible contains errors as a result of being translated many times by imperfect scholars. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) is said to correct many of those errors. This is one of the many translations performed by Joseph in his life. The church states:
Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
There is a problem with this narrative. Adam Clarke wrote a biblical commentary that was popular in the 1820s and 1830s. Smith had a copy of the book and borrowed directly from this source as he wrote the JST. FAIR describes findings published by several BYU researchers:
Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance.
…we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night. We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke.
FAIR and the contributing BYU researchers state that we must rethink what is meant by the word “translation” and begin to see Joseph’s academic research as a new interpretation of translation.
I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.
Are members today being taught that the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) was taken from another author or claimed as Joseph’s own revelation?
An excerpt from the gospel topic essay on the Book of Abraham indicates this is not being taught.
Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.
This statement has no mention of relying on an outside source for the writing of the JST. This is a false statement and the church knows it is inaccurate.
If the JST is “a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith” what does it mean much of it came from another author?
Why isn’t the accurate history of the JST being taught today?
As always, each person must do their own research and draw their own conclusion.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/joseph-smith-translation?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGz9vy3Y5wo
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
Translation Issues
Part 6
Reformed Egyptian Characters Not Used
The gold plates were said to be written in a language Joseph called reformed Egyptian. This language is unknown to anyone outside of the church. Mormon 9:32-34 indicates that no one knows or can interpret this language. This becomes relevant in the Charles Anthon visit discussed in future posts.
As the gold plates are not available to be analyzed, we have to rely on a few documents for examples of this language. One is the “Caractors” document believed to be written by John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Additionally, there are a few characters written in the transcript from the translation of the Book of Mormon. I will include links to these two transcripts as found in the Joseph Smith Papers.
The church has produced two videos in the Now You Know series, two of which include reformed Egyptian characters. Interestingly, none of the writing in the videos bears any similarities to the written examples of the language as written by Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams. It seems necessary to ask why the church did not include these examples.
There is no source provided to show where the characters used in the video came from. By using these characters, it is implied they came from the gold plates. However, as no other writing is available and the church does not cite a source, no one can determine the origin of the characters used in these videos.
Why would the church not replicate the only remaining examples of reformed Egyptian that exist and instead uses an unknown set of characters in their videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1esI8cbCtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUGSlra2Cg&list=PLAYgY8SPtEWE_fFTRP2TQmOXaQh1TeQ-p&index=6
Translation Issues
Part 7
Charles Anthon Visit – Both Sides’ Perspective
Dates of Visit & Date of Translation
Despite the assertion in Mormon 9:32-34 that no one would be able to translate the reformed Egyptian characters without the Urim and Thummim, an attempt was made to have them read and authenticated. This is well known in the church as the visit to Charles Anthon.
In February of 1828, Martin Harris took some characters copied from the plates to Charles Anthon. The encounter is described in Joseph Smith History as follows:
63 Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:
64 “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.
65 “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”
This is seen as fulfillment of a prophecy found in 2 Nephi 27:15-18:
15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.
16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God.
17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed.
18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it.
However, Charles Anthon gave multiple accounts which contradict the events of the meeting with Martin Harris. I have used quotes from Wikipedia as I cannot find church sources on the matter and a citation of a book no one owns is not helpful. In a future post, we will see portions of these same quotes used in an article posted by BYU Religious Studies. An original document is provided in the links below.
In 1834, Anthon stated in a letter that, "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. ... I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. ... [Harris] requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving." Anthon described the transcript in that letter as containing "(g)reek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways... arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks." Anthon stated in the letter that the story of his supposed authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that he had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Harris] of his money".
Anthon gave a second account in 1841 that contradicted his 1834 account as to whether he gave Harris a written opinion about the document: "[Harris] requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual 'behind the curtain' see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them." In the 1841 account, Anthon described the characters as "arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing .. (g)reek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters ... intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac."
Anthon provided a third account in an August 12, 1844 letter and indicated, referring to Harris, "I told the man at once that he was imposed upon and that the writing was mere trash." Anthon described the transcript as containing "in one or two parallel columns rude imitations of Hebrew and Greek characters together with various delineations of sun, moon, stars, &c.."
Critics will point out that each of Anthon’s accounts has variations and will use this to discredit Anthon. Applying the same logic that is used for the variations in the differing accounts of the First Vision, this is not a problem. “The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details.”
An article published by BYU acknowledges that Anthon gave a negative response to Martin Harris.
If you have ever wondered why Martin Harris would return from his visit with Charles Anthon and promptly commit to support the publication of the Book of Mormon, Professor Richard E. Bennett has produced an answer. Though Anthon in the end gave an entirely negative response to Martin and, in his later recollections of the event, warned Martin that he was being duped, the other messages Martin received on that same journey must have helped him decide that Joseph Smith was not trying to swindle him.
It is difficult to know what really happened during the visit to Charles Anthon. It does appear that the account recorded in the LDS scriptures is not supported by any outside sources. It is important that both Harris’s and Anthon’s accounts are told.
The reader should do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon_Transcript#cite_note-10
https://archive.org/details/mormonismunvaile00howe/page/270/mode/2up?view=theater
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&context=jbms&fbclid=IwAR3tpn_XG8gHQjIo8Rnx9rFUAQDNTAOGhuJt815irZ9QZadbJB5vMR7GkJI
Translation Issues
Part 8
Charles Anthon’s Expertise
Current church scholars are questioning Charles Anthon’s ability to provide any type of authentication for Egyptian characters. Egyptian had been unreadable until 1822 and people were just learning how to read the language when Martin Harris visited in 1828. In a 2015 lecture, Richard E. Bennett acknowledged Anthon was not an expert of any Middle Eastern knowledge, although he was an expert in Greek and Latin.
Anthon, however, though he was accomplished in the classic languages of Greek and Latin, likely knew little about Egyptian, Hebrew, or any other Middle Eastern language, Brother Bennett said. “By force of his own brusque personality, he claimed to know more in this area than he really did.”
It was likely Professor Samuel Latham Mitchell…who gave the most scholarly corroboration Harris was looking for that winter of 1828.
This is an interesting admission as the exchange as told in Joseph Smith History puts all credibility with Anthon and only mentions Mitchell briefly.
FAIR indicates that according to Joseph Smith, the visit with Charles Anthon was the only important meeting.
Accounts vary as to whether he saw Mitchill or Charles Anthon, another scholar, first, or if he saw Mitchill before and after Anthon, but the Mitchell episode was of slight importance. According to Harris, Mitchill encouraged him and referred him to Anthon, where a more important exchange took place.
It is uncertain if Charles Anthon was the qualified source the Joseph Smith History account and Joseph Smith claimed him to be. If Anthon was unqualified to read Egyptian, the importance of the event as told in the Joseph Smith History is called into question.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Anthon_transcript
Translation Issues
Part 9
Charles Anthon Visit – Dates of Visit & Date of Translation
Martin Harris visited Charles Anthon in February of 1828.
The spring and summer of 1829 were periods of much translation work with Joseph and Oliver. It was in June of 1829 that this prophecy, as contained in 2 Nephi 27:15-18, was written down. The visit fulfilling the prophecy had been fulfilled over a year earlier.
Nevertheless, Joseph and his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, moved forward, translating about 7 pages per day, beginning on April 7, 1829. By the middle of May, they were in 3 Nephi, where the Savior’s instructions on baptism prompted the restoration of the priesthood. By the end of May, they had finished translating the book through Moroni.
Joseph Smith translated the small plates of Nephi during the month of June. Near the end of the small plates, Joseph Smith translated a prophecy that three witnesses would see the plates
According to BYU Studies, the exact date of the translation of 2 Nephi 27 is likely to have been June 20, 1829.
The church states, “Joseph began translating again in 1829, and almost all of the present Book of Mormon text was translated during a three-month period between April and June of that year.”
The visit to Charles Anthon came over a year before the scriptural prophecy in 2 Nephi was written on paper.
Translation Issues
Part 10
Charles Anthon Visit – Selective Quoting
Richard E. Bennett wrote an essay about the Charles Anthon visit for the BYU Religious Studies Center. In the essay, he quotes Charles Anthon for a description of what the manuscript brought by Martin Harris looked like. Bennett pulled descriptions directly from two of Anthon’s quotes. The same sources state that what Anthon saw was “false,” “a hoax” and a “trick.” As Bennett clearly had access to enough of the quote to describe the manuscript, it is misleading to not even acknowledge the main point of Anthon’s statement. I have included the quotes and bolded the shared lines.
Richard E. Bennett’s Essay
B. H. Roberts has argued that at best the Community of Christ manuscript, containing only seven horizontal lines, was “a fragment” of what was submitted to Anthon and Mitchill and certainly not a translation manuscript in the true sense of the word. Other accounts speak of parallel columns and a second transcription bearing the translation. According to Charles Anthon, the document which he saw showed letters in “perpendicular columns” in the “Chinese mode of writing” which indicates vertical, not horizontal, columns. He also remembered that “the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac.” Such is lacking in the Community of Christ copy. If Anthon’s memory is correct, it is virtually impossible to argue with certainty that the Anthon transcript is the one he saw in 1828.
Charles Anthon’s Accounts
In 1834, Anthon stated in a letter that, "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. ... I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. ... [Harris] requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving." Anthon described the transcript in that letter as containing "(g)reek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways... arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks." Anthon stated in the letter that the story of his supposed authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that he had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Harris] of his money".
Anthon gave a second account in 1841 that contradicted his 1834 account as to whether he gave Harris a written opinion about the document: "[Harris] requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual 'behind the curtain' see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them." In the 1841 account, Anthon described the characters as "arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing .. (g)reek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters ... intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac."
To write an essay on a topic and leave out critical details is disingenuous at best. Bennett clearly had access to the entirety of the quotes but only used the lines which described the characters. Any negative perspective from Anthon was omitted from the article.
https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/martin-harriss-1828-visit-luther-bradish-charles-anthon-samuel-mitchill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon_Transcript#cite_note-10
Translation Issues
Part 11
Book of Abraham
As a child at church, I would spend a lot of time looking at the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. They were the only pictures in my scriptures and I liked to match up the descriptions to the details on the images. I had been taught that Joseph translated papyri he purchased and found them to be about Abraham.
The introduction to the book of Abraham states that it is, “A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”
What I was not told was that these were standard funerary texts with no connection to Abraham. The facsimiles purchased by Joseph had been damaged and he filled images filled in incorrectly. The text on the papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham and all the descriptions were incorrect. It is also evident that the church had known the issues since at least 1912. The church acknowledges this while also testifying that the Book of Abraham is scripture. Excerpts from the church’s gospel topic essay are found below:
Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records.
His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.” This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations.
The relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood. Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.
Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings.
None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham…
Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.
Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.
The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.
The church now states that the book of Abraham was not translated from the papyrus but that the papyrus was a catalyst for revelation. The church’s position on this is that the profound truths found in the Book of Abraham make it true. It is to be understood spiritually and not confirmed through the historical documents in Joseph’s possession or the pictures included in the scriptures.
Next, I will address some of the less beautiful truths found in these texts.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juOavkIqNng
Translation Issues
Part 12
When Translation Issues with the Book of Abraham Arise?
Problems with the book of Abraham were evident as early as 1912 when the New York Times printed an article detailing the problems with the translation.
According to an article posted by BYU Religious Studies, Church Historian B. H. Roberts was aware of the problems with the book of Abraham in 1912.
As B. H. Roberts once noted, “if Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught.” Roberts made this statement after Bishop Spalding, an Episcopal bishop in Salt Lake City, sent copies of the facsimiles to Egyptian scholars in 1912 to prove, once and for all, that the Prophet was a fraud. Even though Spalding exulted in the results of the experts, Roberts concluded, “‘Mormonism’ was not moved a peg by the critique.”
The church officially acknowledged the issues with the book of Abraham in the gospel topics essay titled “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” in 2014. For over 100 years, the church was aware of the inconsistencies but the membership of the church was not.
When did you learn about the issues with the book of Abraham?
http://www.utlm.org/other/nytimes1912papyrusarticle.pdf
https://www.kuer.org/religion/2014-07-09/lds-article-addresses-origin-of-book-of-abraham
https://rsc.byu.edu/no-weapon-shall-prosper/thoughts-book-abraham
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
Translation Issues
Part 13
Priesthood Ban Came from Teachings in Book of Abraham
As previously discussed, the book of Abraham does not relate to the papyrus Joseph Smith possessed. The truth claims lie on the profound truths contained in the book of Abraham. The gospel topic essay on the book of Abraham concludes with:
The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.
The introduction to the Pearl of Great price student manual applauds the great truths and clarifications found within:
The Pearl of Great Price … contains revelations on certain subjects superior to any other scriptures or writings on those subjects found in the world….gives us the most complete understanding found in any literature regarding man’s pre-mortal life and God’s purposes for the good of man….The Pearl of Great Price also helps to clarify some of the difficult passages in the other scriptures
I am not going to cover the scriptures in Abraham which are typically discussed, but rather a few that are ignored in modern days. Modern members often believe there is no scriptural basis for the priesthood ban. These scriptures were not ignored in the earlier days of the church, rather, they were significant as they justified the priesthood ban for black members. Many prophets built on these scriptures to support the 129-year priesthood ban for black members.
The idea of the curse of Cain and the curse of Canaan were modern American inventions to justify the enslavement for Africans. There is no Biblical curse of skin color. Instead, this was a popular idea preached in the 1700s and 1800s in America as it supported the use of slaves. No scripture outside of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price supports either of these curses being about skin color.
The heading to the church lesson on Official Declaration 2 states:
From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27.
First, we will look at where the book of Moses (which is part of the JST) clearly states that the mark of Cain was black skin. This is found in Moses 7:22.
And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Brigham Young, second president of the church, further added:
"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
Next, we will read Abraham 1:21-27 which connects the curse of Cain to the curse of Canaan.
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
This set of scriptures can be difficult to understand and may require several readings. John Taylor, third president of the church, clarified these scriptures by saying:
And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God…
Abraham 3:22 was also used to justify the priesthood ban:
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
Early leaders felt that if there were “noble and great ones” then there would also be less noble and great ones. Disobedience in the preexistence resulted in being born with dark skin which was a sign for priesthood denial on earth. George Albert Smith, eighth president of the church, clarified this by saying:
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, 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; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
An article published by BYU Religious Studies explains this belief more simply:
Some premortal spirits were noble and great (Abr. 3:22). (Thus some premortal spirits were less than noble and great. Without any injustice, these lesser spirits were sent to earth through the lineage of Cain to experience mortality, but without priesthood.)
Brigham Young, second president of the church, implemented the priesthood ban after Joseph’s death. Brigham’s beliefs echo what is written in the book of Abraham and book of Moses. The same BYU Religious Studies article describes Brigham’s beliefs as follows:
The first known direct statement by a Church President that blacks were denied the priesthood came from Brigham Young in February 1849 when he said of “the Africans”: “The curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . . . The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal responsibility for articulating the restriction: “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.”
The book of Abraham is seen as scripture because of the beautiful truths contained and what it teaches us about our relationship with God. These scriptures were also the justification for the ban on the priesthood for all members of African descent and supported the racism of the era. These scriptures were the foundation for all the racist doctrines taught by early prophets. They also perpetuated the myths of the curse of Cain and the curse of Canaan of dark skin. These verses are still canonized but are not often taught. The racist teachings of the past have been denounced.
Dark skin being a curse was the most hurtful anachronism contained in the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. This idea is a modern invention with no Biblical foundation.
Why would non-Biblical racist ideas commonly taught in the 1800s make their way into the book of Abraham and book of Moses?
Were these verses included to clarify truths taken from the Bible and teach us more about our relationship to God?
How could prophets who speak for God preach racist ideas as doctrine?
Were the prophets misled when they preached racist doctrines connected to the Pearl of Great Price?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/spencer-w-kimball-and-the-revelation-on-priesthood/
https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD22/JoD22_0304.pdf
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements
Changes to the Book of Mormon
Part 1
Summary of Significant Changes
While growing up in the church, I was told that the Book of Mormon was translated quickly and had not required edits or changes. This was one of the foundations of my testimony of the Book of Mormon and the church. Over the years, I learned there were some minor changes to punctuation and grammar. That seemed to make sense as I was still picturing the translation occurring with Joseph reading the characters and translating them. Some minor changes would be understandable when translating a book.
Even after I left the church, I still had not actually heard what the exact changes to the Book of Mormon had been made. When I learned about the actual translation process (reading the words off of a seer stone placed in a hat) I became curious and decided to find out what changes had been made.
The church claims that the Book of Mormon has only had changes to the grammar, punctuation, and human transcription and typesetting errors. According to an essay written by the church, the original manuscript was the final draft of the first edition. It does not mention changes after the first edition. This might lead the reader to believe changes did not occur later.
Unlike most dictated drafts, the original manuscript was considered by Joseph Smith to be, in substance, a final product.
With the exceptions of punctuation, formatting, other elements of typesetting, and minor adjustments required to correct copying and scribal errors, the dictation copy became the text of the first printed edition of the book.
In a more detailed article published by the church, more details about subsequent changes were provided.
Over the last 178 years, seven major editions of the Book of Mormon have been published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The purpose of each new edition is to eliminate the human errors that have occurred. This is all aimed at bringing the text into conformity with the message and meaning of the original manuscripts. The various editorial changes that have been made, such as typographical, grammatical and syntactical changes, have improved readability while leaving the doctrine unaltered.
Almost 4,000 editing corrections have been made to the Book of Mormon since the first publication in 1830. For example: the word which has been changed to who 891 times; was has been changed to were 162 times; and the word that has been deleted 188 times. Other examples involve mistakes in the transcription process. While Joseph Smith and a scribe were translating in the book of Alma, for instance, the scribe misheard Joseph and wrote the word whether instead of wither. This mistake, which was included in the first edition, changed the complexion of the sentence and caused confusion among readers. Each correction that has been made has aimed at aligning the text with the original translation.
The majority of these changes corrected spelling errors, grammatical mistakes and syntax confusion which stemmed from the inexperience of the transcribers, the intricate typesetting methods of the 19th century and the rapidity of the translation. While interrupted regularly by persecution and ministerial duties, Joseph Smith translated essentially eight pages of the Book of Mormon each day and completed the whole book in approximately 60 working days.
In 1837, seven years after 5,000 copies of the original version were printed, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery returned to the original manuscript to correct mistakes made during the transcription and printing processes. After a detailed comparison was made between the original manuscript and the 1830 edition, Joseph Smith authorized and made close to 1,000 changes before the printing of the 1837 edition.
The church implies that the only changes were to correct human errors, make minor grammatical changes, or add punctuation. They claim that these changes were made by Joseph after the first edition to better align the text with the manuscript. They fail to acknowledge the substantive changes to the text which were not found in the manuscript. In addition, there were more significant grammatical changes which are not addressed at all.
FAIR acknowledges that five critical changes were made which have not yet been mentioned in church-written material.
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" Alma 32:30-31
The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it.
In the articles written by the church, there is no mention of any of these five issues. The narrative presented by the church leads the readers to assume that none of the changes have any substance and were just made to correct errors or for clarification.
As previously discussed, the translation of the Book of Mormon was said to have been done by looking at a seer stone in a hat and reading the words directly off the stone. The scribe wrote the word down and read it back to Joseph.
Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.
As such, there is not really any room for changing the wording of the scripture. To make any changes to any verses, even if just for clarification, does not fit in with the translation process of reading words off of the seer stone.
To understand the significance of these changes, a deeper dive is necessary. We will discuss some of these changes in three separate posts.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
Changes to the Book of Mormon
Part 2
Grammatical Changes
The so-called bad grammar of the original text of the Book of Mormon turns out to be acceptable usage during the 1500s and 1600s, in the period that we call Early Modern English.
Royal Skousen
The church asserts that many of the changes to the Book of Mormon were simply grammatical. However, they do not mention what these changes actually were. In an article published by the Deseret News, some of the specific grammatical errors are addressed.
Since its first publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been mocked for what seems to be occasionally poor English and bad grammar. In its original version, for instance, Mosiah 10:15 spoke of people who “had arriven to the promised land”; “they was yet wroth,” reported 1 Nephi 4:4; “I have wrote this epistle,” said Giddianhi at 3 Nephi 3:5; “I was a going thither,” Amulek recalled at Alma 10:8; the original version of Helaman 7:8 and 13:37 referred to events “in them days”; and “they done all these things,” reported Ether 9:29.
Joseph Smith changed the grammar after the publication of the first edition in 1830 for the 1837 printing of the Book of Mormon. These changes were not errors made by scribes or the typesetters. Once again, if the words appeared on a stone and were read to a scribe, no room is given for changing the grammar after it was written. If a more traditional means of translation were used (reading words in one language and translating them to a second language), there would be a stronger argument for changing the grammar at a later date.
The same Deseret News article addresses these changes.
Virtually all, if not all, of these apparent errors have since been corrected. Indeed, many were corrected by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. But they can’t be altogether hidden, and critics have made light of them for nearly two centuries. A genuinely inspired text, those detractors sniff, would have used correct grammar.
Church apologists argue that the original grammar was seen as correct in the 1500s.
This can appear to be a pretty decisive and even embarrassing argument. But it’s not, and it needn’t be. In fact, the supposed grammatical errors may actually represent remarkable evidence for the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. What now seems bad grammar was once entirely acceptable English, even in highly educated circles — but in a period long before Smith.
Royal Skousen addresses this issue in an article published by BYU Studies:
It turns out that Grammatical Variation is more than simply a listing of the grammatical editing in the history of the Book of Mormon. This editing, as we all know, removed what many have considered an embarrassment, namely, the nonstandard English that is found throughout the original text. Over the years, from its initial publication in 1830 to the present day, the Book of Mormon’s original nonstandard language has been interpreted as representing Joseph Smith’s own American dialect and taken as a clear sign that Joseph was indeed the author of the words of the text. But the important finding of GV is that this conclusion is not necessarily so. The so-called bad grammar of the original text of the Book of Mormon turns out to be acceptable usage during the 1500s and 1600s, in the period that we call Early Modern English.
These articles argue that this grammar was appropriate in the 1500s and is not an embarrassing mistake made by Joseph. This is an interesting approach. It seems curious that an ancient text translated into the 1800s would use grammar from the 1500s just to be adjusted to the standard grammar of the 1800s immediately after publication.
These were not the only grammatical changes to the Book of Mormon. A church article summarizes additional more minor changes as follows:
Almost 4,000 editing corrections have been made to the Book of Mormon since the first publication in 1830. For example: the word which has been changed to who 891 times; was has been changed to were 162 times; and the word that has been deleted 188 times…
I encourage you to read the apologetic response to the grammatical changes in the Book of Mormon.
Does the method of translation leave room for changes to the Book of Mormon?
Do you think that God would provide grammar from the 1500s in his 1800s translation only to have Joseph immediately change it?
Each reader should decide for themselves.
The next posts will address additional changes.
https://www.deseret.com/2016/3/31/20585705/editing-out-the-bad-grammar-in-the-book-of-mormon
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-language-of-the-original-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/understanding-the-process-of-publishing-the-book-of-mormon
Changes to the Book of Mormon
Part 3
“God” Changed to “the Son of God”
After the printing of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith made changes to the subsequent editions. One of these changes is the same for four verses at the beginning of the book. In 1 Nephi, four verses were changed from reading as “God” by adding “the son of” in front of the title. I have provided each of the verses as they read today but put “the son of” in parentheses. Each of these verses would have read as if Jesus were God but it now reads as two separate beings.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of (the Son of) God, after the manner of the flesh.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even (the Son of) the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, (the Son of) the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.
40 … the Lamb of God is (the Son of) the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
Some people see these changes as an indication that the theology of Joseph Smith was changing over time. Instead of a trinitarian view, he was shifting towards separate beings. Others disagree and see the changes as clarification only. FAIR discusses this change and both perspectives around the change.
The earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God." Joseph Smith later changed some, but not all, of these to "the Son of God." It is claimed by some that this is evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity, claiming that Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine. However, this change was a deliberate editorial insertion by Joseph Smith to clarify four verses in 1 Nephi.
It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.
The terms "God," "Everlasting God," and "Eternal Father" are ambiguous since they could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, "Eternal Father" refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, Moroni 5:2, and Moroni 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39.
The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts.
FAIR argues that these changes were simply for clarification and that the change does not reflect a shifting theology. One of the reasons this is a problem for some people is that a similar change is seen in the accounts of the First Vision. The 1832 account only mentions “the Lord”. The 1835 account mentions two unnamed beings. The 1838 account is the first to mention God and Christ as the beings which appeared to Joseph. As the change adding “the Son of” was made for the 1837 edition, it does coincide with the retelling of the accounts of the First Vision.
FAIR also argues that if Joseph wanted to change the theology contained in the Book of Mormon, he would have changed all the ambiguous verses instead of changing only four verses at the beginning of the book. It is hard to say what Joseph would have done in the future as his life ended a few years later. It seems that Joseph was willing to make changes that did not align with the original manuscript and may have continued to do so in the future. Subsequent prophets did not make changes to the text of the Book of Mormon.
An article published in the Ensign indicates that changes were made by Joseph until 1842.
Both the 1840 and 1842 editions were carefully revised by Joseph Smith. By now, however, Oliver Cowdery had left the Church, taking the printer’s manuscript with him.
As late as 15 January 1842 Joseph Smith was still making corrections himself. He recorded: “I commenced reading the Book of Mormon, at page 54, … (the previous pages having been corrected), for the purpose of correcting the stereotype plates of some errors which escaped notice in the first edition.”
Interestingly, FAIR states that Oliver Cowdery may have been responsible for these particular changes.
Another reason "the Son of" was introduced into 1 Nephi 11:18 could have been to eliminate the Catholic-sounding phrase "the mother of God" that had been objected to by early critics of the Book of Mormon…. Since this criticism of the Book of Mormon was fresh on Oliver's mind, and he was involved in the editing of the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, it is possible that the change in 1 Nephi 11:18 was inserted at his prompting.
It is also concerning to suggest that Oliver could be responsible for this important change at all. If anyone could change the text, it would seem that it would be Joseph as the prophet. I had never been presented with a version of the translation of the Book of Mormon where it was open to input from Joseph’s peers.
Once again, the method of translation would make it seem that no one could make changes to the text. If the words were read directly from a seer stone, not much room is left for changes to be made to the text.
Given the method of translation, could any text be changed for clarification?
Does changing the scripture from “God” to “the Son of God” show a shifting theology or is it merely clarification?
Based on what you were taught, would Oliver Cowdery be able to suggest adding words to the verses for clarification?
It is up to each reader to decide.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
Changes to the Book of Mormon
Part 4
Benjamin changed to Mosiah
The final change to the Book of Mormon that I will be addressing is the two verses where the name was changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. King Benjamin’s death was recorded in Mosiah 6:5. These changes take place in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1. Both of these verses talked about King Benjamin as if he were alive after his death. Both verses were later changed to read as King Mosiah, a change which disagrees with the original manuscripts. FAIR addresses these two changes:
One of the most common criticisms of the Book of Mormon concerns changes that have occurred in the text over the years. And within this category of criticisms, one of the most interesting involves a textual change involving a proper name, where the name Benjamin was printed in the 1830 edition, but was changed to the name Mosiah in later editions. This actually occurs in two separate passages in the Book of Mormon.
At Mosiah 21:28 of the Book of Mormon, both the Printer’s Manuscript and the 1830 edition reads Benjamin, while all subsequent editions read Mosiah. Why was this change made, and was it warranted?
Similarly, at Ether 4:1 the Printer’s Manuscript and the 1830 edition, as well as many of the early editions, all read Benjamin, while the later editions, including the current edition, read Mosiah. Why was this change made, and is it related to the change in Mosiah 21:28?
Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly enough an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon? The last of these suggestions is probably the correct one, for the fact remains that the reading “king Benjamin” is an out-and-out error, because the king had been dead for some time.
A 1983 Ensign article also addressed this change to the Book of Mormon.
In Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1, the first edition had “Benjamin” where the name of Mosiah now appears. In fact, King Benjamin would not likely have still been living in the historical period described by these verses. In the 1837 edition, the Prophet Joseph made this correction.
We can only speculate about the cause of this error. Book of Mormon scholar Sidney B. Sperry has posed this interesting question: “Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated his translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon?
The importance of using this 1983 article as a source is to show that the church has been aware of these changes for the last four decades. While one Ensign article did address it long ago, the general church membership has largely remained unaware of these details. I was unable to find a more recent article that mentioned changes to the text.
The apologists argue that this change came from one of three scenarios: either Joseph made a mistake when translating, Mormon made a mistake when compiling the plates, or these chapters were written by other record keepers while Benjamin was still alive. Hugh Nibley asserts this could have been the case:
Sometimes the editors of later editions of the Book of Mormon have made “corrections” that were better left unmade. . . . Was it necessary to change the name of Benjamin (in the first edition) to Mosiah in later editions of Ether 4:1? Probably not, for though it is certain that Mosiah kept the records in question, it is by no means certain that his father, Benjamin, did not also have a share in keeping them. It was Benjamin who displayed the zeal of a life-long book lover in the keeping and studying of records; and after he handed over the throne to his son Mosiah he lived on and may well have spent many days among his beloved records. And among these records could have been the Jaredite plates, which were brought to Zarahemla early in the reign of Mosiah, when his father could still have been living (Mosiah 8:9-15).
No apologist has a suggestion that would reflect poorly on Joseph Smith or the validity of the gold plates. I would encourage the reader to dive into the FAIR apologetic response to this issue. Each person must decide if the name changes are an issue at all and if the apologists provide adequate explanations for these changes.
Is the name change from Benjamin to Mosiah significant to you?
How does this change fit into the translation method of reading words off of a seer stone?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
Changes to the Book of Mormon
Part 5
Securing and Selling a Copyright to the Book of Mormon
Funds were lacking during and after the printing of the Book of Mormon and Joseph needed to make some money to cover expenses. At Hyrum’s request, Joseph received a revelation telling him to “secure and “sell the copyright” to the Book of Mormon in Canada. A group of men went to Canada to sell the copyright but they were unsuccessful.
The church describes this more fully in an article titled Printing and Publishing the Book of Mormon.
Concerned about financing the church they would soon organize, Joseph and others looked for additional ways to raise funds from the Book of Mormon. Hyrum Smith suggested to Joseph they consider selling the rights to reproduce and distribute the Book of Mormon (in their words, “sell the copyright”) in Canada. Hiram Page, who assisted in the attempt, later said the brothers hoped the sale would be $8,000. Joseph received a revelation promising him the recent troubles would not thwart publication and granting him permission to sell the copyright in Canada “if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit & my word.” Agents representing Joseph Smith traveled to Kingston, Upper Canada, but returned without success.
Much of what is known about the copyright sale revelation is from Hiram Page, who was sent to Canada to negotiate the sale of the copyright. An article published by BYU Studies tells of Hiram’s account.
Hiram Page states, “Joseph heard that there was a chance to sell a copyright in Canada for any useful book that was used in the States. Joseph thought this would be a good opportunity to get a handsome sum of money which was to be (after the expenses were taken out) for the exclusive benefit of the Smith family and was to be at the disposal of Joseph.” Presumably, Page’s reference to money, after expenses, being intended for the “benefit” and “disposal” of the Prophet and his family included money needed to meet the costs incurred by the printing of the Book of Mormon in Palmyra.
The same BYU article gives David Whitmer’s account of the situation.
Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so.
The revelation was recently discovered which confirmed the accounts of this event. FAIR printed the text of the revelation:
...it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Pagee & 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{t\gotten} Behold I am God I have spoken it & it is expedient in me Wherefor I say unto you that ye shall go to Kingston 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 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{er\eir} salvation.
BYU Studies article asserts that the revelation did not mean Joseph was going to give up all his rights to the Book of Mormon, but rather that he was trying to sell his rights to distribute the book in Canada.
Some have portrayed the Prophet’s actions as an attempt to sell “the” copyright of the Book of Mormon. Of course, the revelation text speaks of securing “the” copyright in all the world and selling “a” copyright for the four provinces.
To the modern ear in a post–Berne Convention world, portraying the Prophet as having sought to “sell the copyright” gives the impression that the Prophet, in effect, was, so to speak, “throwing in the towel,” “selling the farm,” entirely “giving up,” ridding himself of all right to publish the book everywhere simply to obtain protection (and money) at least somewhere. But nothing could be further from the truth. First, of course, and most importantly, the revelation does not speak of selling “the” copyright. Indeed, in Joseph’s day, an author could not be said to sell “the” copyright in the same sense in which we speak of it today. Second, there is no evidence that in sending the emissaries to Canada the Prophet conveyed to Grandin any instruction to stop work.
Some say this is a failed revelation. FAIR does not believe this to be the case as the revelation said it would only be successful if the people did not harden their hearts. If the people on both sides of the deal failed to fulfill soften their hearts, the revelation could fail and still be true. Once again, this leaves no room for error on the part of Joseph who gave the revelation on request from Hyrum and all the responsibility lies on others.
Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smith’s own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a “failed revelation” is not warranted. The Lord’s 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.
David Whitmer stated that after the failure of the trip, Joseph indicated that the revelation was not from God. FAIR gives David’s full account:
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.
Others involved in the journey did not see the revelation as a failure.
There are more questions about this situation than there are answers.
Can Hyrum request revelation through Joseph?
Was it appropriate to try to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada?
Was this a failed revelation?
Was this revelation from the devil or the heart of man?
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Attempt_to_sell_the_Book_of_Mormon_copyright_in_Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWPVDwLuepc
Martyrdom of Joseph Smith
Part 1
Carthage Jail - June 1844 Charges Against Joseph Smith
Joseph Smith’s martyrdom is well-known in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was always taught that Joseph was killed after he was unjustly imprisoned in Carthage Jail. Without knowing the actual charges, I assumed people didn’t like Joseph’s religious beliefs and charges were fabricated against him. I was wrong.
In June 1844, a newspaper run by church dissenters called the Nauvoo Expositor, printed accusations against Joseph. This was the first and only edition of the newspaper printed before Joseph and the city council destroyed the printing press. In an article about the death of Joseph Smith, the church states that, “In Nauvoo, Illinois, conflict that had simmered for years came to a boil when Joseph and the city council ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press.”
FAIR states that, “Next, these enemies tried another approach. They acquired a printing press. It was partly to recruit members to their new church by exposing the ‘gross evils’ of the Smiths.” This statement implies that the claims in the paper were unfounded. What were these “gross evils” the newspaper printed?
The church states that, “Using inflammatory language, they voiced their discontent with the practice of plural marriage, Joseph Smith’s teachings on the nature of God from his recent King Follett sermon, and his mixing of religious and civic authority in Nauvoo.”
In an article on the death of Joseph Smith states that, “The Nauvoo Expositor was a newspaper published by apostate members of the Church who were opposed to plural marriage, a practice that had been growing in Nauvoo. The paper argued that Joseph Smith ‘had too much power, that polygamy was whoredom in disguise, and that the Nauvoo charter should be unconditionally repealed.’”
It is important to summarize the accusations against Joseph which were printed in the paper:
- Plural Marriage (this was true)
- King Follet sermon which taught humans can become like God (this was true)
- Mixing religious and civic authority was too dangerous (this was true)
- Nauvoo Charter should be repealed (an opinion)
If the paper printed accusations against Joseph which were true, why was the press ordered to be destroyed?
Joseph, as mayor along with the city council, ordered the printing press to be destroyed. In an essay on the Nauvoo Expositor, the church stated that,
With the sanction of the city council, Joseph Smith ordered a marshal, with the assistance of the Nauvoo Legion, to destroy the printing press. On Monday evening, June 10, the marshal and his posse of approximately 100 men removed the press, scattered the type, and burned the remaining copies of the newspaper.
As a member of the church, the only time I heard of printing presses being destroyed was when it happened to the church members. I was never taught that the saints destroyed the printing presses of their critics.
FAIR argues that it was a peaceful destruction. “Based upon legal advice and their understanding of the law in effect at that time, Joseph ordered the press to be suppressed. That was done very peaceably–unlike the riotous destruction of the Mormon press earlier in Missouri.” The description provided by the church did not make the event seem peaceful as FAIR stated.
Joseph was arrested for destroying the printing press on June 11 with the charge of inciting a riot. Tensions grew between members and non-members.
On June 18, Joseph declared martial law and called the Nauvoo Legion, an army of 5,000 men, to arms. For these actions, he was charged with treason. The church states that:
Hearing these threats, Joseph Smith was reluctant to go to trial in Carthage and sought resolution from nearby judges. He also declared martial law in Nauvoo to protect the residents in case of an attack. This act angered neighbors even further, and citizens charged him with treason.
FAIR claims that, “He declared martial law in Nauvoo, to preserve some sense of order–a logical but ultimately fatal step.”
“Joseph and Hyrum reported to Carthage, Illinois, where they were further charged with treason and placed in custody pending a trial.” Joseph was killed while awaiting trial in Carthage Jail.
In all, Joseph Smith was arrested and charged with very serious crimes. It is worth reading and understanding each of the charges against him. All charges are summarized on a Wikipedia page found in the comments below. The reader may disagree with some of the charges, but all should be aware of Joseph’s criminal history.
Was Joseph justified in ordering the destruction of the printing press?
Was Joseph justified in declaring martial law and activating the Nauvoo Legion?
Were the charges of inciting a riot and treason reasonable?
What had you been taught about Joseph Smith’s imprisonment in Carthage Jail?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/king-follett-discourse?lang=eng
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/museum/museum-treasures-powder-horn?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/nauvoo-expositor?lang=eng
https://books.google.com/books?id=pGi-iiz6juYC&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/deaths-of-joseph-and-hyrum-smith?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/missouri-extradition-attempts?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2006/legal-trials-of-the-prophet-joseph-smiths-life-in-court
** Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revere the temple as sacred and do not discuss the details of the ordinances. Out of respect to members, I will make every effort to do the same for current ordinances. However, as the church and FAIR discuss past practices which have been removed from the temple, I will follow their lead and do the same. I will discuss former beliefs, practices and teachings. I will not reveal any current covenants or ordinances.
Temple Changes
Part 1
Summary of Changes in Temple
I was taught that the temple ordinances I experienced had been performed in Solomon’s temple and handed down through the generations through Masons. Joseph Smith became a Mason and restored these ordinances, which had been corrupted, to their fulness.
Masonry’s connection to Solomon’s temple meant that the ordinances and rituals were set and that today’s were basically the same as they were thousands of years ago. These ordinances were eternal and unchanging. I was aware that minor changes were made over the years, but that nothing significant about the ordinances had change or could change in the future.
The church no longer claims that Masonry has a connection to the ancient temples. I will discuss Masonry it in more detail in the future. According to a church article on ordinances:
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles”
He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. . . .These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [Jesus Christ].
However, there have been extensive temple changes over the years. Some of these changes as well as other pertinent details around the temple include:
- Origin of Endowment: “Joseph Smith never described how the endowment came to be, and there is no recorded revelation outlining its content.”
- No Written Record: None of the ordinances were written down until 1877, over 30 years after the endowment was introduced.
- Priesthood Ban: The priesthood ban extended to a temple ban for both men and women of African descent. This was effectively a ban on interracial marriage.
- Oaths of Vengeance: “Prior to changes made in 1927, there was an oath to pray for the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophets.” This oath led to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
- Non-gendered Proxies: “Between 1840 and 1845, in the absence of more specific direction, men sometimes acted as proxies for women, and women for men. In 1845, after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young announced that from that time forward the Saints ‘never will see a man go forth to be baptized for a woman, nor a woman for a man.’”
- No Priesthood Given by Proxy: “In the early Church, they had a requirement that to be sealed you had to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood if you were a man. The problem was, until 1894, the Church did not practice proxy ordination to the priesthood for deceased men.” This meant that there were no sealings to deceased family members.
- Sealings of Adoption: “Joseph Smith was very anxious to have the Saints sealed—since few of the Church members had ancestors within the young Church, they often chose to seal themselves to prominent Church leaders such as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. The key understanding was that an unbroken chain of sealing was required, to bind the whole world into a single human family.”
- Polyandry: “Joseph Smith was married or sealed to between 11 to 14 women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.”
- Sealed as Servant (Slave): Jane Elizabeth Manning James was a black woman sealed as an eternal servant to the Smith family in 1894.
- Adam-God Theory: Brigham Young added a lecture at the veil for the endowment. In the lecture, he declared that Adam was God, also known as the Adam-God theory. It reads in part, “Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.” This lecture was later removed and future prophets have disavowed the Adam-God theory.
- Penalties: Penalties for breaking covenants (mimicking slitting your throat and disemboweling yourself) were removed in 1990.
- Healing Blessings: In the 1920s, the Church discontinued healing blessings which were performed in temples
- Pedophile Movie Director: The endowment videos used from 2013-2019 were directed by Sterling Gray Van Wagenen, a long-time pedophile. He had been disfellowshipped in the 1990s for molestation. When the news of his past molestations hit the news, the videos were removed and replaced with slide shows. More victims came forward. He is currently in prison.
Significant changes occurred the temple, especially over the first 50 years of temple work. Changes continue in modern times with the most recent occurring in 2019 and 2023. Some of the changes are insignificant and others are critical. I think it is fair to say many ordinances have been heavily “altered or changed” and are not the “same forever and ever” as Joseph taught.
I will develop many of these topics further in future posts.
Were any of these changes or issues new to you after reading this post?
Feel free to share any of your perspectives on these changes.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-8?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-temple-work?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/The_Law_of_Adoption
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/jane-elizabeth-manning-james?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/The_Law_of_Adoption
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/temple-endowment?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Oath_of_vengeance
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry/Knowledge_and_consent_of_living_husband
Temple Changes
Part 2
Masonry and Temple Endowment
The temple endowment ceremony has many strong similarities to Masonry. It is important to understand that Joseph Smith became a freemason in March 1842 and introduced the endowment in May 1842. “Joseph Smith never described how the endowment came to be, and there is no recorded revelation outlining its content.” The temple ceremony was not written until 1877. Little is known about how the origin of endowment other than its connection to Masonry.
I encourage you to watch the Now You Know video about Masonry. The link is provided in the comments.
FAIR explains the connection of the temple to Masonry as follows:
Joseph Smith joined the fraternity in March 1842 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Soon after he became a Mason, Joseph introduced the temple endowment. There are some similarities between Masonic ceremonies and the endowment, but there are also stark differences in their content and intent.
It is clear that Freemasonry and its traditions played a role in the development of the endowment ritual …For example the central story in the endowment is the allegory of Adam and Eve. In Masonry it is the story of the master builder of Solomon’s temple Hiram Abiff.
They acknowledged parallels between Masonic rituals and the endowment but concluded, based on their experience with both, that the ordinance was divinely restored.
Some Latter-day Saints point to similarities between the format and symbols of both the endowment and Masonic rituals and those of many ancient religious ceremonies as evidence that the endowment was a restoration of an ancient ordinance. Others note that the ideas and institutions in the culture that surrounded Joseph Smith frequently contributed to the process by which he obtained revelation. In any event, the endowment did not simply imitate the rituals of Freemasonry. Rather, Joseph’s encounter with Masonry evidently served as a catalyst for revelation.
The church and FAIR are clear about the connection between the temple endowment ceremony and Masonry.
Next we will address the lack of connection between Masonry and ancient temples.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/temple-endowment?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/masonry?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual
https://www.ldsliving.com/latter-day-saints-and-masons-5-fascinating-connections/s/80329
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNjnkwJgCg&t=171s
Temple Changes
Part 3
Masonry Not Linked to Ancient Temples
Many church members, including prophets, believe that Masonry originated in the ancient temples. The stone masons held onto the rituals and passed them down. They believe that over time, the truths were corrupted and were restored as the endowment. In an essay on Masonry, the church wrote:
One of these men, Heber C. Kimball, wrote of this experience to fellow Apostle Parley P. Pratt, who was on a mission in England. “We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood,” Kimball wrote of the endowment, noting that “there is a similarity of priesthood in masonry.” He told Pratt that Joseph believed Masonry was “taken from priesthood but has become degenerated.” Joseph Fielding, another endowed Latter-day Saint and a Mason, noted similarly in his journal that Masonry “seems to have been a Stepping Stone or Preparation for something else,” referring to the endowment.
FAIR quotes several early members and leaders as saying:
- “Willard Richards ‘Masonry had its origin in the Priesthood. A hint to the wise is sufficient.’”
- “Heber C. Kimball ‘There is a similarity of priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph [Smith] says Masonry was taken from priesthood.’”
- “Benjamin F. Johnson: Joseph Smith ‘told me Freemasonry, as at present, was the apostate endowments, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.’”
- “Joseph Fielding: ‘The LDS temple ordinances are ‘the true origin of Masonry.’”
- “Saints in Salt Lake City: ‘Masonry was originally of the church, and one of its favored institutions, to advance the members in their spiritual functions. It had become perverted from its designs.’”
- “Heber C. Kimball: ‘The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy. . . . They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.’”
- “Church Authorities: ‘The Mormon leaders have always asserted that Free-Masonry was a . . . degenerate representation of the order of the true priesthood.’”
However, the modern church acknowledges that there is no connection between Masonry and the ancient temples or the priesthood. An article published by FAIR clarifies this issue.
Masonry, while claiming a root in antiquity, can only be reliably traced to mediaeval stone tradesmen.
By Joseph Smith’s day, the boundaries between Masonry’s early European history and its founding myths and traditions had long since been blurred. The rituals of Freemasonry appear to have originated in early modern Europe.
There are no known Masonic documents before about 1400. The earliest records tell a story of Masonry originating during Old Testament times. The oldest surviving minutes of Masonic lodges date to about 1600 and indicate that the organization was primarily concerned with regulating the trade of stonemasonry. Later minutes show that the lodges were gradually overtaken by men who were not stonemasons. These members transformed the organization from a trade guild into a fraternity.
When Joseph was first trying to communicate the truths of the endowment he used a ritual form familiar to the saints of his day. That ritual form was, in some respects, Masonic in nature. As the saints lost their connection to Masonry the symbolic meaning of the penalties and other Masonic elements was lost as well. They became meaningless to all but a few Latter-day Saint Freemasons. So the penalties were removed along with other elements both Masonic and non-Masonic which no longer served the purpose of communicating the truths of the endowment.
Others note that the ideas and institutions in the culture that surrounded Joseph Smith frequently contributed to the process by which he obtained revelation. In any event, the endowment did not simply imitate the rituals of Freemasonry. Rather, Joseph’s encounter with Masonry evidently served as a catalyst for revelation.
…the ritual is not the endowment, but how the endowment is taught and presented. 'Endowment' means 'a gift,' and the gift being given is promises and blessings. The ritual is the wrapping paper: it is how the gift is presented to us. ...
An article in LDS Living explains the existence of the pagan Masonry ceremony in the temple by saying:
Joseph apparently saw rich symbolism in Masonry that could effectively be adapted to teach important new principles.… he saw Masonry, like Christendom, as possessing some important truths which could be beneficially extracted from what was otherwise an apostate institution.
It should also be noted that not all temple rituals have Masonic counterparts. Washing, anointing, vicarious work for the dead, and sealing, for example, have no equivalent in Masonic ritual, but they do have parallels to other ancient religious rituals.
Apologist Jeffrey M. Bradshaw wrote extensively on Masonry.
While the historic roots of the movement go back to at least the late 1300s…Despite Freemasonry’s relatively late origins, many of its teachings and ritual components draw on ideas from the Bible, early Christianity, and other ancient sources.
Latter-day Saints understand that the primary intent of temple ordinances is to teach and bless the participants, not to provide precise matches to texts, symbols, and modes of presentation from other times.
In other words, we might see the revelatory process, at least in some cases, not primarily as a “translation” of elements of Masonic ritual into Mormon temple ordinances, but rather as a “translation” of revealed truths — components of temple ordinances that Joseph Smith had previously encountered in his translation of the Bible and through his personal revelatory experiences — into words and actions that the Saints in Nauvoo could readily understand because their intuitions had already been primed by their exposure to the Bible and to Freemasonry.
It seems as though there is a disagreement. Early leaders believed Masonry is connected to the ancient priesthood and temple. However, today it is taught that Masonry was merely the catalyst for revelation. Masonry was only used as the members would have been familiar with it. It is only the “wrapping paper” through which the endowment is given.
If Masonry was only used as it was familiar to the members, I wonder what the ceremony would have been like if Joseph had other interests or had joined a different society. The entire process would be different than the one we know. It is impossible for a member to know which parts are Masonic and which parts are revealed truth as their unique parts are never explained.
Are you still being taught the connection between Masonry and the ancient temples? I have heard that this is still frequently the case.
Does Masonry’s lack of connection to any ancient rituals seem important to you?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/masonry?lang=eng
https://www.ldsliving.com/latter-day-saints-and-masons-5-fascinating-connections/s/80329
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Where_did_19th-Century_Latter-day_Saints_believe_that_Freemasonry_came_from%3F
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/freemasonry-and-the-origins-of-modern-temple-ordinances/
** Trigger Warning: Racist quotes from prophets
Temple Changes
Part 4
Priesthood Ban Included Temple Ban
Effectively a Ban on Interracial Marriage
While growing up, I was aware that black members were denied the priesthood for 129 years. This always bothered me but I really didn’t know much about it. However, part of my faith crisis was tied into learning how much larger the ban was than I had been taught.
As a member, I was not a woman who desired the priesthood. From my perspective, the holding priesthood meant having more work, being on display at church, and carrying the burden of giving blessings. I didn’t need or want any of that. After all, I didn’t hold the priesthood and I was still entitled to all the blessings of the church including the priesthood and the temple. Nothing was withheld from me. I think this is why the priesthood ban didn’t bother me as much as it should have.
The ban was so much more expansive than not having the right to the priesthood. In addition to the priesthood, the ban prohibited “black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.” This was a denial that carried into the eternities. However, prior to Joseph’s death, black members received both the priesthood and the temple blessings.
During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.
The ban on the priesthood and temples came after Joseph’s death and was put in place by Brigham Young.
For a believing member, the temple ordinances are the path back to heaven. A member cannot enter heaven without them. It is also the only path to having a family together forever. The temple ban effectively prevents mixed-race marriages. If a person has a trace of African descent, they cannot receive the ordinances to return to God. They cannot have their family sealed to them. Their spouse and children would be denied the same blessings. Even worse, their children would be forever known as less valiant and less deserving in the preexistence than others because of their skin color. The curse would follow your children, grandchildren, and so on indefinitely. To have children with a trace of African descent would affect their eternal lives.
The priesthood and temple ban effectively eliminated mixed-race marriages. Whether or not this was the intent of the ban, it was the outcome.
At least some leaders desired a ban on interracial marriages. In 1863 Brigham Young declared:
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.
FAIR explained this comment by saying:
President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.
We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.
The general culture and the ban on the priesthood and temple were effective at preventing these marriages for occurring. In addition, Brigham did not actually kill those who participated in interracial marriage as “he had more bark than he did bite.” The church continued to teach members to avoid marrying interracially even after the ban was lifted.
The priesthood ban was much more expansive than I had been taught. In a few days, we will also look at how the ban led to teachings that black members would only be in the celestial kingdom as servants and one temple sealing of servitude.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Is_interracial_marriage_prohibited_or_condemned_within_the_Church%3F#cite_note-5
Temple Changes
Part 5
Oath of Vengeance
I was surprised to learn that members of the church took an oath of vengeance in the temple from 1845 to 1927. This was hard for me to comprehend as I had always seen the temple as a place of love, peace, equality, and redemption for all. In addition, the gospel that I understood had taught me that no one was beyond the reach of Christ’s atonement and that no one should be punished for their parent’s sins.
I hesitated to share the oath, but as the church and FAIR refer to or quote former ordinances at times, I decided to include it even though the source is from Wikipedia. As the church records are unavailable, the wording is taken from several eyewitness accounts and there are slight variations. FAIR states:
Until 1927 the temple endowment very likely contained such an oath. The exact wording is not entirely clear, but it appears that it did not call on the Saints themselves to take vengeance on the United States, but that they would continue to pray that God himself might avenge the blood of the prophets.
Prior to changes made in 1927, there was an oath to pray for the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophets. In their sworn testimonies and temple exposes, apostates gave conflicting accounts on who was to do the actual avenging: the Lord or the Saints themselves.
The oath likely was similar to this:
Pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation.
FAIR indicates that there was also an earlier oath of vengeance:
The earliest known oath of vengeance in a Mormon temple appears to have been introduced by Joseph Smith spontaneously at the Kirtland dedication on March 30, 1836.
The seventies are at liberty to go to Zion if they please or go wheresoever they will and preach the gospel and let the redemption of Zion be our object, and strive to affect it by sending up all the strength of the Lords house whereever we find them, and I want to enter into the following covenant, that if any more of our brethren are slain or driven from their lands in Missouri by the mob that we will give ourselves no rest until we are avenged of our enimies to the uttermost, this covenant was sealed unanimously by a hosanna and Amen.
Temple prayer became a way of ritually memorializing Joseph Smith's martyrdom.
These oaths are in direct conflict with the second article of faith which says, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” If people are praying for vengeance upon the third and fourth generations of those who killed the prophets, that means the children are paying for the works of their parents. It also puts the people involved with Joseph’s death and their posterity beyond the reach of the atonement – which is taught to be infinite.
This oath of vengeance, which is in direct conflict with church doctrine, existed in the temple for almost 100 years.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Oath_of_vengeance
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/jdlconfession.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_vengeance#:~:text=In%20Mormonism%2C%20the%20oath%20of,who%20were%20assassinated%20in%201844.
**Trigger Warning: Violence and Murder
Temple Changes
Part 6
Mountain Meadows Massacre/Martyrdom of Parley P. Pratt/Oath of Vengeance/Mormon Reformation/Brigham Young
This is a long post, but it is important. I encourage you to read it through.
Members of the church attending the temple from 1845 to 1927 prayed to God to avenge the blood of their prophets. This included both Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt.
On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage jail. On May 13, 1857, Parley P. Pratt was killed in Arkansas. “Mormon leaders immediately proclaimed Pratt as another martyr, with Brigham Young stating, ‘Nothing has happened so hard to reconcile my mind to since the death of Joseph.’" These martyrdoms, especially Pratt’s recent death, likely played in role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre where 120 members of a wagon train from Arkansas were murdered.
In an article on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the church describes the event:
In September 1857, a branch of territorial militia in southern Utah composed entirely of Latter-day Saints, along with some American Indians they recruited, laid siege to a wagon train of emigrants traveling from Arkansas to California. The militiamen carried out a deliberate massacre, killing 120 men, women, and children in a valley known as Mountain Meadows. Only 17 small children—those believed to be too young to be able to tell what had happened there—were spared. This event is perhaps the most tragic episode in the history of the Church.
They lured the emigrants from their circled wagons with a false flag of truce and, aided by Paiute Indians they had recruited, slaughtered them. Between the first attack and the final slaughter, 120 were killed.
Two Latter-day Saints were eventually excommunicated from the Church for their participation, and a grand jury that included Latter-day Saints indicted nine men. Only one participant, John D. Lee, was convicted and executed for the crime, which fueled false allegations that the massacre had been ordered by Brigham Young.
Members of this wagon train were rumored to have been involved with the murders of Joseph and Parley. These rumors likely played a part in the decision to kill the members of the wagon train.
Weeks of frustration boiled over, and in the rising tension one emigrant man reportedly claimed he had a gun that killed Joseph Smith. Others threatened to join the incoming federal troops against the Saints.
It was in accordance with Mormon policy to hold every Arkansan accountable for Pratt's death, just as every Missourian was hated because of the expulsion of the church from that state.
Due to Pratt's personal popularity and his position in the Quorum of the Twelve, his murder was a significant blow to the Latter-day Saint community in the Rocky Mountains. Pratt's violent death may also have played a part in events leading up to the Mountain Meadows massacre a few months later. After the massacre, some Mormons circulated rumors that one or more members of the party had murdered Pratt, poisoned creek water that subsequently sickened Paiute children, and allowed their cattle to graze on private property.
In an article in the Deseret News, the author acknowledges the massacre may have been linked to Parley’s death in Arkansas.
An early apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Pratt was killed near Van Buren, Ark., in May 1857, by a small Arkansas band antagonistic toward his teachings. A wagon train left Harrison, Ark., in April 1857, bound for California, but was ambushed in southern Utah, where 120 men, women and children were killed by LDS militiamen and Paiute Indians on Sept. 11, 1857.
Historians have debated about the role that Pratt's murder played in fanning the hysteria that resulted in what is known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
It is worth mentioning that Pratt was murdered after marrying his last plural wife who was still legally married to another man. Her legal husband killed Pratt. FAIR explains this for us.
Pratt’s last wife, Eleanor, “was sealed to him without divorcing her legal husband, who fatally shot Parley near Van Buren, Arkansas” (p. 333). There is, however, much that we are not told. Eleanor’s husband was a heavy drinker, which in 1844 resulted in separation. The couple was reconciled, and the family moved to San Francisco. While in California, Eleanor discovered the church. Her husband forbade her to join and “purchased a sword cane and threatened to kill her and the minister who baptized her if she became a Mormon.”
… she considered herself divorced from Hector from the time he violently threw her from their home in San Francisco. They never received a civil divorce, however.
This time period in Utah is now known as the Mormon Reformation. Brigham Young preached violent sermons, taught the blood oath, challenged the members to be more deeply committed, and rebaptized most of the saints.
Unintended consequences transpired after the period of the reformation. At times, Brigham Young, Jedediah Grant, and other leaders had warned against dissenters and apostates. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly in the Old Testament, these leaders had also taught that some sins were so evil that forgiveness could only come from the sinner’s blood being shed.
It is difficult to place the responsibility of the Mountain Meadows Massacre on any one teaching. The oath of vengeance was part of the endowment, Brigham Young preached fiery and violent sermons about outsiders, and members were being intensely recommitted to the faith during this period of Mormon Reformation. All played a part in the massacre. FAIR states that:
Like many other enthusiastic movements, the Reformation had created unanticipated disruption within the community as lay members scurried to prove their loyalty and faithfulness. The harsh discipline and Brigham Young's exercise of power in demanding obedience during the second phase of the movement provoked excessive demonstrations of loyalty and consequent disruption…. The sermons on repentance and blood atonement seem to have led members to confess to sins they had not committed and may also have incited a few fanatics more orthodox than the General Authorities to murder dissidents.
While the Utah War was nearly a bloodless conflict, tragedy struck some caught in the crossfire. A recent work has examined the way conspiring, local Mormon leaders manipulated others to become complicit in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in part by exploiting their desires for vengeance. However, in their approach to explain how basically good people could commit such an atrocity, the authors found elements in common with vigilantism and mass killings perpetrated everywhere...
Many debate whether or not Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Either way, Brigham created an environment for violence to occur. FAIR states that “As with any passionate, forceful campaign, some members risked getting 'swept up' and going to excess.” Members are taught to follow to prophet without question and Brigham taught violence to the members.
John D. Lee was the only person charged a crime for his part in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and he was executed. Many link the oath of vengeance to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as a result of a confession of John D. Lee.
Last Confession and Statement of John D. Lee
These emigrants were from the section of country most hostile to our people, and I believed then as I do now, that it was the will of every true Mormon in Utah, at that time, that the enemies of the Church should be killed as fast as possible, and that as this lot of people had men amongst them that were supposed to have helped kill the Prophets in the Carthage jail, the killing of all of them would be keeping our oaths and avenging the blood of the Prophets.
I was now satisfied that it was the wish of all of the Mormon priesthood to have the thing done. One reason for thinking so was that it was in keeping with the teachings of the leaders, and as Utah was then at war with the United States we believed all the Gentiles were to be killed as a war measure, and that the Mormons, as God's chosen people, were to hold and inhabit the earth and rule and govern the globe. Another, and one of my strongest reasons for believing that the leaders wished the thing done, was on account of the talk that I had with George A. Smith, which I have given in full in this statement. I was satisfied that Smith had passed the emigrants while on his way from Salt Lake City, and I then knew this was the train that he meant when he spoke of a train that would make threats and illtreat our people, etc.
I therefore, taking all things into consideration, and believing, as I then did, that my superiors were inspired men, who could not go wrong in any matter relating to the Church or the duty of its members, concluded to be obedient to the wishes of those in authority. I took up my cross and prepared to do my duty.
That ended the trouble between them, and I never heard of Colonel Dame denying the giving of the orders any more, until after the Church authorities concluded to offer me up for the sins of the Church.
After the massacre, those involved took violent oaths of secrecy.
The most of the speeches, however, were in the shape of exhortations and commands to keep the whole matter secret from every one but Brigham Young. It was voted unanimously that any man who should divulge the secret, or tell who was present, or do anything that would lead to a discovery of the truth, should suffer death.
The brethren then all took a most solemn oath, binding themselves under the most dreadful and awful penalties, to keep the whole matter secret from every human being, as long as they should live. No man was to know the facts. The brethren were sworn not to talk of it among themselves, and each one swore to help kill all who proved to be traitors to the Church or people in this matter.
I believed the temple was a place of redemption and peace. I don’t believe an oath of vengeance belonged in the temple. Members take their covenants very seriously. When the prophet preaches aggressive sermons that back up the oath, the climate becomes volatile. Members are taught to fulfill their covenants with diligence so a ritual like the oath of vengeance has disastrous consequences. Teaching the oath in the temple amplifies its importance.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/2651
https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/15.2PrattEleanor.pdf
https://www.deseret.com/2007/4/14/20012957/lds-tied-events-to-bisect-in-arkansas
https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/parley-p-pratt-gravesite/
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Was_Parley_P._Pratt_murdered_because_he_stole_another_man%27s_wife%3F
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeconfession.html
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/reformation-of-1856-57?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormon_Reformation
Temple Changes
Part 7
50 Years of No Priesthood Given by Proxy
Temple Sealings of Adoption
Temple Work for Living Only
I believed that the temple ordinances were basically unchanged from the time Joseph taught them. After all, the temple was eternal in nature. I was unaware of how much the sealing process had changed. The sealing changes will be covered in three different posts. These changes contradict what Joseph Smith taught about the ordinances being unchanging and eternal.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles”
He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. . . .These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord [Jesus Christ].
D&C 132:8 states that, “Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” Yet there was so much confusion in the first 50 years of temple work. I recently reread the Word of Wisdom and was impressed with the amount of detail that was given in a revelation about dietary restrictions that was only 21 verses long. It seems reasonable that a similar revelation could have been given with instructions for the temple ordinances so the issues I will be discussing wouldn’t have been a problem. We have no record of how the temple ordinances were revealed, but it seems the revelations were definitely lacking detail.
One of the changes was sealings of adoption which sealed unrelated people together. “For the next 50 years, many complex adoption networks grew out of temple sealings, connecting friends and peers as if they were expanded families.”
It is interesting that children were not sealed to their parents. In an article on sealings, the church states:
About one month after the revelation on marriage sealings, Joseph taught that this same power could seal children to their parents. “When a seal is put upon the father and mother,” he taught, “it secures their posterity so that they cannot be lost but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father.” Brigham Young affirmed that Joseph instructed him to perform such sealings once the Nauvoo Temple was ready.
At the time, however, Latter-day Saints were not yet sealed to their deceased parents who had not joined the Church in this life. Rather, some Saints participated in “adoption” sealings that bound them to other adult Latter-day Saints, nearly always prominent Church leaders.
FAIR indicates that sealing children to deceased parents was not possible because the priesthood was not given in the temple.
In the early Church, they had a requirement that to be sealed you had to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood if you were a man. The problem was, until 1894, the Church did not practice proxy ordination to the priesthood for deceased men. This comes as a bit of a surprise to many members. What it means is that until 1894, genealogical work wasn't that much of a priority in the Church, and for the vast majority of members (whose fathers had died without ever being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood) they couldn't be sealed to their parent.
I will quote directly from FAIR as they explain these changes.
Joseph Smith was very anxious to have the Saints sealed—since few of the Church members had ancestors within the young Church, they often chose to seal themselves to prominent Church leaders such as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. The key understanding was that an unbroken chain of sealing was required, to bind the whole world into a single human family.
Most of these sealings of adoption were between members and General Authorities (members of the First Presidency, Apostles, and so on). Because those individuals were considered to be part of the top tier of the hierarchy of the Celestial Kingdom. And so to be sealed to one of them meant that at the very least you would be in one of these larger kingdoms closer to God. If you were sealed to someone else, you might fall much further down the hierarchy. … And some of the people took these sealings of adoption absolutely literally. John D. Lee, for example, consistently described himself as Brigham Young's son, even though he had no biological relationship to him - only this sealing.
Temple work as we know it today did not exist for the first 50 years. There was no point in researching your family history, because they could not receive any ordinances except for baptism after death. The endowment and sealing ordinances were only for the living. This is interesting because the baptisms for the dead occurred but without proxy ordinations, the work for the dead ended there.
In 1894 it was determined that the priesthood could be conferred after death and the policy changed. There is no written record of the revelation received to make the changes. It no longer made sense to seal yourself to the prophet or anyone else you wanted. The temple work of the past 50 years had to be canceled and done properly.
In the last couple of years of the 19th century, there was a huge number of sealing cancellations, as people cancelled [sic] their sealings of adoption and were sealed to their own parents
Once the priesthood was given by proxy, most sealings were canceled. To put this in perspective, basically all the proxy temple work for two generations was wasted. Most of it was cancelled and redone.
The church essay on sealings states that this change came after Brigham’s death.
This practice continued until 1894, when President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that limited adoptive sealings and instead focused on sealing marriages and parent-child relationships. President Woodruff exhorted the Saints to search their genealogies “as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers.” He urged the Saints to be sealed to deceased spouses and parents, even those who had not been members of the Church, promising that “there will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel.”
In 1894, Wilford Woodruff revealed the changes to the sealing ordinance to allow people to be sealed to their deceased family members. However, things still were different than they are performed today as Woodruff indicated he was sealed to 400 female relatives under the direction of Brigham Young. It appears that sealings of adoption were not completely ended at this time.
On 5 April 1894, previous to the opening of the April General Conference, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve met and discussed the proposed changes to be made to the sealing ordinances of the Temple. Abraham H. Cannon, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recorded in his journal that President Woodruff said that
I have felt we are too strict in regard to some of our temple ordinances. This is especially the case in regard to husbands and parents who are dead. Heretofore we have not permitted wives to be sealed to their dead husbands unless such husbands were in the Church, nor have we permitted children to be sealed to dead unbaptized parents. This is wrong I feel. I was sealed to my father, and then had him sealed to the Prophet Joseph. Erastus Snow was sealed to his father though the latter was not baptized after having heard the Gospel. He was, however, kind to the Prophet, and was a Saint in everything except baptism. The Lord has told me that it is right for children to be sealed to their parents, and they to their parents just as far back as we can possibly obtain the records, and then have the last obtainable member sealed to the Prophet Joseph, who stands at the head of this dispensation. It is also right for wives whose husbands never heard the Gospel to be sealed to those husbands, providing they are willing to run the risk of their receiving the Gospel in the Spirit world. There is yet very much for us to learn concerning the temple ordinances, and God will make it known as we prove ourselves ready to receive it. In searching out my genealogy I found about four hundred of my female kindred who were never married. I asked Pres. Young what I should do with them. He said for me to have them sealed to me unless there were more than 999 of them. The doctrine startled me, but I had it done…
The ability to receive the priesthood after death was not in place in the early temples. The sealing process that we know today was different than that of the first 50 years after the temple ceremonies began. This means two generations of members did the work improperly. It wasn’t until 1894 that the temple work for the dead began to look similar to how it looks today. These are significant changes to the temple ordinances which are said to be unchanging.
We will discuss another major change in the sealing ordinance in the next post.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/The_Law_of_Adoption
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/sealing?lang=eng
https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/AdoptionWW.htm
Temple Changes
Part 8
Polyandry (Having Multiple Husbands)
Polyandry is the practice of having multiple husbands. This was practiced in the early church by Joseph. “Joseph Smith was sealed to between 11 to 14 women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.”
These marriages do not appear to have been sexual in nature, although it is difficult to say for sure what occurred. If the marriages were not sexual and were for “eternity-only”, the only justification for polyandrous marriages would be to receive the blessings of being sealed to Joseph.
Joseph Smith taught that a genuine plurality of husbands, called “polyandry,” was adultery. There is no indication he was hypocritical in this regard. His sealings to women with civil husbands appear to have been for eternity-only, meaning that they would only take effect after death. They did not constitute marriages for this life.
If all the women were married to non-members, this argument might make sense. However, this was not the case according to FAIR. In fact, only, “Three of Joseph's plural marriages involved women who were married to non-member spouses.” Several others were married to less faithful church members. About half were married to faithful church members.
FAIR teaches that, “Six (or five, if one doubtful wife is excluded) of Joseph's polyandrous marriages were to women married to faithful LDS men.” For example, Marinda Nancy Johnson was Orson Hyde’s wife. She was sealed to Joseph while Orson was serving a mission. Other examples of women sealed to Joseph as they were married to faithful LDS husbands include Esther Dutcher, Patty Bartlett, Elizabeth Davis, and Mary Heron.
Some of the women’s legal husbands were not active Latter-day Saints, so sealings to them were not possible. In such cases, marrying Joseph or another devout believer for the next life is understandable. Yet, some of the sealings were to women with believing spouses, which are more puzzling.
An article quoted by FAIR states that:
Few things are more confusing to observers than Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women. Due to limitations in the number and types of documents available, understanding what transpired is difficult. The topic itself is very complex.
FAIR acknowledges that these polyandrous sealings were “complex” and “puzzling”, but fail to provide an explanation for why they would be necessary – especially in the case of those married to faithful church members.
Additionally, there is some speculation that not all legal husbands were aware of their wives being sealed to Joseph. FAIR has an article which addresses each of the marriages individually. I will include it in the comments below and I encourage you to read it. FAIR states that,
To conclude that these “unions” were performed without the knowledge or consent of the living husband is a gross oversimplification. Each case is unique. In some cases, the husband was not a member of the Church who didn't believe in marriage after this life and simply didn't care if Joseph was sealing to his wife for eternity. Since the husbands didn't necessarily believe in a “next life,” it seems that they had no problem with the idea of their spouse being sealed to Joseph.
For some whose husbands were Church members, there is circumstantial evidence that the husbands approved, since they continued to live with their wives and associate with the Saints.
Similarly, no declarations from other polygamy insiders have been found saying Joseph taught polyandry was acceptable. No credible accounts from any of the fourteen wives exist wherein they complained about it, even though many complaints about polygamy are recorded.
There are so many unanswered questions around Joseph’s polyandry. This is a practice that was unique to him (although Parley P. Pratt was also to a legally married woman). The practice was not said to be overturned by revelation but did not appear to continue under Brigham Young. Brigham instead introduced the sealings of adoption and had over 50 wives – although some may have been for eternity only.
As I stated in the post from yesterday, a revelation could have cleared up the confusion around sealings. D&C 132:8 states that, “Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” Instead, revelation appeared to be sparse around one of the most important parts of the gospel.
There are many important questions to ask about Joseph’s polyandry.
Why were legally married women sealed to Joseph – especially those with faithful LDS husbands?
If people were sealed as sons and daughters under Brigham, why were only women sealed as wives to Joseph? It would be far less distasteful if they were sealed as daughters.
It does not appear that men were sealed as husbands just to take advantage of the blessings of being sealed to Joseph. Men without faithful wives were left out of this experience all together. It seems like Emma should have been sealed to men with non-member wives. Based on Joseph’s sealings, she could have even have been sealed to men with faithful member wives.
Did this practice begin or end by revelation? There is no scriptural basis or written revelation for any of these ordinances or changes.
Were these polyandrous sealings canceled or are they still in effect today?
Why did the Lord leave so much confusion when revealing the practice of sealings and plural marriage? A single, clear revelation (detailed similar to the Word of Wisdom) would have been very useful for Joseph.
There are no answers to these difficult questions. Each reader must draw their own conclusions. Please take the time to read through some of the sources in the comments.
I will be discussing traditional polygamy in separate posts in the future.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Polygamy_book/Polyandry
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/brigham-young?lang=eng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_practitioners_of_plural_marriage
** Trigger Warning: Racist quotes from prophets
Temple Changes
Part 9
Jane Elizabeth Manning James - Sealed as Eternal Servant
I always struggled with the temple. I tried to enjoy it and learn from it so I went frequently – at least once a month or, at times, once a week. I hoped I would learn to love it as others said they did. The thing I appreciated the most about the experience is that it was the one place where all the injustices in life could be made right. The promises were the same regardless of race, income, past mistakes, etc. I recently found this quote which summed up my beliefs well:
In the Salt Lake Temple, all individuals, from the most affluent to the most indigent, wear the same white clothing. This is a reminder to the worshipper of equality before the Lord, as noted in 2 Nephi 26:33: “He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
I had been unaware that black people had been denied access to the temple during the priesthood ban from 1852 to 1978. As a woman, I didn’t hold the priesthood, but all the promises were there for me and I assumed they had not been denied to others. I was really upset when I learned that the temple had not been a place to correct the injustices of the world for almost 130 years.
Then, I learned of the story of Jane Elizabeth Manning James. Jane was a black woman who was eventually sealed as a servant to the Smith family.
Jane Elizabeth Manning James was a black woman who lived in Nauvoo in the home of Joseph Smith. She claimed she was offered a chance to be adopted and sealed to the Smith family by Emma, but had refused the offer. She moved to Utah when the members moved west. She later desired to receive the temple endowment and wrote many letters to church leaders asking for entry to the temple, but was denied as she was black. She begged, indicating she had been offered sealings in the past. She also asked that her husband be adopted as well. Below, I included links to two letters she wrote and one written for her. I encourage you to read them.
Between 1884 and 1904, Jane periodically contacted Church leaders—John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Zina D. H. Young, and Joseph F. Smith—and sought permission to receive her temple endowment and to be sealed.
Keep in mind that the Law of Adoption was in place until 1894. White people were being sealed to anyone they wanted during this same time period, but she was denied any part in it.
At one point, she was permitted to perform baptisms for the dead. Near the end of her life, she received the only sealing they would allow her to receive – that of eternal servitude.
Church leaders eventually allowed her to be sealed by proxy into the Joseph Smith family as a servant in 1894, a unique occurrence.
The same year the Law of Adoption ended, Jane was sealed as a servant. This was also 50 years into the process, not a fluke at the beginning of temple work. It is also important to note that she was “sealed by proxy” even though she was still living. She was denied entrance to the temple because of her race.
A woman who was faithful her whole life begged for the same promises available to others. I can’t imagine how it felt to be denied the promises because of her skin color. If Jane wanted any part in the celestial kingdom, she had to accept the only promise they could offer – a sealing of eternal servitude.
The sealing of Jane as a servant was further supported in a talk given at BYU in 1954 by Mark E Petersen, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.
If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory.
It is unclear if Jane was the only person sealed as a servant. However, it is evident that the idea of this type of sealing existed for decades.
After the priesthood ban was lifted, Jane’s temple work was completed. The racist teachings of the past have been disavowed; however, the priesthood ban is still seen as being part of God’s plan for His people and was done according to His timing.
As I have previously stated, a revelation could have clarified all these issues with the temple. Jane appealed to three different prophets – none of whom had an answer for her.
Why would God be the author of so much pain and chaos?
https://rsc.byu.edu/eye-faith/solomons-temple-compared-salt-lake-temple#_edn20
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/jane-elizabeth-manning-james?lang=eng
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/f22ada32-3117-458b-a390-125f38af1d49/0/0
https://religionnews.com/2018/06/11/40-years-later-most-mormons-still-believe-the-racist-priesthood-temple-ban-was-gods-will/
Temple Changes
Part 10
Adam-God Theory Taught in the Temple
Brigham was an Apostle – Not Prophet
Brigham Young believed and taught that Adam and God were the same person. He taught this as revealed truth and claimed he learned it from Joseph Smith. Brigham added this teaching to the endowment ceremony as a part of a lecture at the veil. In addition, he also states that Eve was only one of Adam’s multiple wives. The quotes below are excerpts from an explanation from FAIR:
Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine.
The lecture at the veil is not recorded but a sermon taught by Brigham Young from 1852 teaches this theory:
…Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written….
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.
The lecture at the veil was removed after Brigham’s death and the Adam-God theory has been adamantly disavowed.
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
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.
The false doctrine of Adam being God brings up issues with the prophetic call of Brigham Young. FAIR argues that Brigham claimed that he may not have had the ability to receive revelation as Joseph Smith did and was only an apostle:
We now turn to a pertinent apologetic issue. Critics enjoy pointing out that on several occasions Brigham Young claimed that his teachings on Adam came to him through revelation.… First of all, the question will be posed: “How did Brother Brigham compare himself, as a revelator, with his predecessor?” There are two quotations that are of interest here. The second President of the LDS Church said, “I wish to ask every member of this whole community if they ever heard [me] profess to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as Joseph Smith was. [I] professed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.” In the second quote Brigham Young says that he “did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did.” Hence, it can be ascertained that, at least in one sense, Brigham Young did not receive communications from heaven in the same direct manner that Joseph Smith did. And it is relevant to mention here that Brigham Young did, in fact, own a seerstone that was once utilized by Joseph Smith. Next, there is this lengthy quote from President Young which is well worth considering in its entirety. He rhetorically asked himself,
“Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?” Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether [my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. “Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?” I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.
FAIR argues that Brigham may not have had the ability to receive revelations from Jesus Christ, but rather received the same type of revelation any member could receive. Based on this claim, it is possible the Adam-God theory was Brigham’s own invention which he inserted into the temple, although he claims Joseph Smith taught it to him. This explains the disavowed theory but creates a significant issue of prophets and their claim to receiving revelation and speaking for God.
In my opinion, the Adam-God theory creates several problems:
- It doesn’t make sense – especially in the temple where much of the experience is Adam talking with God and they are portrayed as two different people.
- Members are taught that prophets cannot lead us astray – ever. Brigham Young said it was revelation from God and was also taught by Joseph Smith.
- This false doctrine was incorporated into the temple – the most sacred space in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- This must have been a real problem as it was addressed in conference by President Spencer W. Kimball. This is the only time I have seen a prophet called out by a later prophet. Interestingly, at the time of these remarks, the church had not yet disavowed Brigham’s teachings which continued to deny black members the priesthood. That would not change for two more years in 1978.
- The best explanation from the apologists is that Brigham Young indicated he may not receive revelation from Jesus Christ. His revelation may have been equal to any other member of the church.
Does it seem relevant that Brigham Young incorporated false doctrine into the temple ceremony?
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Adam-God_Theory%3F
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DEojfACqY&t=223s
Temple Changes
Part 11
Masonic Penalties in Temple & Five Points of Fellowship Removed
It is sensitive to active members to discuss anything that occurs in the temple. I will only be discussing what has been removed from the temple and is no longer part of the ceremony. FAIR and the church also reference temple rituals that have been removed.
Years ago, an older, faithful member told me that in the temple people would covenant to slit their throats and disembowel themselves if they broke their covenants. This practice ended in 1990, just ten years before I went through the temple. I was surprised that these penalties had ever existed and that I had never been taught this in my years in church classes or as part of my temple preparation classes. I know many of my friends and family went through the temple when the penalties were part of the ceremony. Yet no one spoke of it until years after I went through the temple. It is impossible for me to know how I would have reacted if they had been in place when I went through.
There are no church sources about these penalties, although FAIR does address them without stating exactly what the penalties are. FAIR clarifies the penalties by saying that they were in place to let the member know how seriously they should take the covenants, but they were not to be taken literally. This led to confusion which is why they have been removed.
A former version of the endowment (prior to 1990) used to contain mention of various "penalties" associated with the breaking of the temple covenants.
The person making the covenant indicated what they would be willing to have done to themselves rather than reveal sacred things…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.
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.
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 literally (the person saying them does not literally want to die, or ask someone to kill them, or commit suicide), but rather to convey the veracity of a claim or the seriousness with which claims are made.
Members of the church are taught to take their covenants literally and seriously – especially in the temple. In the scriptures, members learn of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi who die rather than break their covenants. These types of covenants might have played really poorly in the mind of a deeply devoted member, similar to how the Oath of Vengeance did. It’s not fair to say that the temple covenants are similar to childhood sayings of “cross my heart, hope to die.”
The Masonic Five Points of Fellowship was removed from the temple ceremony in 1990 at the same time other Masonic elements were removed. There is little information about it outside of a brief mention in a FAIR article. The Five Points of Fellowship are, “A Masonic tradition once used in the temple. Removed after 1990 as it had become meaningless to modern saints.”
I cannot find any additional faithful sources on either of these removed rituals. If the reader wants to know about the penalties of Five Points of Fellowship, they can search for more sources knowing that these sources will not be faithful church sources.
What were your thoughts when you participated in the penalties or heard about them for the first time?
Do you think the history and changes in the temple should be taught to members preparing to make their own covenants for the first time?
**Trigger Warning: Child Sexual Abuse
Temple Changes
Part 12
Temple Videos Directed by Child Molester
Sterling Gray Van Wagenen
Members of the church are taught that priesthood leaders have the power of discernment. The spirit can tell them when a member is involved in sin and lying to cover it up. However, the temple movies used from 2013 to 2019 were directed by a former and current child molester. As the temple is the most sacred space in the church, it would make sense that the brethren might be alerted through this power of discernment. In fact, they were not. In addition, the church was aware of his prior child abuse.
Van Wagenen was the director of three films that were used in rotation from 2013 though January 2019 during the Endowment Ceremony in temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
On January 4, 2019, an audio recording of Van Wagenen confessing to molesting a boy in the 1990s was leaked on the internet. The temple videos Van Wagenen directed were pulled in January 2019 as well, although the move was said to accommodate changes to the endowment. The movies were replaced with a slide show which remained in place until 2023. A news article stated that, “The temple ceremony now uses an ‘audiovisual’ presentation which uses still images from the Van Wagenen directed temple films."
The leaders of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knew Van Wagenen had molested a boy in the 1990s. He had confessed and had been disfellowshipped for two years. No charges were filed.
Van Wagenen has since been convicted of molesting another victim. “The girl came forward after a years-old allegation that he abused a childhood friend of his son surfaced earlier this year. Sean Escobar was 13 when he said Van Wagenen touched him inappropriately during a sleepover in 1993, according to police reports.”
Van Wagenen has also confessed to many affairs with both men and women over the years. He also admitted to visited prostitutes.
"In an audio recording obtained by the Truth & Transparency Foundation (TTF), Van Wagenen describes a double life he lived for decades,’" the website's article on Van Wagenen said. “When asked if he is a pedophile, Van Wagenen denies that label, but admits to multiple extramarital affairs with both men and women. He also admits to one single instance of sex abuse perpetrated on a minor.”
Van Wagenen was arrested in April 2019 and convicted in July 2019 with a sentence of six years to life.
Any one of Van Wagenen’s offenses should have kept him from attending the temple, but none kept him from making the movies for the temple.
This story is concerning for many reasons. It seems unacceptable to have a known child molester selected to direct movies for the sacred temple. The church was aware of his abuse in the 1990s as he was disfellowshipped. In addition, he admitted to multiple affairs. If church leaders have the gift of discernment, they would be aware that abuse was still occurring and that he was cheating on his wife. It makes me wonder what else is occurring among high-ranking church members that is being overlooked or is incapable of being revealed to leaders.
What is the power of discernment for if not to prevent situations like this?
https://www.deseret.com/2019/7/9/8936027/sterling-van-wagenen-ordered-to-prison-again-for-abusing-young-girl-a-2nd-time
https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/sundance-co-founder-faces-child-sex-abuse-charge/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Van_Wagenen
Priesthood
Part 1
Priesthood retroactively discussed
Restored by angels?
“I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 – in Ohio…I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…”
David Whitmer
The church tells a straightforward account of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829, although no date is given for the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration. These priesthood restorations are said to have occurred prior to the founding of the church in 1830.
While Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were working on the translation of the Book of Mormon, they read about baptism for the remission of sins. On May 15, 1829, they went to a wooded area near Joseph’s home in Harmony, Pennsylvania, and prayed about what they had learned….Sometime after John the Baptist’s appearance, the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John also appeared to Joseph and Oliver, again under the direction of Jesus Christ, and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood.
There are a few issues with the commonly taught church accounts. The main issue is that the priesthood was reported to have been restored in 1829 but was not first recorded until several years later.
A second issue will be woven into the first issue. As the accounts progress over time, the visitation will change from “angels” to John the Baptist.
An article published by BYU Studies and written by Brian Q. Cannon analyzes the source documents to find out what details were recorded during the 1820s and 1830s.
Details regarding the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, including John the Baptist’s role in that event, were seldom if ever shared prior to 1832, though, “owing to a spirit of persecution,” as Joseph Smith indicated in 1838.
Two of Joseph and Oliver’s close associates, David Whitmer and William McLellin, recalled in the late 1870s or mid-1880s that they first learned of John the Baptist’s appearance two to four years after the Church’s organization. In writing, Joseph Smith first referred to this event in 1832, describing “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel.” Oliver Cowdery offered the first detailed, recorded account of the restoration of the lower priesthood in 1834.
Many accounts mention John the Baptist by name (documents 4, 12, 27, 30, 65, 68, 69); others call him “the angel John” (document 24), “the angel of the Lord” (document 41), simply “the angel” (documents 10, 13, 14), or some other similar appellation (documents 7, 12, 28, 67).
Any early reference to receiving the priesthood or authority is vague about the details. The subsequent accounts became more detailed until the account was written which was included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. The BYU Studies article talks about the early printed versions of the event:
The first printed reference to Joseph’s and Oliver’s ordination as apostles appeared in 1831. It indicated that Joseph and Oliver were “called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ…”
In 1835 the original edition of the Doctrine and Covenants gave the first precise published account of the appearance of Peter, James, and John to Joseph and Oliver.
The written record regarding the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is less complete. Although repeatedly testifying that Peter, James, and John had appeared to them and restored this high priesthood authority (documents 4, 12, 15–16, 30) or referring alternatively to “apostles” (document 6), “Peter” (document 27), “angels” (documents 5, 28), or “those held in reserve” (document 7), neither Joseph Smith nor Oliver Cowdery specified the date of that restoration or reported the words used by Peter in ordaining them to this priesthood beyond “declar[ing] themselves as possessing the keys”
Book of Mormon Central addressed these accounts by quoting Church Historian, Richard Bushman:
Summarizing the key events in his religious life in an 1830 statement, he mentioned translation but said nothing about the restoration of priesthood or the visit of an angel. The first compilation of revelations in 1833 also omitted an account of John the Baptist. David Whitmer later told an interviewer he had heard nothing of John the Baptist until four years after the Church’s organization. Not until writing in his 1832 history did Joseph include ‘reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel’ among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best.
“The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John’s appearance, not Joseph himself. In an 1834 Church newspaper, Cowdery exulted in his still fresh memory of the experience. “On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace unto us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!” When Joseph described John’s visit, he was much more plainspoken. Moreover, he inserted the story into a history composed in 1838 but not published until 1842. It circulated without fanfare, more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement.”
FAIR also addresses the content of contemporary accounts of the priesthood restoration. Any contemporary is vague and could be applied to other situations and not the priesthood restoration specifically.
The newspaper Painsesville Telegraph claimed in 1830 that Oliver Cowdery was teaching "by this authority" after claiming to have "conversed with angels." The newspaper Palmyra Reflector claimed in 1831 that Cowdery said that he had "frequent interviews with angels."
FAIR states that although the account is vague, that Oliver never claimed Joseph was not telling the truth proves that Joseph’s post-dated accounts were true.
We don't know when Oliver first mentioned the priesthood restoration to anyone - we only know when he first put it in print. But consider this: If Oliver was covering up a fraud on the part of Joseph Smith when he talked of receiving the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, then why didn't he expose the fraud after he fell into disagreement with Joseph Smith and was excommunicated from the Church? Why, in fact, did Oliver continue to insist that the events related to the restoration of the Priesthood actually happened?
However, FAIR quotes David Whitmer from an interview in 1885 after he had left the church. David Whitmer indicates that Oliver and Joseph baptized and ordained each other in 1829. David also received the priesthood but challenges Joseph’s claims. He further states that did not hear of an angel restoring the priesthood until 1834 at the earliest. He did not believe that John the Baptist ever appeared to Joseph.
“in the year 1829, on our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Josephs presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command-And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829. Joseph ordained Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ. <and during that year Joseph both baptized and ordained me an elder in the church of Christ.> Also, during this year the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, And we preached, baptized and ordained some as Elders, And upon the Sixth day of April 1830, six Elders together with some fifty or sixty (as near as I recollect) of the members met together to effect an organization. I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 - in Ohio, my information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revealment through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception...”
The BYU Studies article claimed that it was because of persecution that these details were not spread. However, David Whitmer was also unaware of these important details as one of the three witnesses and would not have persecuted Joseph. Some may discount David Whitmer’s account quoted above as it was not recorded until 1885. However, his account of the Book of Mormon from 1887 is considered trustworthy:
I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with [the Book of Mormon], as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.
It is important to understand that the accounts of the priesthood restoration developed over time. This is an issue that is common in early church history. People will have different explanations and draw a variety of conclusions about this issue.
Each reader has to decide if the developing accounts of the priesthood restoration are relevant.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/restoration-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents/
https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-priesthood-restoration/
https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/bennett/2019-10-24/09_priesthood_restoration_concerns_questions.pdf
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/02/who-was-david-whitmer?lang=eng
Priesthood
Part 2
Women Were Healers
One prominent issue in the church is the priesthood being given based on gender. Men are the exclusive priesthood holders in the church. Men are exclusively over all priesthood duties – including giving blessings. They also preside over all the affairs of the church at a local and worldwide level. This is a painful issue for some women.
Interestingly, in the early church, one of the main roles of the Relief Society was to give blessings of healing, a practice that is exclusive to men in the modern church. This practice was in place for almost 100 years before it was withdrawn in the early 1900s
FAIR addresses the blessings of healing given by women in the early church:
The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:
“Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.”
The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers.
In addition, women administered blessings during childbirth. According to an article by LDS Living:
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.
In fact, by 1880, women had developed a ritual to help those who were about to give birth, often calling this a “washing and anointing previous to confinement”
It is unclear if the blessings of healing were through the priesthood or through faith only. Some women were set apart to perform these healings while others were not.
As a result, many women in the 1800s used their faith to bless the sick, but, as Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, “Women can administer in the name of JESUS [through faith], but not by virtue of the Priesthood"
Because these blessings were administered through the power of faith, not priesthood authority, sisters did not need to be set apart to participate in such practices. However, some confusion arose because women on occasion would be set apart to bless the sick, "although this setting apart was not seen as a prerequisite"
Some believe that Joseph Smith intended to give women the full priesthood.
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles “Go ye into all the world” &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.
Respecting the females laying on hands, he further remark'd, there could be no devil in it if God gave his sanction by healing—that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water It is no sin for any body to do it that has faith, or if the sick has faith to be heal'd by the administration.
The women were not given the priesthood under Joseph Smith but the practice of women as healers continued for the next 100 years.
In 1946, Joseph Fielding Smith indicated in a letter that this policy had changed and that elders should be giving blessings instead.
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.
It is interesting that women in the early church had the ability to heal the sick and cast out devils. The modern church does not offer the same abilities to women. There is plenty of evidence that the prophets of the past encouraged these acts where the modern prophet likely would not allow women to give blessings. There is some evidence that women were potentially to receive more priesthood keys.
Do you think that a priesthood blessing by a man is more efficacious than a faithful blessing by a woman?
Do you think women today should be able to give blessings the same way they did in the early church?
https://www.ldsliving.com/mormon-women-giving-blessings-everything-you-need-to-know/s/81418
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book/2#full-transcript
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_priesthood/Women
https://rsc.byu.edu/words-joseph-smith/28-april-1842-thursday-afternoon-upper-room-red-brick-store
Trigger Warning: Racism
Priesthood
Part 2
Priesthood & Temple Ban
Sao Paulo Brazil Temple
The priesthood and temple ban for black members became a bigger problem for the church as membership outside the United States grew. Eventually, the leadership settled on denying the priesthood from people who directly descended from Africa. The ban was in effect for anyone with a drop of African blood. To get the priesthood or attend the temple, people had to prove that they did not descend from Africa.
The church Gospel Topic Essay on Race and the Priesthood addresses this:
By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.
We have previously discussed Jane Elizabeth Manning James who was sealed as an eternal servant to the Smith family. It is important to note that she was sealed by proxy even though she was still living at the time of the sealing. Her inability to enter the temple was the result of the priesthood and temple ban.
The ban became a significant problem when teaching the gospel in South America, especially in Brazil where interracial marriage was not prohibited. The current racial makeup of Brazil is as follows:
White 47.7%, Mulatto (mixed white and black) 43.1%, Black 7.6%, Asian 1.1%, indigenous 0.4% (2010 est.)
Over half of Brazil’s population would not have been able to hold the priesthood or attend the temple under the church’s guidelines. Missionary efforts in Brazil were limited for black investigators. A Church News article confirms these policies.
With the Church’s restriction at the time regarding the priesthood, Church members with black African ancestry—such as the Martins family in Rio de Janeiro—knew priesthood offices and callings as well as temple opportunities were out of the question. And missionaries who came in contact with black individuals and families who were not members would provide an initial message, teach them how to pray, and then back away from pursuing a return appointment.
In 1975, while the priesthood and temple ban was still in place, a temple was announced in Brazil. Members of all races were asked to sacrifice deeply to fund the temple. They were making these sacrifices for a temple they would not be able to visit. Just four months before the temple opened, the priesthood ban was lifted. The members spent three years sacrificing and working for a temple so many would not be permitted to visit.
In my opinion, it was unnecessarily cruel to ask black members to sacrifice for three long years and then lift the ban shortly before the temple opened.
The church wrote about the history of the temple in Brazil in an article about the São Paulo Brazil temple.
President Kimball, who had announced the temple in 1975, presided at its cornerstone sealing in 1977, and announced the June 1978 priesthood revelation, returned to São Paulo to dedicate the temple on October 30, 1978
Members donated their savings, sold their gold and jewelry, and cut back on daily expenses and planned purchases to help fund their part of the financial assessments. Children and youth also got involved, forgoing allowances or, like their adult counterparts, selling personal possessions.
Member volunteers helped with construction efforts, including building the neighboring meetinghouse and creating the 50,000 blocks of exterior stone—
For these and the other 208,000 Saints living in Brazil in 1978, it was as if the windows of heaven opened with an abundance of blessings coming in the wake of two key events that year—the June 9 announcement of the revelation affording the priesthood to be given to all worthy male members ages 12 and older, and the October 30 dedication of the São Paulo Brazil Temple.
In a separate article about the São Paulo Brazil temple, President Faust spoke of the sacrifices members made to build the temple.
He emphasized the need for Saints all over the world to begin to sacrifice for temple building. He recalled how, when the Sao Paulo Temple was being built, members in Argentina found ways to donate.
They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.
The temple in Brazil was announced three years before the ban was lifted. Members of all races sacrificed deeply for the construction of the temple – whether or not they could go into the temple. Just four months before the temple was dedicated, after many significant sacrifices, the priesthood and temple ban was lifted.
Was it appropriate to ask black members to sacrifice so deeply for a temple they cannot attend?
Is it appropriate to push sacrifice to the point that members remove their dental fillings to build the temple?
Should current members be encouraged to sacrifice at this level?
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2010/3/11/23228668/porto-alegre-brazil-temple
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/porto-alegre-brazil-temple/
Brigham and Emma
Part 1
Brigham Young’s Conference Address
Emma Accused of Poisoning Joseph
After a lot of heavy topics, I thought it might be a relief to have a lighter post and, since it is conference weekend, I thought we should cover an older conference talk.
Brigham Young and Emma Smith had an antagonistic relationship. Even though Emma did not come west with Brigham, his feelings about her did not fade. FAIR quoted a talk given by Brigham at General Conference in 1866 where Brigham spoke of Emma:
To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him.
It might be entertaining to have an 1860’s style General Conference again. For the record, I don’t think Emma tried to poison Joseph.
The animosity between the two was likely because Emma did not accept polygamy and Brigham believed she should be obedient to Joseph as the prophet. Emma always blamed Brigham for plural marriage.
Brigham also doubtless considered Emma dishonest and a liar because she continued to insist that her husband had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage. So adamant was Emma on this point that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held it as an article of faith, and Emma's children never accepted the idea that Joseph had instituted plural marriage. Given that Brigham was blamed by Emma for being the inventor of plural marriage, he probably felt rather ill-used by her. Brigham, after all, saw Emma as fighting against the man Brigham revered as the Prophet, and he knew that Emma knew that Joseph taught plural marriage.
Next, I will begin addressing some issues around polygamy.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Emma_Smith/Brigham_Young
Polygamy
Part 1
Polygamy
This post will be based entirely on my experiences and opinions after researching the topic of polygamy.
I spent many months studying the historical and current practices of polygamy. Polygamy had always been a big issue to me, but I had assumed that if God commanded it, it would be elevated to work out nicely in the families practicing it. My studies taught me the opposite. This was my first big loss of faith.
Nobody thrives in polygamy – not even when God commands it. Even men did not thrive in this system. A good man will want to take good care of his wife and children. This is a difficult task for any family at any time in history. The financial burden of caring for a family has traditionally fallen on the man. Providing for one wife and their shared children can often feel overwhelming. That burden is multiplied with each additional wife and her children. I can’t imagine it felt good to know your family is being neglected because you can’t provide worldly necessities for them. In addition, due to the large age gap that was common in polygamist marriages, young mothers with many children were widowed and unable to support themselves.
Each family member needs individual time and attention. This is often difficult with a traditional family. Brigham Young had 56 wives and 57 children. If time were split equally, each wife would get less than a week with him each year. The children would likely never spend one-on-one time with their father. Brigham’s life was far from typical. He had many high positions and callings that kept him very busy outside the home.
The system of polygamy becomes hierarchical immediately. One wife would emerge as a favorite and generally received benefits not given to other wives. Many accounts talk of the favorite wife having more time with the husband, traveling with the husband, and owning nicer possessions. Less favorite wives would care for the children of other wives and do more housework. This led to jealousy and contention among the other wives. Sometimes this jealousy resulted in physical violence among the wives or the children of other wives.
The children pay the price of polygamy. It is difficult to have a house of harmony with so many people vying for position and so little time together as a family. There are many stories of children going without basic needs when food and money are in short supply. Sadly, other wives would severely punish children from another mother.
As the ratio of male to female births is roughly 50/50, polygamy creates a mathematical impossibility. It is a system of inherent inequality. How can each man have multiple wives when the numbers do not add up? Higher ranking male church members take on more wives. In modern polygamy, young men are sent away from the group so they are not a distraction for the young women who will be marrying much older men. They are often referred to as Lost Boys. It is a very unhealthy situation for the young men to be in, knowing they will never be permitted to marry.
When the end of polygamy was announced, many faithful men and women were very angry. They had been taught this was the highest law and it was necessary. They had suffered diligently out of obedience until one day it just ended. They couldn’t have a second chance at a normal life. I can’t imagine how awful it is to learn that all your life-long family sacrifices were for nothing.
The church has not disavowed polygamy and continues to seal men to more than one wife. Church members anticipate polygamy in the afterlife as a result. I know many women who have been very upset about the possibility of sharing their husband in the next life. A few very devout mainstream members are moving back towards polygamy as it was taught to be the highest law in the past.
As my understanding of polygamy grew, so did my belief that a loving God would not make this system of inequality, financial hardship, and emotional scarcity for his children.
I have included a video that the church has included in the home lesson for D&C 132 which explains some of the hardships these families endured. I think they downplayed the suffering of the families and they unfairly emphasize that women had a choice to enter polygamy. This is a topic I will cover in the future.
In the video, the justification the leaders give for plural marriage is that 20 percent of members come from polygamy and much of the missionary force came from these families. The individual member’s suffering is of little importance. A person’s ability to fulfill the needs of the organization is what matters.
I would encourage you to watch the video.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2018-09-1050-why-was-it-necessary-for-joseph-smith-and-others-to-practice-polygamy?lang=eng
Polygamy
Part 2
The D&C Forbade Polygamy Until 1876
The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants contained section 101 which specifically denounced the practice of polygamy. This section remained in the D&C in 1844 when it was reprinted and remained until 1876 when it was replaced with current section 132 (the revelation on polygamy). Polygamy was being practiced during the entire 42 years that the original section 101 was canonized scripture. FAIR explains the situation as follows:
The Article on Marriage was printed in the 1835 D&C as section 101 and in the 1844 D&C as section 109. The portion of the Article on Marriage relevant to polygamy states:
Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.
In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught to specific individuals since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.
While some have suggested that the article was published against Joseph's wishes or without his knowledge, the available evidence suggests that he supported its publication. It was likely included to counter the perception that the Mormon's practice of communal property (the "law of consecration") included a community of wives.
This statement was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith—it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver and W.W. Phelps introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition, which argues that he was not opposed to them.
D&C 101 is not the only LDS scripture to forbid polygamy. Jacob 2:22-30 also forbids it. The only exception is to raise a righteous seed as stated in verse 30. I have quoted three verses from this passage:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
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;
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.
If raising righteous seed is the only approved exception for monogamy, the church’s practice still doesn’t make sense. Joseph, Brigham, and other top church leaders had some marriages which were not sexual in nature and would not bring about seed.
It should also be noted that polygamous marriages have fewer children per wife than monogamous marriages.
In October 1842, the Times and Seasons printed a statement signed by the leadership which claimed that, “we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.” This was signed by many of the female and male leaders of the church. Eliza Snow was one of the women who signed the statement. She had become a plural wife to Joseph a few months prior to the release of the statement. Joseph had 17 plural wives at the time.
Ultimately, the church had an official doctrine canonized in scripture of monogamy while actively practicing polygamy. This was canonized in two separate books of scripture for 40 years during the practice of polygamy. This scripture was used to hide the actual practice of polygamy.
Why would the church leaders live contrary to the teachings contained in the D&C?
If the canonized scripture could be changed to an opposing doctrine, could we do the same today and remove polygamy from the D&C?
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-october-1842/14
https://www.livescience.com/13010-polygamy-good-men-bad-women.html
Polygamy
Part 3
Hyrum Requested D&C 132 Revelation
Before D&C 132 was written, Joseph Smith had 21 wives in addition to Emma. Emma was later sealed as the 22nd wife to Joseph. Emma hated polygamy and did not accept the practice of it. According to the D&C Study Manual, the revelation for D&C 132 was received when Hyrum Smith asked for a revelation to persuade Emma to accept polygamy.
On the morning of July 12, 1843, the Prophet and his brother Hyrum were discussing the doctrine of plural marriage in the Prophet’s office above the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The Prophet’s scribe William Clayton later recounted: “Hyrum said to Joseph, ‘If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.’ Joseph smiled and remarked, ‘You do not know Emma as well as I do.’ Hyrum repeated his opinion, and further remarked, ‘The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity and heavenly origin,’ or words to that effect.’”
The Prophet consented and instructed William Clayton to get paper and prepare to write. After Joseph had dictated the revelation, he asked William Clayton “to read it through, slowly and carefully, which [he] did, and [Joseph] pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present.”
D&C 132 was written on demand to persuade Emma to accept polygamy.
In the next post, we will discuss how D&C 132 included threatening language toward women who did not accept polygamy.
Polygamy
Part 4
D&C 132 Threatens Women with Destruction
Emma married Joseph in 1827. He took his first plural wife sometime before 1836. By the time section 132 was written in July 1843, he had 21 additional wives. Emma never fully accepted polygamy, although she was later sealed to Joseph as his 22nd wife. “For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. …”
Doctrine and Covenants 132:54-56 is further evidence that Emma was coerced into accepting polygamy. If she refused this commandment, she was threatened with destruction while Joseph was promised tremendous blessings. In addition, she was to forgive him his trespasses if she desired any forgiveness.
In this chapter, women are told they will be destroyed a total of seven times. The reasons for destruction are: having an affair, not being pure, not accepting the commandment of polygamy, and not believing in polygamy. The threat is not equally applied to men. Verse 54 threatens Emma with destruction twice. Verse 55 promises endless blessings to Joseph. Verse 56 hinges Emma’s forgiveness on her extending forgiveness to Joseph. I will not quote all the verses that threaten destruction here, but all are found in section 132. Verses 54-56 are provided below:
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
In verse 65, women are told that if they do not accept polygamy, they are the transgressor. In addition, the Law of Sarah (which allows for polygamy only if the wife agrees to it), is no longer in effect.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
D&C 132 coerces women into allowing their husbands to have relationships their wives do not desire. When the prophet (speaking as God) threatens a woman with obtaining forgiveness and facing destruction, it cannot be seen as consensual. When men are promised infinite blessings either way, this adds pressure on the woman to conform to the man’s desire.
Next we will discuss the Happiness Letter.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng
Polygamy
Part 5
The Happiness Letter
Letter to Nancy Rigdon, circa Mid-April 1842
Two famous quotes attributed to Joseph Smith are:
“Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it…”
“Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive…”
These are widely quoted, yet many members do not know their origin. These are excerpts from a letter, sometimes referred to as the Happiness Letter, which was reportedly written to Nancy Rigdon (age 19) after she turned down Joseph Smith’s (age 36) plural marriage proposal. Nancy never married Joseph and the letter was later published by a church critic, which often leads members to question its authenticity. However, the opening lines are frequently quoted over the pulpit and attributed to Joseph Smith. This letter can be difficult to read and take in the first time, so it may take more than one reading.
While the letter doesn’t mention marriage or polygamy outright, referring to Solomon and his gifts that could be seen as abominations makes it clear that polygamy the subject of the letter. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Using Solomon to justify plural marriage is surprising as Jacob 2:24 specifically declares that what Solomon did was an abomination.
Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
In the following sentences, the pleasure of eating an apple is used as a metaphor for sex. If you steal the apple, you can be whipped. If the apple is given to you its pleasure can be eaten without any misery.
There also are hints of punishments in the letter for rejecting the marriage offer. A servant is called wicked for rejecting the blessings and told that God is swift to execute punishments upon the wicked.
In the last paragraph, Joseph began speaking as though it was from the Lord – which would add more pressure on Nancy to marry Joseph. She is promised blessings for doing the Lord’s will in all things. This letter is not the only example of using threats and God’s voice to coerce a woman into polygamy. As we previously discussed, D&C 132 was written for the same purpose.
Here is the entirety of the letter to Nancy. I broke it into paragraphs for easier reading:
Happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know, unless we comply with or keep those we have already received!
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time he said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted, by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.
If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added So with Solomon; first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart; even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which, in reality, were right, because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.
A parent may whip a child, and justly too, because he stole an apple; whereas, if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; and there would have been no stripes; all the pleasures of the apple would have been secured, and the misery of stealing lost. This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with his children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right, and it is proper that we should enjoy his gifts and blessings, whenever and wherever he is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret.
But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness, the happiness of all his creatures, he never has, he never will, institute an ordinance, or give a commandment to his people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which he has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive, and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not, or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.
Be wise to day; “tis madness to defer!
Next day the fatal precedent may plead;
Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time, into eternity.”
Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way than we are apt to suppose him to be; he will be inquired of by his children; he says,
“Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find; but, if ye will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things; who will listen to my voice, and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the laws of my Kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy”
What are your thoughts on the Happiness Letter?
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Polygamy_book/John_C._Bennett/Nancy_Rigdon
Polygamy
Part 6
Sunday School Lesson on D&C 132
I was curious to see how D&C 132 was presented as a Sunday School Lesson as it would have been taught in 2021. Polygamy is a difficult topic to discuss so I wanted to see how the church approaches it.
The lesson covers four sections in the D&C, of which 132 is the last. Some of the material from 132 is mixed in with the rest of the content covering eternal families. This puts the material from this section about polygamy at the bottom of the lesson. Here is the entirety of the information about polygamy:
Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 29–40
Plural marriage is acceptable to God only when He commands it.
If class members have questions about plural marriage, help them see that Joseph Smith and other early Saints had questions too. Encourage them to find the question Joseph asked the Lord in Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 and the answer he received in verses 29–40 (see also Jacob 2:27, 30). To help class members learn about ways they can find answers to their gospel questions, it might help to review together “Answering Gospel Questions” at topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Maybe class members could share how they have sought answers to gospel questions and how they remain faithful even when some of their questions remain unanswered.
First, we should note that the lesson does not guide the reader to go past verse 40 even though there are 66 verses in the section. It is these later verses deal directly with polygamy. It is in verse 54 that Emma is told she will be destroyed if she doesn’t accept this practice.
Second, the lesson really doesn’t provide answers beyond affirming that Joseph had questions too. The lesson encourages people to share experiences about how to be faithful with unanswered questions.
Third, a resource is provided for those with further questions. An appropriate source to provide might have been the church’s essay on polygamy, but this was not provided.
Instead, a link to the “Answering Gospel Questions” essay is provided. This essay is not about polygamy, but about how members can have questions but should not have doubts. It is worth taking the time to read this essay. I have included three key paragraphs from this essay:
Because our perspective and knowledge are limited, we find spiritual truths only if faith is part of our efforts. Faith requires mental and spiritual exertion and is rooted in positive hope, not negative doubt.
Remember, however, that the term question is not synonymous with the term doubt. Faith and doubt are not different sides of a coin. The Lord and His prophets do not encourage doubt—quite the opposite. Doubt is not spoken of in a positive light in the scriptures. President Thomas S. Monson taught, “Doubt never inspires faith.” That is why the Lord is so adamant that we “doubt not.” He knows that doubting can affect our faith in Him. The Savior taught, “And whosoever shall believe in my name, doubting nothing, unto him will I confirm all my words.” Speaking to those who did not believe in Christ, Moroni admonished, “Doubt not, but be believing.”
While we should not feel embarrassed or unworthy because we have questions or concerns, we should seek to resolve them, remembering that our questions will be answered on the Lord’s timetable and may require our patience. Doubt does not lead to faith, but seeking learning by study and by faith increases both our knowledge and our faith.
Fourth, the Additional Resources heading at the end of the lesson would have been a good area to include links to information about polygamy. Instead, it includes only quotes about eternal families.
It is very possible for a member to sit through years of church classes and not know polygamy existed or only have a brief interaction with material that mentions polygamy. This is how many new and life-long members are unaware of any of the details around polygamy.
There are so many life-long members who struggle to understand how they knew so little even though they attended church diligently. This lesson explains how the difficult topics are skimmed over or dodged entirely.
I believe that church, and not the home, is the place to deal with difficult topics. I acknowledge others may have different opinions.
Where do you believe difficult church topics should be addressed?
Next, I will examine the complementary lesson for the home lesson on D&C 132.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/answering-gospel-questions?lang=eng
Polygamy
Part 7
Home Lesson on D&C 132
The lesson on D&C 132 for the home is much more thorough than the church version. Still, the topic of polygamy is at the end of the lesson, covering four total chapters. Once again, verses not are recommended passed verse 40. However, more resources are provided in this lesson:
- Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage (Revelations in Context, 281–93); Saints, 1:290–92, 432–35, 482–92, 502–4;
- Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Gospel Topics, topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org);
- Why Was It Necessary for Joseph Smith and Others to Practice Polygamy? (video, ChurchofJesusChrist.org).
I read or watched each of the resources provided and want to share my thoughts on each of them. I encourage each of you to read and watch these resources.
The essay on Mercy Thompson, one of Hyrum’s three wives, is an interesting choice to provide. Joseph had 30-40 wives whose stories could have been told, but his wives were more complicated. He married young girls, mother/daughter pairs, and women who were married to other men. Mercy’s husband had died and left her with a child to raise. I believe that Mercy’s story perpetuates a belief that polygamy existed to help provide for widows.
However, Mercy’s story is not without real issues. The reason given for Mercy’s marriage was that her deceased husband appeared to Joseph that he didn’t want Mercy to be alone. “He ‘appeared to [Joseph] several times telling him that he did not wish me to live such a lonely life,’ Mercy recounted.” She strongly resisted plural marriage but eventually agreed to marry Hyrum. Hyrum was killed 10 months later. She had been a single mother of one child and was now raising seven children with her sister and sister-wife, Mary. Mercy spent the next 40 years of her life single after losing two husbands.
The essay on plural marriage is the correct source to provide as it deals with polygamy directly.
The video titled “Why Was It Necessary for Joseph Smith and Others to Practice Polygamy?” addresses the inequalities that come with polygamy. However, some viewers find it unsettling to watch the leaders speak of the injustices with smiles on their faces and laughter in the background. They conclude by saying that polygamy was difficult, but the practice was successful as it produced many church members and missionaries.
While the transparency found in the home lesson on D&C 132 is better, it is misplaced. All three sources would make a very interesting discussion in a Sunday School class but are likely to be unused in a home. The burden of dealing with difficult topics is shifted to the parent. Many families do not have the ability or capacity to have a third hour of church at home. Few people will get to this lesson, have the ability to read and understand all the resources provided; and be able to teach difficult topics to their children. By using this method of disseminating information, another generation is being raised without the full set of facts but the church still can claim transparency.
What percentage of active families would you guess have a weekly class at home?
As a member, did you cover these or other difficult topics with your children in the home lesson?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-doctrine-and-covenants-2021/46?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2018-09-1050-why-was-it-necessary-for-joseph-smith-and-others-to-practice-polygamy?lang=eng
Polygamy
Part 8
Fanny Alger – Joseph’s First Plural Wife
I recently realized that we never speak of Joseph Smith’s plural wives and most couldn’t name one other than Emma. I want to introduce you to Joseph’s first plural wife. Fanny Alger was a young, attractive domestic servant in the Smith home. Their marriage was very short in duration before she left Joseph and married another man.
This union would have occurred before the sealing keys were restored and almost 10 years before D&C 132 was revealed.
Joseph Smith wrote D&C 132, the revelation of polygamy, on July 12, 1843. However, his first plural wife was Fanny Alger who he married in the mid-1830s. “Joseph Smith came to know Fanny Alger in early 1833 when she stayed at the Smith home as a house-assistant to Emma.” Fanny would have been 16 or 17 years old in 1833 and Joseph would have been 28. There is no exact marriage date, although it is thought to be in 1835 or 1836. This was a short marriage as Fanny left the home and was remarried in November 1836.
There is very little information available about the relationship. FAIR addresses the issue with the lack of first-hand accounts of this marriage.
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 which, again, rests on dubious historical grounds. 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).
Fanny is described as “comely” and well-liked by everyone. A contemporary account of Joseph’s and Fanny’s relationship is as follows:
Benjamin F. Johnson stated that in 1835 he had "learned from my sister’s husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, 'that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.' This, at the time did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived then with his family (the Prophet’s) a neighbor’s daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial, for the amiability for her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her."
It appears that Emma was unaware of the marriage for some time and was upset when she discovered it. There are accounts of Emma seeing them together in the barn. Fanny left the Smith home in 1836 but there are rumors that Emma threw Fanny out of the house.
Fanny was then married to Solomon Custer on November 16, 1836. This remarriage would have been shortly after marrying Joseph. There is no mention of a divorce from Joseph Smith. Fanny did not follow the members west, but stayed in Dublin and attended the Universalist Church. Her family settled in Southern Utah and remained faithful.
I recommend watching the Saints Unscripted video included in the comments. It provides a good summary of the relationships with Fanny, Joseph, and Emma.
Each plural wife has her own story. Take some time to read up on one of them and get to know her personally.
Fanny’s story eventually led to the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery. This is the topic of the next post.
https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/fanny-alger/
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/fanny-alger?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Kqcw3iiUE&t=340s
Polygamy
Part 9
Oliver Cowdery’s Excommunication
Oliver Cowdery had been the second highest ranking member of the church from 1830 to 1838. Yet, Oliver was excommunicated and had a 10-year estrangement from Joseph Smith and the church. Many people know that Oliver had a disagreement with Joseph, but are unclear on the basis of the argument.
In the 1830’s, Joseph was having a relationship with Fanny Alger, a domestic servant in his home. Fanny was known as Joseph’s first plural wife, although she left him in 1836 and quickly married another man. Oliver did not accept plural marriage and described the relationship as, “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” FAIR states that:
Some of Joseph's associates, most notably Oliver Cowdery, perceived Joseph's association with Fanny as an affair rather than a plural marriage. Oliver, in a letter to his brother Warren, asserted that “in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.”
The church essay on Fanny Alger tells of a volatile climate after the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society in 1837.
Angry investors in the society and local antagonists circulated many rumors attacking Joseph, including allegations that he committed adultery Some of the rumors were said to originate with Oliver Cowdery, whose formerly close relationship with Joseph had become strained over a variety of matters. Some claimed Oliver heard Joseph confess to extramarital relations with Fanny Alger.
For the accusations of an affair and other disagreements with Joseph, Oliver was excommunicated. Oliver was not the only member excommunicated at the time. “David Whitmer was also excommunicated from the church at the same time and apostle Lyman E. Johnson was disfellowshipped; John Whitmer and Phelps had been excommunicated for similar reasons a month earlier.”
The first three charges against Oliver as stated by Joseph were,
I do hereby prefer the following Charges against Oliver Cowdery, which consists of nine in number. 1st For persecuting the bretheren, by urging on vexatious lawsuits against the Bretheren and thus dirstressing the inocent. 2nd For seeking to destroy the Character of Pres. Joseph Smith Jr by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultery &c. 3rd. By treating the Church with contempt by not attending meeting.
Later, Oliver’s life was threatened by the Danites after a fiery sermon was taught by Sidney Rigdon. Oliver felt threatened and fled the area.
Oliver rejoined the church in 1848, four years after Smith’s death.
Joseph’s contemporaries did not accept his marriage to Fanny, his house servant. Their accusations of adultery led to their excommunication and banishment.
What do you think of Oliver’s assessment of the marriage between Fanny and Joseph?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-march-september-1838/16
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/fanny-alger?lang=eng
First Vision
Part 1
First Vision – Four Different Accounts
Joseph Smith’s vision is believed to have occurred in 1820 but was not written until 1832 at the earliest. There are four main accounts of this vision. It is expected that each would contain variations in the details; however, some of the main details are inconsistent. The 1832 account only mentions “the Lord” and the 1835 account mentions “many angels.”
I have broken each account into three categories:
- Why did Joseph pray
- Who appeared
- Guidance received
The four accounts are summarized below:
1832 Account – Written by Joseph
- Why: Forgiveness for sins & search for Biblical church
- Who: Only “the Lord” appeared
- Guidance: Forgave him of his sins.
1835 Account.- Journal
- Why: Which church was right
- Who: The opposition he felt as he prayed
One personage who was followed shortly by another
Many angels
- Guidance: Sins are forgiven
1838 Account - Found in Joseph Smith History
- Why: Which church is right
- Who: Two personages appear
- Guidance: Forbidden to join any church
1842 Account - Wentworth Letter
- Why: Clear up confusion
- Who: Two personages
- Guidance: Not go after any sect
It is understandable that each account will accentuate different aspects of the visit. The gospel topic essay states that; “Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details.” However, for some people, some of the differences are too important to be overlooked.
The most contested variations have to do with the 1832 account only mentioning “the Lord.” Many believe that this detail is too important to have variations as it only mentions one heavenly visitor. The church essay explains that it may actually contain two beings:
The 1832 account, then, can reasonably be read to mean that Joseph Smith saw one being who then revealed another and that he referred to both of them as “the Lord”: “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.”
It is worth noting that between the 1830 and 1837 versions of the Book of Mormon, four verses were changed to add “the Son of” preceding a reference to God. Some believe this shows a changing theology from a trinitarian view to the current view of three separate beings. They believe that this theological change is also seen in the different accounts of the First Vision. Apologists will argue that these changes were just for clarification.
Each person can decide if they think this account talks of one or two beings. The next post will show that early church leaders clearly saw this account as problematic enough to justify hiding the 1832 account.
Another variation is that “many angels” were referred to in the 1835 account. No other account mentions angels. No explanation was given for this difference.
The accounts vacillate between forgiveness for sins or seeking the true church as the reason for the prayer. Most think this is more of a minor issue.
Each reader must decide for themselves if these differences in the four First Vision accounts are relevant.
However, there is more to this issue. The 1832 account was intentionally hidden from the church membership because of the inconsistencies. Someone in the past found the issues to be troubling enough to remove the account from a book and store it in a safe. This will be discussed in the next post.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22#Question:_What_changes_were_made_to_the_1837_edition_of_the_Book_of_Mormon.3F
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes
First Vision
Part 2
First Vision – 1832 Account Hidden in a Safe
The gospel topic essay addressing the four varying First Vision accounts states that, “The two unpublished accounts, recorded in Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiography and a later journal, were generally forgotten until historians working for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rediscovered and published them in the 1960s.”
By “generally forgotten” the writers of the essay meant that the account had been cut out of the original book and stored in the office safe of the prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith.
By “rediscovered by historians” the writers meant that the rumors about the hidden account caused the Tanners to seek out the original documents.
These two critical details were left out of the church essay. I will cover these details as addressed by FAIR.
The 1832 First Vision account were hidden from the historians and church members for almost 130 years. It is assumed this was to hide the inconsistencies, although no one knows exactly when it was done or who was involved. The accounts were eventually published in the 1970s. FAIR confirms this coverup:
While apparently someone from the Church Historian's Office was responsible for the excision of the leaves from the notebook, we don't know exactly who did it or why. A possible motive was trying to maintain complete consistency with the 1838 account that was available in the Pearl of Great Price. At that time, any differences between accounts could have been seen as possibly faith destroying.
Many think that Joseph Fielding Smith was behind the removal of the account as he had it in his possession. However, no one is certain that he was the first to have the missing pages. FAIR states:
Although the editors of the Histories volume of the Joseph Smith Papers do not discuss why the 1832 history was excised, we can speculate about who might have removed the leaves, and why. Because we know that the missing pages were kept in the office safe of Joseph Fielding Smith, it is unlikely that the leaves were removed simply in accordance with the archival practice of separating collections based on content. We can also surmise that one of the senior members of the Church Historian’s Office would have been responsible for the decision to keep the pages separate; it was probably Joseph Fielding Smith himself, but could possibly have been Earl E. Olson or A. William Lund. There are no available records of the reasoning behind the decision to keep the 1832 account from becoming widely known, but the history of denying researchers access to the account suggests some uneasiness about its contents. Some time during the 1940s or early 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith showed Levi Edgar Young (who was then the senior president of the First Council of the Seventy) this 1832 account of the First Vision.
In 1964, the Tanners asked to see the account that they had heard rumors about. They were denied access to it, but eventually, the account was added to the Church Historian’s Collection. FAIR recounts the history as follows:
In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this ‘strange account’ of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account. Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832 history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection.
Although the version may have been kept back due to initial concerns about differences between the 1832 and 1838 accounts, eventually this version was published in Church magazines and in other venues.
The church should be much more accurate in their essay. The accounts were not “forgotten” but cut out of the original books and hidden in a safe in the prophet’s office.
Why would the 1832 account be hidden?
Why would the gospel topic essay leave out these critical details?
There is another issue with the First Vision which has to do with the gap of 12 years between the event and the first written account.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
First Vision
Part 3
First Vision – Silence for 11+ Years, Unknown for 20 years
The First Vision Had Little Relevance in Early Church
“Likely no more than a handful of Latter-day Saints had even heard of the First Vision before 1839.” Richard Bushman – LDS Church Historian
When I was told the story of the First Vision which took place in 1820, I believed that Joseph Smith started telling people about the experience right away. I was told that his vision was the cause of much persecution as he grew up. These beliefs came from the 1838 First Vision account which is contained in the Pearl of Great Price. However, Joseph didn’t tell anyone about the vision until around 1832.
Joseph Smith History 1:21-22 and 25 state that Joseph was persecuted after telling a minister about the vision. This account indicates that others joined in on the persecution as well.
Verse 22 states that, “I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase…”
Verse 25 continues with, “So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true;”
However, no contemporary account says that anyone was told or that he was persecuted.
According to an article published by BYU Studies,
For twenty years after the vision occurred, Joseph Smith published nothing about the vision of the Father and the Son to link him to the other visionaries. By his own account, after he returned from the grove he did not tell his own mother about the vision. He related the experience to a local clergyman, whose negative response must have discouraged further retellings.
An article published by BYU Studies acknowledges that, “If anyone was likely to have accepted his tale, it should have been the Methodist minister Smith approached shortly after his vision.” However, there is no written account of Joseph sharing the vision with a local clergyman except that the 1838 account states it happened retrospectively. There simply are no contemporary accounts of the First Vision.
FAIR indicates that, “…the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844…”
In addition, the D&C edition printed in the early 1830s did not include the First Vision. Richard Bushman, LDS Church Historian, states that:
One might expect Joseph Smith to preface the Doctrine and Covenants with the story of the First Vision, as Mormon missionaries later handed out the pamphlet Joseph Smith’s Own Story to prospective converts. But judging from the written record, the First Vision story was little known in the early years.
… So far as we know the 1832 account was never read in a church meeting. It was buried away in church records until discovered by a historian in the 1960s.
This withholding of the 1832 account was typical of the first decade of the Church. Very little was made of the First Vision in Church teachings until 1839 when for the first time the story of the vision appeared in print, in an account by Orson Pratt. The familiar 1838 account was not published until 1842. Joseph mentioned his experience to a visitor to Kirtland in 1835, but did not tell the story in any sermon we know about. Likely no more than a handful of Latter-day Saints had even heard of the First Vision before 1839.
In addition, Solomon Chamberlin visited Palmyra in 1829 and spoke of his vision from 1816.
Guided by his inspiration, Chamberlin walked south from the town center, heard about the “gold bible” at the house where he spent the night, and the next day made his way to the place where Joseph Smith Sr. was living.
It should be noted that Solomon went to the Smith home because he had heard of the “gold bible” and not the First Vision.
FAIR states that the reasons for the silence were to avoid persecution and that Joseph did not see the vision as important to gain converts and kept it to himself.
Joseph eventually wrote the account of that early vision late in his life because rumors about it had circulated and caused him difficulty. But neither Joseph nor any of the other early Saints offered that vision as a reason for others to become Latter-day Saints during his lifetime. It was only much later that what we now call the First Vision began to take on a special importance for the Saints.
The apologists argue that the vision was not seen as relevant and therefore was not included in any writings. They still claim Joseph faced persecution for the vision although there is no support for this claim.
It is important to understand that history does not support the story of the First Vision contained in the 1838 account which is found in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph did not share the First Vision experience with anyone until the 1830s. There is no evidence he was persecuted for it and the evidence indicates that he would not have been persecuted at all. The vision was widely unknown until after 1839.
Why do you think there was no account of the First Vision until 1832?
Why do you think the 1832 account of the First Vision was unknown until 1839?
Why was the First Vision seen as unimportant in the church's early years?
There is one more issue with the First Vision which I will address in the next post.
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-visionary-world-of-joseph-smith/
https://www.eldenwatson.net/wmsmith.htm
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/book-of-commandments?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts#Allen_.281970.29:_.22the_Prophet_described_his_experience_to_friends_and_acquaintances_at_least_as_early_as_1831-32...he_continued_to_do_so_in_varying_detail_until_the_year_of_his_death.22
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/effusions-of-an-enthusiastic-brain/
https://books.google.com/books?id=M23UI7CogvkC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=One+might+expect+Joseph+Smith+to+preface+the+Doctrine+and+Covenants+with+the+story+of+the+First+Vision,+as+Mormon+missionaries+later+handed+out+the+pamphlet+Joseph+Smith%E2%80%99s+Own+Story+to+prospective+converts.+But+judging+from+the+written+record,+the+First+Vision+story+was+little+known+in+the+early+years.&source=bl&ots=09X7fmRXRD&sig=ACfU3U2F5hYcOo75ThyIZc-VndULn33bnQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6iNbApYz-AhX5LEQIHUMUCakQ6AF6BAg5EAM#v=onepage&q=One%20might%20expect%20Joseph%20Smith%20to%20preface%20the%20Doctrine%20and%20Covenants%20with%20the%20story%20of%20the%20First%20Vision%2C%20as%20Mormon%20missionaries%20later%20handed%20out%20the%20pamphlet%20Joseph%20Smith%E2%80%99s%20Own%20Story%20to%20prospective%20converts.%20But%20judging%20from%20the%20written%20record%2C%20the%20First%20Vision%20story%20was%20little%20known%20in%20the%20early%20years.&f=false
First Vision
Part 4
First Vision – Contemporary Visions
Persecution for Visions was Unlikely
“Joseph Smith’s description of his vision closely mirrors the experiences of many evangelical visionaries.” Jerry Talmage, BYU Studies
There are many accounts of visions during the early 1800s in the area surrounding the Smith family. Some of these accounts read similarly to Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The most similar of the accounts was written by Norris Stearns. Norris’s account was written five years before Joseph’s first written account.
The Norris Stearns account is addressed in an article published by BYU Studies:
Most of the story sounds nothing like Joseph Smith’s, but one striking passage resonates with the 1839 account of the First Vision. Stearns had a vision early in his life, when he was still laboring through heavy doubts about religion.
At length, as I lay apparently upon the brink of eternal woe, seeing nothing but death before me, suddenly there came a sweet flow of the love of God to my soul, which gradually increased. At the same time, there appeared a small gleam of light in the room, above the brightness of the sun, then at his meridian, which grew brighter and brighter: As this light and love increased, my sins began to separate, and the Mountain removed towards the east. At length, being in an ecstacy of joy, I turned to the other side of the bed, (whether in the body or out I cannot tell, God knoweth) there I saw two spirits, which I knew at the first sight. But if I had the tongue of an Angel I could not describe their glory, for they brought the joys of heaven with them. One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a Cloud. In looking steadfastly to discern features, I could see none, but a small glimpse would appear in some other place. Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man—His face was not ablaze, but had the countenance of fire, being bright and shining. His Father’s will appeared to be his! All was condescension, peace, and love!!
The same article published by BYU compares Norris’s account, written in 1827, to Joseph’s account written in 1838.
Joseph Smith’s report of a “pillar [of] light exactly over [his] head above the brightness of the sun, which descended . . . gradually untill it fell upon [him],” containing “two personages . . . standing above [him] in the air” also emulates the experience of Norris Stearns, published only five years before Smith’s. Stearns, a barely literate teenager from Massachusetts, found himself “on the brink of eternal woe, feeling nothing but death before [him].” “Suddenly,” he reported, “there came a sweet flow of the love of God to my soul, which gradually increased. At the same time, there appeared a small gleam of light . . . above the brightness of the sun . . . which grew brighter and brighter.” In the light, Stearns reported, “[I] saw two spirits, which I knew at the first sight. . . . One was God, my Maker,” and “below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer.” While Joseph Smith described the beings as possessing a “brightness and glory [that] defy all description,” Stearns recalled that their countenances were “of fire, being bright and shining.”
Another similar account was recorded in 1814.
In 1814, just six years before Joseph Smith’s First Vision, America’s most popular evangelist, Lorenzo Dow, published his memoir, which became one of the most read books in the United States. In it, Dow described his own vision as a teenager in Connecticut. As a young boy of only thirteen, he recalled journeying “out of doors” seeking the “salvation of [his] soul.” Nearly overcome by a thick “mist of darkness,” he beheld God accompanied by “Jesus Christ at his right hand.”
The same article indicates that many visions like this were common in Smith’s era. The stories were printed in pamphlets and newspapers and news of the visions spread rapidly.
Visionaries like Stearns and Smith commonly recounted God and Jesus Christ appearing as separate entities in heaven-born manifestations. Fellow visionary Billy Hibbard recalled seeing “Jesus Christ at the right hand of God looking down upon me, and God the Father looking upon him.” Smith’s experience of retreating to the forest in prayer, seeing a light, and then laying eyes upon God and Jesus was far from unusual.
Joseph Smith’s description of his vision closely mirrors the experiences of many evangelical visionaries. His account of being “seized upon” by “some power which entirely overcame” him accompanied by a “thick darkness” only to be freed by a heavenly light resembles in detail the conversion experience of Methodist Fanny Newell. Surrounded by a “cloud of darkness,” Newell reported, “[I] saw a small ray of light, and my eyes seemed fixed upon it. The light increased, until at length it appeared as large as the blaze of a candle. . . . Then I saw the appearance of a man, and then the darkness which had surrounded me withdrew. . . . The man who presented himself to my view was CHRIST.”
Though notable religious scholars have claimed that during the 1820s Evangelicals distanced themselves from such visions, evidence indicates otherwise. In 1826, a former resident of Palmyra and neighbor of Joseph Smith published an account of a dream in which Christ descended “in a glare of brightness, exceeding ten fold the brilliancy of the meridian Sun.” A few years previous, in 1823, the local newspaper reported about another visionary in the immediate vicinity. Visions like Smith’s were, in fact, common. Joseph Smith, according to his biographer, lived in a visionary culture that cut across social divisions and “united all kinds of people.” Men and women, rich and poor, young and old—all saw theophanies of Christ….
The article claims that it is expected that Joseph’s account reads similarly to other accounts.
It comes as no surprise then that Smith’s own attempts to convey his story reflected the style of other visions that circulated in antebellum America. Indeed, accounts of his First Vison read very “much like the conversion narratives that appear in numerous journals of other early American evangelicals.” It is improbable that Smith would not have heard of their stories. Countless of his contemporaries had similar experiences of beholding a heavenly light and meeting Christ.
In addition, Solomon Chamberlin visited Palmyra in 1829 and spoke of his vision from 1816. “Guided by his inspiration, Chamberlin walked south from the town center, heard about the ‘gold bible’ at the house where he spent the night, and the next day made his way to the place where Joseph Smith Sr. was living.”
I then opened my mouth and began to preach to them, in the words that the angel had made known to me in the vision, that all Churches and Denominations on the earth had become corrupt, and no Church of God on the earth but that he would shortly rise up a Church, that would never be confounded nor brought down and be like unto the Apostolic Church.
It should be noted that Solomon went to the Smith home because he had heard of the “gold bible” and not the First Vision.
The BYU article states that,
We can imagine this flow of religious stories trickling through rural villages and possibly washing over the Smiths. It is unlikely that we will ever know if any single pamphlet save Chamberlin’s reached them, and we cannot conclude that the similarities of tone and style mean that Joseph imitated Norris Stearns or anyone else.
Joseph himself never made reference to other visionaries, and we cannot tell for sure if he consciously distanced himself; but when compiling revelations for publication in these early years, he did omit almost every account that might connect him to the visionaries of his time.
It is clear that visions similar to Joseph’s were commonly reported at the time. It doesn’t seem that people were persecuted as a result of their visions, although Joseph claimed he was heavily persecuted.
If anyone was likely to have accepted his tale, it should have been the Methodist minister Smith approached shortly after his vision…
Modern historians have tended to explain Smith’s cold reception as a reflection of shifting attitudes, claiming that by his day direct revelation from God was no longer acceptable. This reasoning, however, discounts the widespread visionary worldview of Smith’s contemporaries. Instead of growing up in a postrevelatory age, he lived in an evangelical environment that encouraged every convert to have his or her own experience with Christ. Signs of divine forgiveness were commonplace, and multitudes reported receiving assurance of their salvation through visions and dreams and the expression of other charismatic gifts.
Another thing that is notable is that the visions were often published in pamphlets or the newspaper and news of them spread through the region. Joseph’s experience in 1820 remained unknown until he wrote his 1832 account and was still largely unknown until 1839.
The First Vision account as contained in the scriptures resembles other contemporary accounts that predated Joseph’s 1832 writings. Some of the accounts read similarly to Joseph’s account. Persecution for visions was not likely in the environment where these experiences were common and celebrated.
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-visionary-world-of-joseph-smith/
https://www.ldsliving.com/3-ways-the-restoration-actually-started-before-the-sacred-grove/s/83205
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/effusions-of-an-enthusiastic-brain/
Church History Folklore
Part 1
Transfiguration of Brigham Young
The transfiguration of Brigham Young where Brigham appeared as Joseph Smith is a critical moment in church history and modern church succession practices. No direction or revelation had been given to indicate how the next prophet would be chosen. After Joseph’s death in 1844, no one knew who would replace him – until this important event. Brigham’s assumption of the role of the Prophet would set the succession pattern that continues today.
The Church History student manual tells of this miraculous event:
Thursday, 8 August 1844, stands as one of the most important days in the history of the Restoration. On that day a miracle occurred before the body of the Church—Brigham Young was transfigured before the people, and the succession crisis of the Church was resolved. A special meeting to choose a guardian was held that morning at ten o’clock in the grove, according to the arrangements of William Marks. Sidney Rigdon spoke for an hour and a half about his desires to be the guardian of the Church, but he awakened no emotion and said nothing that marked him as the true leader. Brigham Young told the audience that he would rather have spent a month mourning the dead Prophet than so quickly attend to the business of appointing a new shepherd. While he was speaking, he was miraculously transfigured before the people.
This event was so significant that it established the process of choosing each subsequent prophet for the church. Brigham was the head of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time he was transfigured. This pattern of succession continues today. According to a church article:
The man who has served as an Apostle the longest, besides the Prophet, is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. When a prophet dies, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve becomes the next prophet. He prays and calls two new counselors.
However, there are no contemporary accounts of the transfiguration at the meeting. The first mention of the 1844 event was in 1857. After the 1857 story, recollections of the event in journals began to appear in journals. A BYU Studies article indicates that the church historians have disagreements about what actually happened that day:
Ronald K. Esplin states, “Though there is no contemporary diary account, the number of later retellings, many in remarkable detail, argues for the reality of some such experience.” Leonard J. Arrington notes that an important event “took place” but observes that there may be psychological explanations for the phenomenon and reserves judgment regarding whether a miraculous transfiguration occurred. Others, however, have concluded that it is unlikely that a miraculous spiritual manifestation took place. Richard S. Van Wagoner, for instance, writes, “When 8 August 1844 is stripped of emotional overlay, there is not a shred of irrefutable contemporary evidence to support the occurrence of a mystical event.” Van Wagoner concludes that “a more likely scenario was that it was the force of Young’s commanding presence, his well-timed arrival at the morning meeting, and perhaps a bit of theatrical mimicry, that swayed the crowd.”
Did Brigham himself know that something miraculous had happened? His own account, dated August 8, 1844, simply states:
I arose and spocke to the people. my hart was swolen with composion toards them and by the power of the Holy Gost even the spirit of the Prophets I was enabled to comfort the harts of the Saints. in the afternoon a corden to my request the people assembld by thousands[.] I lade before them the order of the church and the Power of the Preasthood. after a long and laboras talk of a bout two ours in the open air with the wind blowing, the church was of one hart and one mind[.] they wanted the twelve to lead the church as Br Joseph had dun in his day.
Not even Brigham’s journal entry from that day mentions an event like the transfiguration. Neither do any of the accounts of the people who attended the meeting. The first mention of the event was 13 years after the fateful meeting. The BYU Studies article talks of the 1857 conference talk:
In a July 19, 1857, conference talk, Brigham Young referred to Albert Carrington’s mantle experience:
He [Carrington] could not tell me from Joseph Smith, when I was speaking in the stand in Nauvoo during the October Conference of 1844. Somebody came along and passed a finger over his eyes and he could not see any one but Joseph speaking, until I got through addressing the congregation.
This talk was printed ten days later in the Deseret News and may have inspired some Saints to write down their memories of the events of August 1844.
No journals spoke of the 1844 event before 1857. While some believe that the members had simply neglected to write about the transfiguration earlier, others believe that it did not happen at all and memories were falsely created when Brigham spoke of it at conference. The BYU Studies article addresses this issue:
The spiritual witness received at the August conference was of such magnitude that believers were willing, even eager, to follow Brigham Young and the Twelve. However, for one hundred and fifty years, scholars have searched for a witness account written on the same day as the mantle experience. If the experience was so “intense and life-changing” for followers of the Prophet Joseph, why were none of the accounts that record the miracle written on the day of the manifestation or shortly thereafter? It is a question that unfortunately cannot be answered definitively.
Two of the earliest known accounts of the mantle experience were recorded by Caroline Barnes Crosby and Emily Smith Hoyt, two formidable pioneer women. They recorded their mantle testimonies when they finally found the essential element they needed—a solid block of time. At the end of 1850, after six hectic and life-threatening years, Caroline and Emily both found the time and solitude to begin journals of their experiences. Each woman felt that the mantle story was important enough to include at the beginning of her history.
As stories about the mantle experience began to circulate in the 1850s, some writers may have responded by offering their own personalized or embellished accounts; such is human nature. However, most of the stories recorded after this point were not identical. It does not seem that the writers were relying on the same source for their versions of the event. In fact, the accounts contradict each other to some extent in their descriptions of the events of the day, suggesting that each person wrote his or her account as remembered, not as described by Church leaders years later.
Others argue that there was contemporary evidence that the event happened but that it was described more vaguely as the “mantle” falling upon Brigham. The BYU Studies article further evaluates the responses:
There were contemporary references to Young’s “transfiguration.” The Times and Seasons reported that just before the sustaining vote at the afternoon session of the August meeting, “every Saint could see that Elijah’s mantle had truly fallen upon the ‘Twelve.’” Although the church newspaper did not refer to Young specifically for this “mantle” experience, on 15 November 1844 Henry and Catharine Brooke wrote from Nauvoo that Young “favours Br Joseph, both in person, manner of speaking more than any person ever you saw, looks like another.” Five days later Arza Hinckley referred to “Brigham Young on [w]hom the mantle of the prophet Joseph has fallen.”
An article published by Deseret News more concisely summarizes the lack of sources and the hope of finding a contemporary source in the future:
Unfortunately, historians have located not a single source, thus far, that
mentions this important manifestation within days or even weeks of its alleged occurrence.
Furthermore, we can’t presume modern research has found every account that was ever given. It’s very likely other such narratives once existed but have perished and that other witnesses testified orally to their experience but never reduced it to writing. It’s possible, too, that historians will yet recover additional testimonies of the event.
While the lack of contemporary accounts discredits the story of Brigham’s transfiguration for some people, others see it as a minor detail. Others believe that a contemporary account may be found in the future.
Is referring the “mantle” the same as a transfiguration occurring?
Do you think the transfiguration occurred at all?
Why do you think there was no revelation on how to choose subsequent prophets?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-twenty-three?lang=eng
https://www.deseret.com/2013/9/5/20525064/event-convinced-saints-of-brigham-young-s-mantle
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2016/04/how-are-prophets-called?lang=eng
Church History Folklore
Part 2
Miracle of the Gulls
A common faith-promoting story told in the church is the miracle of the seagulls. Crickets were eating the crops of the saints after they arrived in Utah in 1848. The people were in danger of starving until seagulls came to eat the crickets, regurgitate, and eat more crickets. The crops were saved and the members survived. As a result, seagulls have been memorialized in statues and the seagull is the Utah state bird.
Except this miracle did not happen.
According to an article by LDS Living:
The statue memorialized the well-known 1848 tale of the white seagulls gobbling down vast swarms of black crickets to save the Mormon pioneers from starving their second year in the Salt Lake Valley. Latter-day Saints and their descendants came to view these events as divine intervention. In 1955, the California gull was named Utah's state bird. Many artists have also re-created the faith-promoting story in paintings.
Like numerous other popular accounts of important and unusual historical events, the details of the Cricket War of 1848 over the years have been oversimplified, improved upon, and given somewhat legendary characteristics," Hartley wrote. "The fact remains, nonetheless, that the 1848 Mormon pioneers would have suffered more than they did had not the gulls come to their aid. Physically, the gulls helped avert a complete agricultural disaster. . . . The 'Miracle of the Gulls' story remains appropriate as an expression of faith held by Mormon pioneers and their descendants.
The first recorded reference to a miracle came in general conference in September 1853 by apostle Orson Hyde, who said "the gulls had been agents prepared by the hand of providence," Hartley wrote.
To Hartley's surprise, however, those who describe the crickets invasion in their journals, diaries and life histories don't mention the gulls, Hartley wrote.
"It must not be overlooked that this official summary of Valley experiences from the first arrival of the pioneers until 1849 nowhere mentions the gulls, despite prominent notice paid the cricket plague!" Hartley wrote. "According to this evaluation, the crop losses were severe. Therefore, the actual physical benefit brought by the gulls could not have been as extensive as is popularly believed."
The older a story gets, the more sensational it becomes, Harper said.
"The gulls did appear, on a smaller scale than we sometimes envision, and that was a miracle to many of the early pioneers. I am not ready to tear down the Seagull Monument on Temple Square because the gulls are only a symbol of the greater miracle that the pioneers were able to survive in the valley at all, given the conditions they lived in," Griffiths said in an email to the Deseret News. "The modern lesson might be constantly scanning the horizon for a flock of gulls when help might be before us in a smaller, more simple way."
In footnotes numbers four and five on the church’s entry on the gulls, the events are labeled as normal behavior for seagulls.
The birds’ manner of regurgitating the crickets was a normal eating habit not only of gulls, but also of other species of birds.
Some later accounts exaggerated the story, suggesting the appearance of the gulls was unprecedented in the area’s history or asserting that it was unusual for them to regurgitate and eat more.
The essay also admits that the crickets were only a small part of the problem the members faced.
The crickets were only one of several problems the pioneers settling the Salt Lake Valley faced as they struggled to produce a crop that summer. Many of the earliest sources about that year suggest that farmers and Church leaders were as worried about the late frosts and lack of irrigation as they were about the crickets, perhaps because crickets attacked only specific crops, not all the agriculture.
An article published by Deseret News states that the cricket problem was a regular seasonal issue and the damage was more severe in subsequent years.
The sea gulls also fought marauding plagues of crickets in 1849, and in succeeding years and in other places. The pioneers noted that crops were lost to crickets in 1851, but that the sea gulls did come again in 1852 and destroyed the insects.
The Miracle of the Gulls is a story that was told retrospectively, accepted and shared, and memorialized as a miracle. This story continues to be retold even though no journals indicate that it happened at all.
This is significant as there is a trend in church history to share a story that was created years later and is retold to the point it becomes inspirational and foundational for testimonies.
https://www.ldsliving.com/was-the-miracle-of-the-gulls-exaggerated-lds-historians-explain/s/88952
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/crickets-and-seagulls?lang=eng
https://www.deseret.com/1998/5/16/20773261/the-miracle-of-the-gulls
Church History Folklore
Part 3
Sweetwater Rescue
Another story that has been retold incorrectly is of the men who gave their lives as a result of rescuing the pioneers at Sweetwater in 1856. While most of the story is likely true, the details around the deaths of the rescuers have been exaggerated over time until they are no longer accurate. The point of retelling this story is often to commend the rescuers for giving their lives to save others. In fact, the accounts telling of their deaths occurred while one of the men was still living. These inaccuracies are even repeated at General Conference by high-ranking church leaders.
This rescue mission took place in 1856. Orson F. Whitney’s 1888 account declared that all three men had died as a result of their heroic efforts. An article written by John C. Thomas which was published by BYU Religious Studies addresses the inconsistencies. The article mentioned that one rescuer, C. Allen Huntington, was still alive at the time of this statement. All the men involved lived for many decades after the rescue.
- C. Allen Huntington was born in 1831 and died in 1896 – 40 years later
- George W. Grant was born in 1838 and died in 1872 – 16 years later
- David P. Kimball was born in 1839 and died in 1883 – 27 years later
The same article revisits this important event in church history.
In 1888, Orson F. Whitney mentioned the incident in his biography of Heber C. Kimball. Whitney said that the rescuers “immortalized themselves” by their brave efforts. Naming three men, including David Kimball, he said they carried some 500 emigrants across the river and then contracted “severe colds” that “finally conduced to their death.”
(At the time of this report, however, one of the three men named was still alive.)
Salomon Kimball also told of this event:
“After they had given up in despair, after all hopes had vanished, after every apparent avenue of escape seemed closed, three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue, and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of the ill-fated handcart company across the snowbound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, ‘that act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant, and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end’”
Not until 1908 did Solomon Kimball narrate the Sweetwater incident. In language closest to Whitney’s 1888 version, he said that three young men’s brave service in the frigid water induced “colds that finally terminated in their deaths.” Then he added an element to the story that had never been written before. He said that Brigham Young “wept like a child” when informed of the rescuers’ efforts at the river, “and declared that this act alone would immortalize them.”
Nine years old in 1856, Solomon Kimball did not witness the handcart rescue, though his elder brother David played a prominent role in the scenes at the Sweetwater. Not until 1908, however, did Solomon Kimball write about the rescue, and his best-known narrative appeared in 1914. By the time he wrote, several other accounts had been published. In 1878, handcart emigrant John Jacques first described several “brave waders” helping Saints across the Sweetwater in a newspaper series.
Despite these inaccuracies, Gordon B. Hinckley referenced this event as told by Orson and Salomon in a general conference talk in 1981:
And now I quote from the record: “Three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue, and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of the ill-fated handcart company across the snowbound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, ‘that act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant, and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end.”
Mark you, these boys were eighteen years of age at the time. And, because of the program then in effect, they likely were holders of the Aaronic Priesthood. Great was their heroism, sacred the sacrifice they made of health and eventually of life itself to save the lives of those they helped.
The efforts these men put into rescuing the stranded pioneers were heroic. However, the story was retold and embellished over time. The most inconsistent detail was that they had all died as a result of their efforts – even though one man was still alive and all men lived for many years after the rescue.
I recently had a conversation with a member who said they had never fact-checked material for a talk. It had never occurred to them and they simply did not have the time to make sure their material was accurate. I encourage members to become more diligent in their research, find original sources for their quotes and stories, and make efforts to teach as accurately as possible.
This detail might seem insignificant to some, and they might be right. The issue is that stories are shared without any amount of fact-checking. The important details are lost over time until the retellings evolve into nothing more than folklore.
https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-10-no-2-2009/sweetwater-revisited-sour-notes-ways-learning
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/individual/clark-allen-huntington-1831
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/individual/george-wilson-grant-1838
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3783&context=byusq
Church History Folklore
Part 4
Crushing Fine China to Adorn the Temple
The early church members were asked to sacrifice deeply to aid in the construction of the Kirtland Temple. James E. Faust spoke of their sacrifice in the 1999 general conference in a talk.
In both the Kirtland and Nauvoo Temples, the women responded by grinding their precious china into small pieces to be used for the walls of the temple. Since the beginning of this society, great has been its effort and endless its accomplishments.
This story is often told to honor the sacrifices of those members who had already been through so much. They had so little but they gave up their fine china to make the temple sparkle. However, this isn’t exactly what happened.
An LDS Living Article about church history myths helps to clear this up.
An oft-told story in Mormondom relates how the women of Kirtland sacrificed their fine china to help build the Kirtland Temple. Many stories tell of how they were called on to make this sacrifice—that the china was a much-needed addition to the stucco.
It’s true that, when the temple was built, builders used china—or pottery and glass—to strengthen the stucco; this glass and pottery had the added benefit of making the surface glisten in the sun. Artemus Millet, the superintendent of construction of the Kirtland Temple, called the mixture of glassware and crockery with weather-resistant natural cements inspired.
But Millet’s own journal refers to these pieces as “old glass and crockery”—not fine china. (Interestingly, it is usually Millet who is credited with asking for the Saints to donate their china.) His son’s account further exposes the pottery as less than likely to have come from the Saints themselves: “Artemus sent men and boys to the different towns and places to gather old crockery and glass to put in the cement.” Kirtland was situated next to pottery plants, and the discard piles would have easily provided pottery for the stucco. Furthermore, stories that Latter-day Saint women crushed china for the temple do not appear until 1940. In other words, no contemporary accounts tell of such a sacrifice.
Elwin Robison, a professor of architectural history at Kent State and author of The First Mormon Temple, has spent hours analyzing the stucco of the Kirtland Temple and, though he found evidence of tableware in the stucco surface, he believes it is unlikely that the tableware was the Saints’ best china. “While some of it may have come from heirlooms, the bulk of it came from discard piles,” he says. “There are persistent stories of this, so it could have happened, but the direct evidence suggests that wasn’t the case.”
It appears that the temple was adorned with stucco made from broken fragments rather than fine china.
This story was told incorrectly over the pulpit at general conference but it was only clarified in a short story in the Friend magazine. This folklore was challenged in the 2013 Friend magazine titled “Shining Walls”. The story makes it clear that the children were only collecting fragments. At the end of the story in a box titled “The Truth About the Walls” the true story is reiterated:
Elmeda Stringham was a real pioneer child who helped gather glass and pottery for the temple walls. Later generations looked at the beautiful walls and thought the Saints must have broken their best china to make the temple plaster sparkle. But that was not what really happened.
Church historians visited Kirtland to do archaeology and uncover early Church buildings. In their excavations, they discovered pottery fragments in the Saints’ yards. Their find confirmed the early accounts that Latter-day Saint children gathered the bits of glass that made the temple walls shine, showing that anyone can help in the work of the Lord.
Although I subscribed to the Friend magazine at this time and read it regularly to my young children, I must have missed this clarification. Many church history myths have been retold in conference talks as faith-promoting stories from the general authorities or prophets. I would expect a retraction to be stated with equal exposure, and not in a children’s magazine.
How do you think the church should address the folklore that has been proven incorrect?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1999/10/what-it-means-to-be-a-daughter-of-god?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2013/05/shining-walls?lang=eng
https://www.ldsliving.com/john-taylors-pocket-watch-saving-his-life-other-popular-myths-about-the-early-church-you-thought-were-true/s/64388
Church History Folklore
Part 5
Temple Work for Founding Fathers
Key Dates in Proxy Temple Work
August 15, 1840 – First baptism for the dead
May 3, 1842 – Live endowment given for the first time
January 1, 1877 – St. George temple privately dedicated
January 11, 1877 – First endowment for the dead
August 19, 1877 – Wilford Woodruff’s vision of the founding fathers
February 1878 – Baptisms and endowments completed for founding fathers
1894 – Priesthood given by proxy and sealings for the dead allowed
After the members left Nauvoo and until the completion of the St. George temple in 1877 there was no functioning temple. Instead of a temple, the Endowment House was built and used for live endowments and sealings. The only ordinance performed for the dead at that time was baptisms and these also took place in the Endowment House. No other ordinances were done for the dead until after the St. George temple was dedicated on January 1, 1877. The very first endowment for the dead was ten days later on January 11, 1877. It should be noted that the priesthood was not given by proxy until 1894 and sealings for the dead were not permitted until then.
Wilford Woodruff was the president of the St. George temple in 1877 when he had a vision. In this vision, the American founding fathers appeared and insisted their temple work be done immediately. The story is retold in an article by LDS Living magazine.
Many Latter-day Saints are familiar with the story that the Founding Fathers of the United States appeared to Wilford Woodruff, demanded that their temple work be completed, and waited on him for two days while the work was completed.
“Two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it, and were faithful to God.’
“These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them. The thought never entered my heart, form the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our immediate friends and relatives.”
When a church member today hears this story, they will reasonably assume that no proxy work had been done and that all their temple work was completed after this interaction. This isn’t as straightforward as it initially appears.
1. In the vision, Woodruff heard the founding fathers say, “…and yet nothing has ever been done for us…” Woodruff also stated that, “notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them.”
The same LDS Living article indicates that these men had been baptized in the Endowment House. I do not have dates or names for the baptisms but I am relying upon the LDS Living article which states that baptisms had been performed “several times” for these men.
Some have questioned Woodruff’s recollection of the appearance on the basis that baptisms—the main function of the Endowment Houses—had, in fact, been done (several times) for many of the Founding Fathers. Why would they have specifically referenced the Endowment House if their baptisms had already been performed?
Wilford Woodruff, when retelling the vision, also stated that “nothing had been done for them.” Why would both Wilford Woodruff and the founding fathers not know the baptisms had been done?
2. In the vision, the founding fathers stated, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years…” Since their baptisms had been performed many times, it implies that the church members had neglected to perform the vicarious endowment for them.
However, only baptisms were done by proxy in the Endowment House. The endowment was not given for the dead until the completion of the St. George temple. According to a church essay on Endowment House,
Between 1855 and 1889, the Saints performed more than 54,000 endowments, 68,000 sealings, and 134,000 baptisms for the dead in the Endowment House. Brigham Young taught, however, that some temple ordinances, including proxy endowments for the dead, could not be performed until a temple was completed. The first such ordinances were performed in the St. George Temple in 1877.
This is stated again in a fact sheet put out by the church with details on Endowment House
Endowments for the dead were not performed in the Endowment House, which were reserved for the temple only.
It is strange that the men in the vision stated that no one had utilized the Endowment House for their work “for a number of years”, even though only baptisms were permitted until a few months prior to this visit. This brings us to the third issue.
3. The temple work done for the founding fathers would not have included sealings as this was not available by proxy until 1894 when the priesthood was also given by proxy. FAIR indicates that sealings were not possible because the priesthood was not given by proxy until much later.
In the early Church, they had a requirement that to be sealed you had to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood if you were a man. The problem was, until 1894, the Church did not practice proxy ordination to the priesthood for deceased men. This comes as a bit of a surprise to many members. What it means is that until 1894, genealogical work wasn't that much of a priority in the Church, and for the vast majority of members (whose fathers had died without ever being ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood) they couldn't be sealed to their parent.
The work that was done for the founding fathers was rebaptizing and the endowment. Even after this vision and subsequent proxy work, their temple work was incomplete.
Yet Ezra Taft Benson, as quoted by Joseph Smith Foundation and a BYU Religious Studies article, specifically states that they were ordained high priests “at that time”.
The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was President of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that according to Wilford Woodruff’s journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time…
Ezra Taft Benson seemed to believe that the priesthood was given at this time but the priesthood was not given by proxy for another 17 years. There is conflicting information on what happened in 1877.
4. Current church policy is to not submit names of famous people. While this was not the policy at the time of Wilford Woodruff, his vision started the practice of doing temple work for unrelated historical figures. At the time of the vision, Woodruff made a list totaling 100 famous men (including the founding fathers) and was baptized for them.
I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others.
When Brother McAllister had baptized me for the 100 names I baptized him for 21, including General Washington and his forefathers and all the Presidents of the United States–except three. Sister Lucy Bigelow Young went forth into the font and was baptized for Martha Washington and her family and 70 of the ’eminent women’ of the world.
Doing temple work for famous people and other unrelated people been the source of a lot of trouble for the church. This has led to the current policy to only do temple work for relatives. According to the church’s instructions on submitting temple names:
“Do not submit the names of persons who are not related to you, including names of famous people or names gathered from unapproved extraction projects, such as victims of the Jewish Holocaust.
“You may submit the names of individuals with whom you shared a friendship. This is an exception to the general rule that members should not submit the names of individuals to whom they are not related. Before performing ordinances for a deceased individual who was a friend, you should obtain permission from the individual’s closest living relative
The story of Wilford Woodruff’s vision is well known to most American church members. However, what is not told as part of the story is that most of the founding fathers had already been baptized by proxy several times. They were also not given the priesthood or sealed at this time. It seems they urgently needed to be rebaptized and receive the endowment, a practice that had only been allowed for seven months since the completion of the St. George temple. Future prophet Ezra Taft Benson stated that the founding fathers were given the priesthood at this time which was inconsistent with church practices until 1894.
This story is difficult to understand as a result of the timelines of when vicarious temple ordinances were given over a period of 54 years. The early years of the temple were more chaotic than modern church members believe them to be. There doesn’t appear to be any printed revelation to accompany the changes and it is unclear what motivated the changes. This was likely confusing to later prophets, as indicated by the claim made by Ezra Taft Benson.
Why would the founding fathers and Wilford Woodruff state that none of their work had been done even though they had already been baptized multiple times?
Why was the endowment not given by proxy in the Endowment House when it was given for the living in the same location?
Why was the temple necessary for the endowment while baptisms by proxy were allowed in the Endowment House?
Are temples even necessary, or could we just build less expensive Endowment Houses like the one the early members used?
Why would Ezra Taft Benson state that the priesthood was given at that time when it was not given by proxy for 17 more years?
Why would God reveal the temple ordinances without any clear direction as to how they would be administered for over 50 years?
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/line-upon-line-precept-upon-precept-reflections-on-the-1877-commencement-of-the-performance-of-endowments-and-sealings-of-the-dead/#:~:text=The%20first%20endowments%20for%20the,City%20endowment%20worker%2C%20Alonzo%20H.
https://www.ldsliving.com/john-taylors-pocket-watch-saving-his-life-other-popular-myths-about-the-early-church-you-thought-were-true/s/64388
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/endowment-house/
https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/baptism-for-the-dead?lang=eng
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/st.-george-utah-temple/
https://josephsmithfoundation.org/wiki/eminent-spirits-appear-to-wilford-woodruff/
https://rsc.byu.edu/christopher-columbus-latter-day-saint-perspective/epilogue
Magical Objects
Part 1
Overview
In the 1980s, new research suggested a more in-depth and ongoing involvement with “magical” practices than was previously understood—as evidenced perhaps by occult volumes in the Palmyra library and by the Smith family’s possession of a Jupiter talisman, an astrological dagger, and magical parchments.
Eric A. Eliason – BYU Studies
The Smith family had been involved with folk magic for many years. Magical objects were used by the Smith family long before the visions of Joseph Smith. This is the origin of treasure digging through seer stones. FAIR quotes Lucy Mack Smith about the use of items associated with folk magic.
But let not my reader suppose that, because I shall pursue another topic for a season, that we stopped our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation. But, whilst we worked with our hands, we endeavored to remember the service of, and the welfare of our souls.
These practices were somewhat common (but controversial) in the 1800s and were well-accepted by many early church members. Instead of seer stones, Oliver Cowdery was known to use his divining rod to receive revelation. The reader can see how the rods are addressed in early versions of the Book of Commandments by reading the article written by FAIR.
Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as an instrument for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.
BYU Studies also discusses the use of these artifacts and questions whether or not these artifacts were magical:
Joseph Smith and his associates’ involvement in practices such as dowsing for water with divining rods and searching for buried treasure with seer stones had long been known to historians, as was the common, but not uncontroversial, nature of such practices in Joseph Smith’s time. In the 1980s, new research suggested a more in-depth and ongoing involvement with “magical” practices than was previously understood—as evidenced perhaps by occult volumes in the Palmyra library and by the Smith family’s possession of a Jupiter talisman, an astrological dagger, and magical parchments.
With this in mind, there is no reason to regard magic-seeming practices—even if fully embraced by Joseph Smith for his whole life as foundational to his teachings—as counterevidence to his prophetic claims. They might have been authorized; they might not have been magic, since “magic” is a uselessly vague and deictic term; they may end up validated by science; they may only be the victims of ever-changing boundary-maintenance labeling; they might have been just like what biblical prophets did; they might not have been pagan, only no longer very familiar. In light of Joseph Smith’s statement that “one [of] the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism 〈is〉to receivee thruth [truth] let it come from where it may,” the idea that the restoration of all truth might draw from folk magic traditions should be no more shocking than the fact that many Protestant hymns have found their way into LDS hymnbooks. Likewise, a photo of a small brown rock should cause no more shock and consternation than the voluminous displays of yuletide greenery that have come to characterize the First Presidency’s Christmas broadcast.
Dallin H. Oaks indicates it is important to differentiate between items that have real power and those that do not. He does not tell us how to differentiate between the real and counterfeit magical objects.
It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers.
It is clear the Smith family and other early church leaders possessed and used a variety of objects associated with magic. In addition, we have already discussed Joseph’s involvement with treasure digging through the seer stone. The same stone was later used for the translation of the gold plates.
The use of objects in the early church was common. However, as far as we know, they are no longer used today. I would assume that a current member’s use of magical objects would be unacceptable.
Does the Smith family’s use of a variety of magical objects seem unusual?
Does it seem odd that Joseph believed in the use of these object throughout his time as Prophet?
Could these objects actually play a role in restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Tomorrow we will discuss the origin and use of coffin canes.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith_and_folk_magic_or_the_occult
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/40
Magical Objects
Part 2
Coffin Canes
The church’s history is full of artifacts that contain divine power. Items such as seer stones and divining rods are more commonly known to church members. I found it interesting to learn of the coffin canes produced from the caskets of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
A BYU Studies article gives more detail about the coffin canes.
Shortly after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1844, unusual mementos in his memory - wooden canes - were fashioned from the oak planks of the roughhewn rough hewn coffin in which the body was returned to Nauvoo… the canes themselves were given to a small group of the
prophet’s friends.
Something interesting happened during my short time researching this project. I had been using an LDS Living article from 2019. In the short time after I accessed the quotes it has been removed from the internet. I will continue to reference it as it is in print. The LDS Living article also discusses the locks of hair that were inserted into the canes.
A short time later, pieces of the oak planks were used to make canes, with some containing locks of the brothers' hair in the ivory knob, as special ementos and sacred relics for some of the Prophet's closest friends, including Willard Richards, Heber C. Kimball, Dimick Huntington, Wilford Woodruff and Brigham Young.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two "coffin canes," both of which are on display near Joseph and Hyrum's death masks in "The Heavens Are Open" exhibit at the Church History Museum.
Heber C. Kimball spoke in detail about these canes and is quoted in the BYU Studies article. He indicated that these canes were useful for healing people.
How much would you give for even a cane that Father Abraham had used, or a coat or ring that the Savior had worn? The rough oak boxes in which the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were brought from Carthage were made into canes and other articles. I have a cane made from the plank of one of those boxes, so has Brother Brigham and a great many others, and we prize them highly and esteem them a great blessing. I want to carefully preserve my cane and when I am done with it here I shall hand it down to my heir, with instructions to him to do the same. And the day will come when there will be multitudes who will be healed and blessed through the instrumentality of those canes, and the devil cannot overcome those who have them, in consequence of their faith and confidence in the virtues connected with them.
…Dr. Richards used to lay his old black cane on a person’s head and that person has been healed through its instrumentality, by the power of God.
The coffin canes are another example of the use and belief in artifacts that carried the power of God and could be used to heal. It is clear that folk magic lingered past the time of Joseph Smith and was widely accepted by early church leadership.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2076&context=byusq
This article was written in 2019 and I accessed this site in June 2023. It has since been removed. All the information was gathered from the BYU article I also cited. Since the printed edition is available, I will keep it as a source.
Magical Objects
Part 3
Divining Rods
Members of the church are becoming increasingly familiar with the seer stones of Joseph Smith, although this information was not well-known just a few years ago.
The divining rods of the early church are less well-known to church members. Divining rods were forked sticks commonly used to find underground water or hidden treasure. Divining rods in the church were often used for revelation. One reason modern members are not aware of the use of rods is that the references to the rods were taken out of scripture. According to an entry on divining rods from the church website, early verses about the rod in the Doctrine and Covenants were changed for later editions. Instead, the verses speak of the “gift of Aaron”.
The church has a short essay on divining rods. The essay tells of the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants.
Early versions of the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 8 state that Oliver Cowdery had “the gift of working with the sprout” or the “rod of nature,” indicating that he used a divining rod at some point. The Lord acknowledged Cowdery’s gift, declaring that “there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands.” When Church leaders prepared this revelation for inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, they called Cowdery’s gift “the gift of Aaron,” reflecting its similarity to Aaron’s rod.
Other sources likewise suggest that Oliver Cowdery, as well as Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr., had likely used divining rods. But the revelation does not clarify how Cowdery employed his rod. It does indicate this was only one of several gifts available to Cowdery. In addition, the revelation taught Cowdery how to obtain the gift of translation through study, prayer, and the aid of the Holy Ghost.
The modern member of the church would not likely understand that the “gift of Aaron” meant that Oliver received revelations through a divining rod.
A church article titled “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift” indicates that Oliver used his divining rod to attempt to translate the gold plates. His attempts were not successful.
… Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s day similarly believed in divining rods as instruments for revelation. Oliver was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.
The Lord recognized Oliver’s ability to use a rod: “Thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout [or rod].” Confirming the divinity of this gift, the revelation stated: “Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God.” If Oliver desired, the revelation went on to say, the Lord would add the gift of translation to the revelatory gifts Oliver already possessed.
Though we know very few details about Oliver Cowdery’s attempt to translate, it apparently did not go well. His efforts quickly came to naught...
Wikipedia states that Brigham Young also used a divining rod to choose the location of the Salt Lake Temple. I was unable to find a faithful source to back up this claim but their sources in from a contemporary journal.
Purportedly, Brigham Young used Cowdery's rod to mark the site of the Salt Lake Temple Apostle Anthon H. Lund wrote in his diary:
In the revelation to Oliver Cowdery in May 1829, Bro. [B. H.] Roberts said that the gift which the Lord says he has in his hand meant a stick which was like Aaron's Rod. It is said Bro. Phineas Young [brother-in-law of Oliver Cowdery and brother of Brigham Young] got it from him [Cowdery] and gave it to President Young who had it with him when he arrived in this [Salt Lake] valley and that it was with that stick that he pointed out where the Temple should be built.
A BYU Studies article by Kerry Muhlestein also discusses the use of magical objects to receive revelation.
If Jacob could use stakes to encourage the fertility of cattle, and Moses could use a rod to bring water to the Israelites, couldn’t divining rods be an appropriate means of communication with God for those who sincerely seek him? (Incidentally, appropriate interaction with God through rods was confirmed by God himself in his revelation to Oliver Cowdery, wherein Oliver was told, according to the earliest versions of Doctrine and Covenants section 6, that he had communed with God through a rod. Similarly, in the earliest versions of section 8, when Oliver was told he had a gift for working with a rod, the rod was originally referred to as a sprout. When the rod was mentioned again, the earliest versions call it “this thing of nature.” It would seem that Oliver had been using some kind of stick in a manner similar to a seerstone.) Is there a real difference between Nephi being told where to hunt through a brass ball and God helping those who believe find lost cows through a rod, or lost pins through a seerstone? Will God direct those who honestly turn to him in whatever manner they expect, or must he always give revelation through a fleece laid on the ground ( Judges 6:36–40)?
FAIR addresses the divining rods and asserts that the divining rod is very different from the “water witch” rods. They claim that the rods used by early church members were not magical, but spiritual in nature.
Later Joseph did give him [Heber C. Kimball] and Brigham Young real rods, because "they were the only ones of the original twelve who had not lifted up their hearts against the Prophet." When Heber wanted to find out anything that was his right to know, "all he had to do was to kneel down with the rod in his hand, and . . . sometimes the Lord would answer his questions before he had time to ask them." At least twice in Nauvoo, for example, he had used this special rod. In September, 1844, he "went home and used the rod" to find out if Willard Richards would recover from an illness and if the church would overcome its enemies. In January, 1845, he inquired of the Lord "by the rod" whether the Nauvoo temple would be finished and if his sins were forgiven. All the answers were affirmative. Unlike the cane, there are no family traditions regarding this unusual rod; it has completely disappeared. Perhaps it was an aid to guidance and revelation. There is no evidence that it was a divining stick or "water witch," popular at that time.
Critical works provide this source for the claim that Brigham and Heber are provided with "diving rods"—yet, the source explicitly rejects the idea that they were 'divining sticks.' The rod's claimed ability was also clearly religious, not "magical"—the rod had no power except as an aide to revelation from God. There is ample biblical precedent for prophetic use of a rod
However, an article by BYU Studies on the use of magical objects in the early church contradicts the FAIR claim that the divining rods were not used as a “water witch”.
Joseph Smith and his associates’ involvement in practices such as dowsing for water with divining rods and searching for buried treasure with seer stones had long been known to historians, as was the common, but not uncontroversial, nature of such practices in Joseph Smith’s time.
The BYU Studies article goes on to state that using divining rods is not only common but essential in modern rural America. The author also indicates that modern bishops and stake presidents are known to utilize the divining rod.
One of the biggest surprises rural students have in American university folklore courses, including at BYU, is discovering their suburban peers need to be taught what divining rods are and how to use them. Today, regardless of class, race, education, wealth, region, or religion, rural students tend to know of holding a forked stick gently in one’s hand to feel for the downward tug that points to underground water and a good spot for a well. Dowsing seems not only understandable, but essential, in rural areas where families are on their own to secure water, and where hired well drillers make no guarantees and charge by the foot. City kids are shocked that their country classmates could be such shameless occult dabblers in a modern age where you don’t have to think about where water comes from. You just turn on the tap and out it comes—like magic. My rural LDS students don’t understand why their suburban counterparts have so little respect for or belief in a common spiritual gift often displayed by their educated and reasonable bishops and stake presidents.
Although the use of divining rods is fading from church and broader American culture, some still believe in their powers. In fact, divining rods have recently been used to attempt to locate church history sites. You can read more about that in the Deseret News article about locating church sites in Iowa in the comments.
It is clear that divining rods were used to find water and buried treasure as well as attempt to receive revelation. This is a practice that lingers in parts of the church and in rural America today.
If the use of a divining rod is as acceptable as the church apologists claim, then why were all the references to it removed from the D&C?
Since the divining rod was an important part of receiving revelation for early church leaders should the local and worldwide leaders be using them today?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/divining-rods?lang=eng
https://rsc.byu.edu/no-weapon-shall-prosper/seeking-divine-interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunning_folk_traditions_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
https://www.alamy.com/keokuk-iowa-residents-use-divining-rods-monday-morning-april-22-2002-at-triangle-park-in-keokuk-iowa-mike-foley-director-of-the-iowa-wesleyan-college-design-center-in-mount-pleasant-iowa-was-demonstrating-divining-to-keokuk-mayor-david-gudgel-several-keokuk-high-school-students-and-members-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-and-the-latter-day-saints-at-the-park-in-an-attempt-to-find-a-1853-campsite-used-by-mormons-prior-to-their-wagontrain-journey-towards-utah-ap-photothe-hawk-eye-john-lovretta-image542992526.html
Magical Objects
Part 4
The Silk Handkerchief
The summer of 1839 was difficult for the church members as they settled into swampy Nauvoo. The standing water allowed for mosquitos to breed and malaria spread rapidly in the summer months. According to a church history article, many church members, including Joseph Smith, fell ill.
Wilford Woodruff recalled, “The large number of Saints who had been driven out of Missouri, were flocking into Commerce; but had no homes to go into, and were living in wagons, in tents, and on the ground. Many, therefore, were sick through the exposure they were subjected to. Brother Joseph had waited on the sick, until he was worn out and nearly sick himself.”
July 22, 1839 was a day when many members claim to have received great healing blessings. There are many accounts of Joseph healing the sick on this day.
Brigham Young wrote: “July 22, 1839.—Joseph arose from his bed of sickness, and the power of God rested upon him. He commenced in his own house and door-yard, commanding the sick, in the name of Jesus Christ, to arise and be made whole, and they were healed according to his word. He then continued to travel from house to house from tent to tent upon the bank of the river, healing the sick as he went until he arrived at the upper stonehouse, where he crossed the river in a boat, accompanied by several of the Quorum of the Twelve, and landed in Montrose.”
Wilford Woodruff told of Joseph being approached by a desperate man who was not a church member. This man was unfamiliar to Joseph and lived three miles away. Joseph was unable to go heal his family so he gave Woodruff his red silk handkerchief to heal the man’s children.
A man came to [Joseph] and asked him if he would go about three miles and heal two of his small children, who were twins, about three months old, and were sick nigh unto death. He was a man of the world, he had never heard a sermon preached by a Latter-day Saint. Joseph said he could not go, but he would send a man. After hesitating a moment, he turned to me and said, “You go with this man and heal his children,” at the same time giving me a red silk handkerchief, and said, “After you lay hands upon them, wipe their faces with it, and they shall be healed; and as long as you will keep that handkerchief, it shall ever remain as a league between you and me.” I went and did as I was commanded, and the children were healed
Wilford Woodruff kept this handkerchief as a reminder of this great experience and of Joseph’s compassion toward the sick, including those who were not of his faith. A corner of the handkerchief has been cut off, possibly by someone wanting a memento of the Prophet.
The handkerchief is still in the church’s possession today and can be found at the Church History Museum. There is no record of the handkerchief being used afterward to heal any of the members in Nauvoo.
A BYU Studies article titled “Saints and Sickness: Medicine in Nauvoo and Winter Quarters” also mentioned this miraculous day of healing. One major difference is that the article admits that while some “leaped from their beds” others “remain sick” and the disease continued to spread. Nauvoo experienced a higher than typical death rate each year it was inhabited.
Even in these miserable and mosquito-infested conditions, the Saints experienced a day of miraculous healings performed by the Prophet Joseph Smith. On July 22, 1839, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal that “Joseph [Smith] was in Montrose [across the river from Nauvoo] and it was a day of Gods power. There were many sick among the Saints on both sides of the river & Joseph went through the midst of those in Montrose taking them by the hand & in a loud voice Commanding them in the name of Jesus Christ to arise from their beds & be made whole & they leaped from their beds made whole by the power of God.” However, on the same day, Joseph Smith noted that although there were many healed, “many remain sick, and new cases are occurring daily.”
Because infections were so widespread, death was a common occurrence in
Nauvoo. One study noted that “during their sojourn in Illinois, the [Latter-day Saints] suffered from a death rate well above the national average for the mid-19th century.”
A BYU Religious Studies article indicates that malaria continued to plague the saints.
Malaria was the most common cause of death in Nauvoo. Since Nauvoo was a swamp before the Saints arrived, it was undoubtedly a haven for mosquitoes… There was an average of about 40 recorded deaths each year from Malaria.
The death rate in early Nauvoo appears to be 25 to 35 per 1,000, but further work needs to be done in this area.
July 22, 1839 was a day when many miraculous healings were said to have occurred. One of the healings resulted in a precious church artifact, the red silk handkerchief owned by Joseph Smith. However, the healings didn’t seem to eliminate the long-term suffering as malaria continued to sicken the residents.
There is one more handkerchief healing story as told by LDS Living. Newel Knight’s wife, Lydia, was desperately ill. He reached out the Joseph to obtain a handkerchief to heal her.
I felt that I had not done right in neglecting to go to the Prophet as she had requested, although I had not told her the handkerchief I gave her was not from him. I left her, went immediately to the Prophet, and requested him to send her his handkerchief with a word of consolation and a healing blessing. “Go,” said he. “Tell her the Lord shall bless her and her Heavenly Father shall heal her.”
I hastened to my house and went to the bed side of my companion and told her all that I had done and the promise that the Prophet sent to her. I laid the handkerchief upon her head and prayed the blessing to be sealed upon her. From her calm appearance it was evident that there was a change in her feelings. She soon fell asleep and rested well during the night. In the morning she said she had felt no pain during the night. At the moment I laid the handkerchief upon her head, the pain ceased and she did not feel as if there was any disease about her at this time.
This handkerchief was lost and is not in the church’s possession.
As I read these accounts, I can’t help but think about the two years of the Covid pandemic. I wonder if a handkerchief could have been helpful during the Covid pandemic. The church has a museum full of artifacts that were used to heal in the past. Could a historical artifact or modern object have been procured to heal during the pandemic?
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/museum/museum-treasure-a-day-of-gods-power?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles
https://rsc.byu.edu/rise-latter-day-saints/nauvoo-1839-45
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1414&context=re
https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-10-no-3-2009/deaths-early-nauvoo-illinois-1839-46-winter-quarters-nebraska-1846-48
Names in the Book of Mormon
Part 1
Names of Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi
I was always impressed with all the new names used in the Book of Mormon. I was told this was clear evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. While there are some unique names, many of them were common at the time. I was not aware that many were the names of Joseph’s acquaintances or were also found in the Bible. Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi are three examples of these names.
Luman Walters (who also went by Laman) was a treasure-digging contemporary of Joseph’s and was known as “Walters the Magician”. “’Walters the Magician’ was not the friend of Joseph Smith; he was his adversary.” There are many accounts of Walters searching to find the gold plates before Joseph.
FAIR describes the situation as:
Emer Harris (the brother of Martin Harris) said that he had personal knowledge of the fact that some people in Palmyra had “hired an astrologer to find the plates” of the Book of Mormon. Lucy Mack Smith recalled that a group of ten or twelve men sent “for a conjuror to come to divine by magic art the place where the record was deposited.” This conjuror did, in fact, arrive in Palmyra and assembled with the group which had sent for him. We know this to be the case because the Prophet’s father saw them meeting together to the east of his farm and overheard their plans to try and obtain the Golden Bible for themselves. The Prophet’s sister Katherine remembered when her father heard of the conjuror and that an effort was made to warn Joseph Smith of what was taking place. Joseph Knight Sr. verifies that a “great rodsman” went to the Smith home in Manchester and attempted to locate the hiding place of the golden plates through the use of divining rods. And Brigham Young reported that this “fortune-teller” was named “Walters.” President Young relates that this man angrily pointed out Joseph Smith among a crowd of people and with considerable profanity identified him as the one who could obtain the hidden treasure in the hill—but he acknowledged that he himself was not able to obtain it!
It is clear that Walters and Joseph Smith had many interactions and an unfriendly relationship as they competed to find the gold plates.
It should be noted that Lumen’s uncle, Lemuel Walters, is known for settling the town of Burke. But there is another, closer, Lemuel in Joseph’s life.
Lemuel Durfee was close to the family of Joseph Smith. Lemuel was the landlord of the Smith family after they defaulted on their loan. This relationship seemed friendly as the Smiths were happy to have a good landlord. “The Smiths were greatly relieved when they found that a Quaker named Lemuel Durfee would purchase their property from their antagonist.”
BYU tells of the home of Lemuel Durfee:
This is the Palmyra, New York home of Lemuel Durfee, a good man who affiliated with the Quakers. This property had at least eleven wells on it. Tradition holds that members of the Joseph Smith, Sr. family dug some of those wells. After the Smiths lost the deed to their Manchester, New York farm and home, Lemuel Durfee somehow wrested that deed from Russell Stoddard. Mr. Durfee then rented the home back to the Smiths until the spring of 1829.
It is important to know that Joseph Smith had relationships with Luman (Laman) Walters and Lemuel Durfee in the 1820s. The church acknowledges both of these relationships, but both men and their names are largely unknown to modern church members.
In the Book of Mormon, Laman and Lemuel are adversaries to the rest of the righteous family. Laman is always in conflict with God and Lehi’s family while Lemuel vacillates between trying to be righteous and following Laman’s example.
The name Nephi is found in the apocrypha in 2 Maccabees 1:36 which says,
And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi.
The apocrypha is not typically studied by members of the church so the name Nephi is seen as unique. However, Joseph’s copy of the KJV of the Bible contained it.
The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D.
Joseph’s version of the Bible would have contained the apocrypha with the book of Maccabees and the verse about Nephi.
In an article published by BYU Religious Studies, it is confirmed that Joseph had access to the apocrypha and relied upon it.
The larger reality is that the presence of such parallels may arise out of a much more mundane event: his family, or perhaps even Joseph, was accustomed to reading a Bible in which the Apocrypha were included and that the language of the Apocrypha is echoed in Joseph’s early writings.
It is worth understanding that three of the names of main people in the Book of Mormon were shared with acquaintances of Joseph or found in scriptures he had in his home. Many other names (like Ammon and Lehi) are also found in the Bible.
There are many other names in the Book of Mormon that are not found in the Bible or are not known acquaintances of Joseph. There are a variety of explanations for these names that I will not go into.
While we do not know where all the Book of Mormon names originated, there are connections to acquaintances of Joseph Smith.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2006/revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luman_Walters
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89063014880&view=1up&seq=166
http://www.bradleyrymph.com/genealogy_walter-lemuel.pdf
http://www.fullerconsideration.com/sources.php?cat=GP-LW
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/RelEd/id/5340/
https://www.deseret.com/2011/5/12/20385358/picturing-history-lemuel-durfee-home
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Maccabees-1-36/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
Lack of DNA Evidence
Part 1
DNA Evidence Does Not Support Book of Mormon History
Book of Mormon Introduction Change
Spiritual not Historical Scripture
As a church member, I was taught that the Americas were preserved exclusively for the Nephites, Jaredites, and Mulekites all of whom came from Jerusalem. I was also taught that Native Americans were literally descended from the Lamanites.
With the development of DNA testing, we have learned that there is no connection between Native Americans and Israelites. Also, the timing of the arrival of people in the Americas is in conflict with the timeline of the Book of Mormon. This has created a significant issue for LDS doctrine.
The Gospel Topic essay on DNA states:
The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.
Some have contended that the migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not occur because the majority of DNA identified to date in modern native peoples most closely resembles that of eastern Asian populations.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed, “It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”
Members are cautioned to not use secular evidence to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Would the advice be the same if the DNA evidence supported church claims?
These DNA findings led to a change to the Introduction of the Book of Mormon. It should be noted that the Introduction was not part of the original Book of Mormon but was written in 1981. The wording change from “principal ancestors” to “among the ancestors” appeared in the 2006 version of the Book of Mormon.
Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book “were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
The gospel topic essay addressing the lack of DNA evidence subtly changes the narrative around the Book of Mormon as not being historical in nature. Instead, the book should be seen as spiritual. This is a change from what I was taught about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical…
The discovery of the lack of DNA evidence resulted in threats to the members who discovered it, a change in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, and a shift away from viewing the Book of Mormon as spiritual rather than historical. I will discuss these topics in greater detail in future posts.
https://www.deseret.com/2007/11/8/20052445/debate-renewed-with-change-in-book-of-mormon-introduction
Lack of DNA Evidence
Part 2
Simon Southerton and Thomas Murphy
Scientists Excommunicated for Research
Simon Southerton and Thomas Murphy were two scientists and faithful members of the church who discovered that the DNA of Native Americans could not link them to the Israelites. Southerton and Murphy published their findings which led to a problem with the church. These scientists were threatened by local leaders of the church because of their findings. The Deseret News reported the following information:
Claims in recent years by LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy and former LDS molecular biologist Simon Southerton regarding the lack of a genetic connection to Hebrew blood in American Indians have caused spirited debate in some quarters about the book's origins.
Southerton, a former bishop living in Australia, was excommunicated from the church after his writings appeared. Murphy was threatened with church discipline over his writings.
Simon Southerton was told he was excommunicated for an affair he had while he was separated from his wife. They had since reconciled and his wife spoke to support him at his disciplinary council. Southerton he believes that his book was the real reason for the excommunication as it is uncommon to be excommunicated for an affair. His book was published in 2004 and he was excommunicated in 2005.
Southerton was charged by church authorities with adultery but finally excommunicated for “having an inappropriate relationship with a woman,” he said. Southerton doesn't deny the relationship, which occurred two years ago, while he was separated from his wife. The Southertons have since reconciled, and Jane Southerton testified on behalf of her husband.
“I am now convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy,” Southerton said in his e-mail to the AP. “I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about 'DNA' and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence.”
Southerton's excommunication makes him the seventh author from the Salt Lake City-based Signature Books, a publishing house for Western and Mormon studies, to be released from the church after publishing a work critical of Mormon beliefs.
Thomas Murphy was told to withdraw his research or resign. Less than 24 hours before his disciplinary hearing, he was told that the hearing was permanently on hold.
In a note Murphy sent to several supporters for wide public distribution, Murphy expressed hope that other scholars in similar positions might benefit from Latimer's decision: “We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.”
Murphy is still a member of the church.
What do you think of scientists being threatened with excommunicated when their research contradicts church doctrine?
https://www.deseret.com/2007/11/8/20052445/debate-renewed-with-change-in-book-of-mormon-introduction
https://www.deseret.com/2005/8/5/19905648/church-excommunicates-dna-author
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Murphy_(anthropologist)
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm
I don’t usually share unfaithful sources, but FAIR shared this link to Simon Southerton telling his story. It is worth reading his experience.
Lack of DNA Evidence
Part 3
Were Israelites the Exclusive People in America?
“Many Church leaders, most notably Spencer W. Kimball, have made clear statements regarding the belief that Lehi was the exclusive ancestor of all native Americans.”
- FAIR
As a member of the church, I was taught was that the Americas were a land preserved for the people led by God out of Jerusalem. It had been unoccupied prior to their arrival. Once they arrived, the Israelites multiplied and filled the entire land.
There are many scriptures that support the view that Lehi was the “exclusive ancestor of native Americans.”
2 Nephi 1:8-9 reads as follows:
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
Ether 2:7 also indicates the land was saved for the righteous:
7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.
As a result of developments in DNA testing, a conflict has risen around this teaching. This has led to a new perspective from the church on the origins of Native Americans.
The current position changes this teaching and insists that the church did not claim there were no other people in the Americas. The gospel topic essay on the Book of Mormon and DNA Studies assert that it was an “assumption” made by critics to discredit the church.
The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas. Building upon this assumption, critics insist that the Book of Mormon does not allow for the presence of other large populations in the Americas and that, therefore, Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups.
The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups. At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”
In an attempt to reconcile the Book of Mormon and the lack of DNA evidence, the church is taking a new position on the existence of other ethnic groups in the Americas. It would be from these other groups that the modern Native Americans likely descended. This position allows for the Book of Mormon to be historical and reconcile the DNA issues.
Were you taught that the Americas were preserved for the Israelites or were you taught there were other inhabitants of this land?
What does it mean if this teaching recently changed?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/a-mission-to-the-lamanites?lang=eng
Lack of DNA Evidence
Part 4
Native Americans are not Lamanites
“Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture.”
– Church spokesman as quoted by FAIR
I was taught that the Native Americans were direct ancestors of the Lamanites. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were frequently labeled as Lamanites in scripture and by church leaders in talks and temple dedications. The Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were taught to abandon their cultural identity and embrace their true identity as descendants of the Israelites. This was commonly taught in the early days of the church. Modern leaders are now stating that this teaching was never doctrine.
A church essay on American Indians states that,
The early Saints believed that all American Indians were the descendants of Book of Mormon peoples, and that they shared a covenant heritage connecting them to ancient Israel.
In an article written by Doctrine and Covenants Central this teaching is addressed.
The Book of Mormon was written “to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile.”
In a letter to Joseph Smith dated 7 May 1831, Oliver wrote of his desire to preach to “another tribe of Lamanites” who lived “three hundred miles west of Santa Fe [Mexico] and are called Navajos.”
During the lifetimes of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Latter-day Saint missionary work extended to the Pacific Islands, Mexico, and South America. As with earlier missionary efforts to native North American peoples, this new wave of proselyting emphasized the Lamanite identity of the native groups of these lands and promised them the blessings of Lehi.
The church’s essay on Lamanite Identity states that, “The Church’s first major mission, in 1830, was to groups considered to be Lamanites.”
Missionaries taught people of indigenous ancestry in the Americas and in the Pacific that they were the descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites. After receiving the gospel, converts in these regions embraced the way the Book of Mormon connected them with a lost heritage and a promised future, especially in contrast to the difficult, sometimes oppressive conditions under which they lived. Saints who identified as Lamanites regularly worked on their own or in cooperation with Church initiatives to advance spiritually and temporally and help fulfill the prophecy that “before the great day of the Lord shall come … the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.”
D&C 54:8 called the missionaries to teach among the Native Americans (Lamanites). “And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.”
This teaching carried into modern times as well. In the dedicatory prayer from the Mexico City Mexico Temple, Gordon B. Hinckley said, “Bless Thy saints in this great land and those from other lands who will use this temple. Most have in their veins the blood of Father Lehi. Thou hast kept Thine ancient promise. Many thousands ‘that walked in darkness have seen a great light.’”
In 1959, “Elder Spencer W. Kimball spoke to ‘our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas . . . Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile’ and ‘Polynesians of the Pacific’ and taught that ‘the Lord calls you Lamanites.’”
In 1971, Spencer W. Kimball restated this false heritage. “The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people . . . . There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled–you, the Lamanites–when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi.”
In 1984, Howard W. Hunter taught that, “It has been the position of the Church that Polynesians are related to the American Indians as descendants of Father Lehi, having migrated to the Pacific from America . . . .Our belief in this regard is scriptural (see Alma 63:4-10).”
Gordon B. Hinckley reiterate this teaching at the Vernal, Utah temple dedication in 1997. He prayed that there “May there come about a reconciliation of feelings between the descendants of Lehi and those who have come to reside in these valleys. May old animosities be dispelled, and may there come a renewed spirit of brotherhood and love and respect.”
The church’s current position has shifted to say that the Lamanites being Native Americans was not supported by scripture. FAIR states that,
When asked about the Church’s official position on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman said: “As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture.”
Hugh Nibley stated, “[it is a] simplistic reading of the book . . . [to] assume that the only people in the hemisphere before Columbus were either descendants of Lehi or of Jared and his brother”
The church essay on Lamanite Identity concludes by saying, “…, the history of the Lamanites after the close of the Book of Mormon record is a matter of speculation. The Church asserts that all members are part of the covenant house of Israel either by descent or adoption but does not take a position on the specific geography of the Book of Mormon or claim complete knowledge about the origins of any specific modern group in the Americas or the Pacific.”
In an attempt to explain the lack of DNA evidence tying Native Americans to people from Jerusalem, the church is trying to break the connection between Native Americans and Lamanites. However, it is clear that early and modern church leaders believed and taught all Native Americans were Lamanites.
Were you taught that Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were Lamanites?
Is it relevant that the church is changing their position on this teaching?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/american-indians?lang=eng
https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/knowhy/who-are-the-lamanites/
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/lamanite-identity?lang=eng
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Statements_from_Church_leaders_about_Polynesian_origins
The Moon & Sun are Populated
Part 1
The moon was a source of great mystery for people throughout the ages. This was also the case in the 1800s when Joseph Smith lived. Several prophets and high-ranking church leaders gave very clear statements referring to people living on the moon. The first mention of this was from Oliver B. Huntington as he discussed his patriarchal blessing.
“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.”
There appear to be other patriarchal blessings given by Joseph Smith Sr. that reiterated the preaching of the gospel on the moon and other planets, but I was unable to find faithful sources for these blessings.
In his journal in 1881, Oliver stated:
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.
Brigham Young further perpetuated the idea that the moon was inhabited in the Journal of Discourses, additionally he indicates that the sun is inhabited as well.
Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized.
Over time, the church leaders no longer taught about the inhabitants of the moon and sun. However, in 1957, Joseph Fielding Smith published his belief that men would never be permitted to go to the moon.
The Savior said that preceding his coming there would be signs in the heavens. No doubt there will be appearances of commotion among the heavenly bodies. We are informed by prophecy that the earth will reel to and fro. This will make it appear like the stars are falling. The sun will be darkened and the moon look like blood. All of these wonders will take place before Christ comes. Naturally the wonders in the heavens that man has created will be numbered among the signs which have been predicted—the airplanes, the guided missiles, and man-made planets that revolve around the earth. Keep it in mind, however, that such man-made planets belong to this earth, and it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet.
In 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith again preached that men would never land on the moon.
We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.
In 1969, the first men landed on the moon. In 1971, the Apollo 15 mission became the fourth to land on the moon. Interestingly, the Apollo 15 astronauts visited Utah shortly after their space mission and met with Joseph Fielding Smith.
On 14 September 1971, Apollo 15 astronauts presented to President Joseph Fielding Smith a Utah state flag that had traveled with them to the moon.
While the belief that men living on the moon or that God would not permit humans to land on the moon is far from a central part of church teachings, it is important to understand that many statements made by prophets and other upper leadership have been proven to be incorrect.
Each person can decide if this is just an irrelevant teaching of the past or is relevant because it was taught by prophets and included in patriarchal blessings, included in the Journal of Discourses, and taught by prophets.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-14-september-1835/1
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_state_that_the_moon_was_inhabited,_and_that_its_inhabitants_were_dressed_like_Quakers%3F
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/13/31#271
* Trigger Warning: threats of violence and brutal murder
Extermination Orders
Part 1
A Breakdown of Three Extermination Orders
“…it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed…”
Sidney Rigdon, July 4, 1838
“The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.”
Governor Boggs, Oct. 27, 1838
“You are hereby ordered to raise forth with a company of fifty efficient men: and see they are provided with horses, arms, and ammunition…There to cooperate with the inhabitants of said Valley in quelling and staying the operations of all hostile Indians, and otherwise act, as the circumstances may require, exterminating such as do not separate themselves from their hostile clans, and sue for peace”
Daniel H. Wells as ordered by Brigham Young, January 31, 1850
Stick with me on this one. It is long and difficult to read, but it is important.
Church members are generally familiar with the extermination order enacted by Governor Boggs. Early church members were driven from their homes and a terrible massacre occurred at Haun’s mill. This tragic time period is an important part of church history. However, most members are unfamiliar with two other extermination orders in church history and how Sidney Rigdon’s call to exterminate the mobs led to Governor Boggs’ extermination order.
The first mention of extermination was from a talk given by Sidney Rigdon in July 1838. This fiery sermon was given at a 4th of July celebration and printed in the paper where it was widely circulated. While much of the speech was intense, there was one aragraph that threatened the mobs with extermination. The excerpt from the speech was taken from the Joseph Smith Papers.
We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all
men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this
hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.—Remember it then all Men.
This speech became known as the “Mormon declaration of rights” and was the catalyst for the Mormon-Missouri War.
In June 1838, just one month earlier, Rigdon had given another speech which is often called the Salt Sermon. This speech was also very contentious but was directed toward the apostates. An article by BYU Studies summarizes the inflammatory effect of these two speeches.
Both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were determined to stamp out apostasy in Missouri. They believed that the entire future of the Mormon movement rested on their success in driving the dissenters from their midst; and because of Rigdon’s ability to sway audiences, he became the Prophet’s spokesman in the cause of orthodoxy. At Far West on June 19, 1838, Rigdon delivered a scathing denunciation of disloyalty among the members of the Church. No text nor synopsis has remained of his discourse, but reports of eyewitnesses indicated that Rigdon, who could inspire an audience to tears, could also lash them into fury. Rigdon took his text from the fifth chapter of Matthew: “Ye are the salt of the earth. If the salt hath lost its savor, it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.” Joseph Smith followed Rigdon’s harangue with a short speech, apparently sanctioning what he had said. The salt sermon caused a frenzy of activity aimed at purging the ranks of disloyal members. One unfortunate effect of the controversy over dissenters was the formation of the apparently unauthorized Danites, a secret militant society for the enforcement of orthodoxy.
In July, 1838, the direction of the new militancy shifted from opposing dissenters to combating Gentile persecution. Henceforth, Rigdon proclaimed, the Mormons would make their stand with violence of their own. The First Presidency had been militant in attitude since their arrival at Far West, but their intention to fight if necessary was declared to the entire state in Rigdon’s July 4th speech. It was called a Mormon declaration of rights. When Rigdon’s address was published in neighboring papers it caused great contention among the Missourians; his Independence Day speech helped polarize both the Mormons and the Missourians, and the stage was set for the Mormon War.
After the disasters of the Mormon War, which included expulsion of
the Mormons from Missouri under Governor Lilburn Boggs’ so-called extermination order and the Haun’s Mill massacre, Joseph Smith and Sidney
Rigdon, along with other Mormon leaders, were incarcerated.
The church wrote an essay on the Mormon-Missouri War which addresses Rigdon’s speeches and culminates with the Haun’s Mill tragedy and the arrest of Joseph Smith for treason. Joseph was then sent to Liberty Jail.
On July 4, 1838, Sidney Rigdon warned that the Saints would no longer tolerate persecution or the denial of their rights as citizens of the United States. If mobs gathered, he thundered in a widely publicized oration, “it shall be between us and them a war of extermination.” At the same time, he vowed that the Saints would not be the aggressors: “We will infringe on the rights of no people; but shall stand for our own until death.” During this period, some Mormon men organized a vigilante group known as the Danites, who pledged to defend the Saints against further violence. Rumors of Danite activity persuaded some Missourians that the Mormons threatened violence against neighbors.
Following these speeches, there were acts of aggression on both sides. After the church members burned homes and stores in Gallatin and Millport and attacked the state militia, Governor Boggs issued the extermination order.
Armed fighting lasted two weeks. In mid-October, Mormons raided and burned homes and stores in Gallatin and Millport. At Crooked River, Mormon and Missouri militiamen skirmished, resulting in the deaths of one Missourian and two Mormons, including Apostle David W. Patten. In the wake of these outbursts, Governor Boggs, who had previously supported anti-Mormon activities in Jackson County, issued what came to be known as the “extermination order,” which authorized the state militia to drive the Mormons from the state or exterminate them if necessary. The most horrific event of the war came a few days later on October 30, when a group of armed Missourians opened fire on Saints at Hawn’s Mill, killing and brutally dismembering 17 men and boys.
Nothing can justify the horrific murders that took place at Haun’s mill and other areas in the state. However, it is important to know that death and destruction came from both sides. The story that I had been taught was that the members were trying to live their new religion peacefully and the non-members, fueled by Satan’s desire to destroy the restored gospel, were hateful and violent. Details about the threats and acts of war on the part of the church leaders were untold.
It is often tempting to whitewash history to make it palatable to the recipients. All sides need to be told. The early church history was violent and the church members often made terrible neighbors. Nobody, including the members, deserved to be driven and killed. However, it is helpful to understand the events and words of leaders from both sides leading up to these tragedies.
Missouri officially ended the extermination order and issued a sincere apology for the order.
In 1976, Missouri governor Christopher S. Bond officially rescinded Boggs’s order, arguing that it “clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom” guaranteed by both the constitutions of the United States and the state of Missouri. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri, Bond expressed “deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering” the order had caused the Latter-day Saints.
Later, when the members were living in Utah under the rule of Brigham Young, the members continued acts of aggression, this time against the Native Americans. This culminated in the Battle at Fort Utah, or the Provo River Massacre. Mormonr, a faithful apologetic website, tells more of this event:
In a February 28, 1850 letter, Brigham Young explained that he ordered the militia to attack hostile Native Americans because they had fired rifles at settlers and killed livestock.
The militia fought with natives armed with rifles and bows in the "Provo Bottoms" and Payson Canyon. About two dozen native combatants were killed in the Provo battle and at least one militia member was killed and several wounded.
Church Historian, Elder Marlin K. Jensen urged Utahns to “acknowledge and appreciate the monumental loss” Utah’s native American populations have experienced. However, the Church has not released an official apology for the clashes between the indigenous groups and the settlers.
I will have to use Wikipedia as a reference for the rest of this story. Mormonr puts the death count at 27 for the Native Americans. Wikipedia puts the death count at 102. After the battle, the bodies were decapitated and the heads were used to threaten the prisoners.
A government surgeon, James Blake, went to the execution site and cut off the Timpanogos' heads for later examination. Captain Howard Stansbury wanted the heads for "future scientific study" and planned to take them to Washington. Around 50 decapitated Timpanogos heads were gathered. They were supposed to be shipped to Salt Lake, but they were held up to be displayed in front of the prisoners at Fort Utah as a warning. The prisoners, including those who sought shelter in the fort before the war, were left in the cold under the fort's cannon, some of whom were dying from exposure.
The massacre of the Timpanogos tribe that occurred was horrific. The catalyst for the massacre was firing shots and killing livestock. This certainly did not justify the brutal attack. The decapitation of the dead and the use of the heads to terrify surviving family members is inexcusable.
The State of Missouri issued a sincere apology for the actions of Governor Boggs over 100 years ago. Neither the church nor State of Utah has yet to issue an apology for Brigham Young’s extermination order.
How many extermination orders have you heard about in church history?
Why do you think the church has not issued an apology for Brigham’s extermination order?
https://mormonr.org/qnas/dxS5B/native_american_extermination_order
https://mormonr.org/qnas/dxS5B/native_american_extermination_order/research#re-sYYOCc-0Y57Qf
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-discourse-circa-4-july-1838/12
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1936&context=byusq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Sermon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigdon%27s_July_4th_oration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_Fort_Utah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Extermination_Order
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_When_was_the_Danite_band_formed_and_why%3F
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/mormon-missouri-war-of-1838?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/extermination-order?lang=eng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80gY9JTfkjM&t=339s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9vMCc8rR1s
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-sixteen?lang=eng
Focus on the Living Prophet
Part 1
“Mormon” is a Victory for Satan
Over the 200 years of the church’s existence, there have been many significant changes to policy and doctrine. Some leaders of the past strongly promoted ideas that have since faded away or, more uncommonly, have been disavowed. One well-known example of these significant changes is the priesthood and temple ban for members of African descent. This policy was taught as doctrine but later reversed. Some say it was never doctrine, just a policy put in place by men. Others believe it was doctrine. It can be difficult for church members to differentiate between when a prophet speaks as a prophet or a man.
Members are encouraged to focus on the teachings of the living prophet instead of prophets of the past. This is especially important when the statements of two prophets contradict each other. While some doctrines have remained steady, prophets contradict each other frequently. To solve this problem, members are told to focus on the living prophets.
The focus on using the complete name of the church rather than “Mormon” is a recent example of rapidly changing policy. While this is not as significant as other policy or doctrinal changes, it was a recent situation where policy flipped rapidly.
President Thomas S. Monson served as church president from 2008 until his death in 2018. During this time the church pushed the I’m a Mormon campaign. As part of this campaign, billboards featuring Mormon families were put in major cities and movie titled “Meet the Mormons” was produced and distributed. Wikipedia gives a summary of the campaign.
I'm a Mormon was an advertising and outreach campaign by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 2010 to 2018 that aimed to combat stereotypes and misconceptions about the church by featuring short profiles from church members
A Deseret News article describes this media campaign.
“Meet the Mormons” is a 78-minute documentary that profiles six members of the LDS Church from around the globe. It opens Friday (2014) in 316 theaters in the United States.
Produced by the church itself, its message is simple: You’ve heard what popular culture has to say about us, now let us tell you our own story.
President Nelson changed the focus immediately after President Monson’s passing in 2018. President Nelson gave this talk about using the term “Mormon” in October 2018.
… It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.”
In one year, the same year the prophet changed, the nickname “Mormon” went from being a multi-million-dollar outreach campaign to a way to offend God, disregard the atonement, and create a victory for Satan. That was a dramatic and rapid change that left some people very confused. Many members are quick to correct a person who uses the word “Mormon” and are careful to use the church name exactly as President Nelson required. Most have forgotten the Meet the Mormon campaign just a few short years ago. This was not a slow change over years or decades, rather it changed within a one-year period.
This is a minor example of a rapid change in policy when a new prophet is called. Despite this being relatively minor, the language around it is strong and the outcome of using the word "Mormon" is unacceptable to church members. There are many more examples. Tomorrow we will discuss a policy that was received by revelation and repealed within a few years.
Was President Monson’s campaign offensive to God?
Did Satan enjoy eight years of victories during the I’m a Mormon campaign?
Was one prophet misled and the other correct?
Is it a problem to emphasize the words of a living prophet only?
As a side note, there are those who speculate that the I’m a Mormon campaign was modeled after the I’m a Scientologist or Meet a Scientologist campaign which dates back to 2009, one year prior to the church’s outreach. The style of the videos bear remarkable similarities to each other.
https://news-jm.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Mormon
** Trigger Warning – homophobia and homophobic policies
** I encourage you to stay with me through this journey; however, you can skip this post if you feel like this will hurt our relationship. My goal is not to offend but to inform.
Focus on the Living Prophet
Part 2
2015 Exclusion Policy
Revelation in 2015 & 2019
A modern example of rapidly changing policy was the 2015 exclusion policy forbidding the baptism of children with gay parents which was retracted in 2019. It should be noted that President Monson died in 2018 and his position was filled by President Nelson. Both the 2015 policy and 2019 retraction were considered revelations from God, yet the reversal came relatively rapidly.
First, we should understand what was included in the 2015 exclusion policy. Most people are aware that children of gay parents could not be baptized. There is more to the policy than joining the church. I will be using quotes from two Church News articles about the policy. Babies of gay parents could not be blessed as is customary in the church. This prevented the child’s names from being put in the church records. Not being on the records also meant that the child would not be expected to be at any church function and that home and visiting teachers would not be assigned.
Elder Christofferson explained that a baby blessing in the Church places a child’s name on the records of the Church and triggers many things — including the assignment of home and visiting teachers and the expectation that the child will attend Primary and other Church-sponsored activities.
If older children wanted to become church members, they were to disavow their parents’ actions.
Just as has been Church policy regarding polygamist families, children of parents in a same-sex relationship will need to assent to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage before entering Church membership or missionary service, he said. They are “not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice,” he emphasized.
Gay couples who were married were declared apostates and were sent to a disciplinary council immediately where they could be excommunicated. This is a label and action that is more severe than those who commit adultery or even sexually abuse children. Being legally married as a gay couple signified apostasy and resulted in the removal of the couple from the church.
It also clarified that entering a same-sex marriage is considered “apostasy” and requires a Church disciplinary council.
Sexual acts were treated differently between straight and gay couples. A straight person cheating on their spouse was weighed differently than a gay person having sex within the bounds of a legal marriage.
He said the changes were necessary because the Church regards “same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline.”
When the church repealed this policy, it stated:
In addition, the Church will no longer characterize same-gender marriage by a Church member as “apostasy” for purposes of Church discipline, although it is still considered “a serious transgression.”
Instead the “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationship will be treated in the same way,”
This policy was declared to be revelation as declared by Russel M. Nelson in 2016. He indicates that the revelation was given through the prophetic process, confirmed with a spiritual confirmation, and was sacred.
This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.
President Nelson gave a second talk in 2019 where he indicated that the apostles urged the Lord to change the policy and felt directed to do so.
The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have continued to seek the Lord’s guidance and to plead with Him in behalf of His children who were affected by the 2015 policy. We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us…
As a result of our continued supplication, we recently felt directed to adjust the policy such that the baptism of children of LGBT parents may be authorized by bishops without First Presidency approval, if the custodial parents request the baptism and understand that a child will be taught about sacred covenants to be made at baptism.
President Nelson indicated that the 2015 exclusion policy was put in place by God. After the church leaders plead with God to change the policy, President Nelson stated it was repealed by God in 2019.
It should be noted that a similar policy change happened with Proposition 8 in California and the church’s 2022 support of a bill protecting gay marriage. I will not write more on the topic but will include links in the comments.
Does God not know the potential negative impact of a policy He puts in place through His prophet?
Are prophets able to influence God’s decision-making and change His mind through “continued supplication”?
Why would a hurtful policy received through revelation be put in place just to repeal it a few years later?
Is it important to look into the past to try and gain understanding, or should we only focus on what the prophet is saying right now?
https://apnews.com/article/religion-relationships-gay-rights-utah-07847f4b7e3e96d81c10a298a199b860
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8
Word of Wisdom
Part 1
Word of Wisdom Not Followed by Joseph Smith
I grew up hearing the story of Joseph Smith refusing alcohol as a child when requiring major surgery on his leg. This was presented to me as evidence that Joseph knew alcohol was harmful even as a young child. I understood this to be evidence that even at a young age, Joseph was being prepared to be the prophet and receive the Word of Wisdom. I believed he had followed the Word of Wisdom his entire life.
The church describes the surgery as follows:
The surgery entailed cutting directly into the bone and removing its infected areas, allowing healthy tissue to grow back in their place. Lucy and Joseph Jr. agreed to the surgery.
Lucy recalled her son refusing sedatives and cords to bind him to a bed, asking instead for his father to hold him and for his mother to leave the room.
Written nearly three decades later and after Lucy had embraced ideals of the U.S. temperance movement against alcohol, her account emphasizes Joseph’s refusal to take liquor for pain.
In her history, Lucy Mack Smith wrote,
When the doctor insisted that he must be confined he said decidedly “No Doctor I will not be bound. I can bear the process better unconfined”… “will you drink some brandy.” “No” said the child “not one drop.” Then said the Dr, “will you take some wine? You must take something or you can never endure the severe operation to which you must be subjected.” “No,” answered the boy. “I will not touch one particle of liquor; neither will I be tied down: but I will tell you what I will do, I will have my Father sit on the bed close by me; and then I will do whatever is necessary to be done, in order to have the bone taken out. But Mother, I want you to leave the room.”
This surgery must have been unbearable without the numbing of alcohol or modern medicine. Even as a child, I thought that was strange that the focus was on Joseph’s refusal to drink. Medication during and after any surgery is considered essential and would not violate the future revelation of the Word of Wisdom. However, I did believe that it was evidence of his future as a prophet.
Later, I was surprised to learn that Joseph Smith drank alcohol his whole life – even the day he died. Joseph Smith received the revelation of the Word of Wisdom in 1833 yet continued to drink until he died in 1844.
The day Joseph was killed in Carthage Jail, he called for wine and tobacco. John Taylor gives the following account:
Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us…. I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards. We all of us felt unusually dull and languid, with a remarkable depression of spirits. In consonance with those feelings I sang a song, that had lately been introduced into Nauvoo, entitled, “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”, etc.
Joseph’s continued alcohol use is justified by FAIR as a medication to treat his depressed mood.
Alcohol was also considered a medicinal substance, and was used with that purpose well into the 19th century. Thus, some wine or brandy use would be seen as “medicinal,” rather than “recreational.” This perspective is likely reflected in John Taylor's later account of the events at Carthage:
In the twenty-first century, a member who used morphine by injection to get high would be regarded as in violation of the Word of Wisdom. But, if they used it under a physician's supervision for a recognized condition for which its use was appropriate, that would be considered in harmony with the Word of Wisdom. Cancer patients, for example, do not lose their temple recommends simply because they require morphine. In a similar way, Joseph and his companions' use of wine prior to the martyrdom obviously did not trouble him or his contemporaries, because they understood their era's medical context.
I fully support the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes prior to modern medicine – just as I support the use of modern medicine today. However, some of FAIR’s explanation is out of line. To compare a cancer patient’s need for morphine for pain to Joseph’s desire for alcohol to lift his spirits is unequal and insensitive.
In the case of significant surgery to cut away infected bone, Joseph nobly refused liquor. However, in the case of being depressed in prison, he accepted it for medicinal purposes and was justified. These two events contradict each other in the way they are taught.
In addition, Joseph drank throughout his life and even opened a bar in his home/hotel. FAIR states,
On 12 December 1843, the city council in Nauvoo passed a law allowing the mayor (i.e., Joseph) to sell spirits. Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor of the city be and is hereby authorized to sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time to time.”
Another account of Joseph supporting drinking reads as follows:
It was reported to me that some of the brethren had been drinking whiskey that day in violation of the Word of Wisdom. I called the brethren in and investigated the case, and was satisfied that no evil had been done, and gave them a couple of dollars, with directions to replenish the bottle to stimulate them in the fatigues of their sleepless journey.
It is clear that the early leaders of the church did not follow the Word of Wisdom as members are expected to obey today. In the past, it was seen as a suggestion rather than a commandment.
I am not particularly concerned with the details of the Word of Wisdom and who did or did not follow them in the past. I do have an issue with the way stories are told to bolster faith despite the contradicting facts. The story of Joseph’s alcohol refusal during his childhood surgery was presented as preparation for his prophetic call yet he drank his entire life. Yet members of the church today can be denied a temple recommend over a drink of coffee.
History should be taught as completely as possible – even when the accounts contradict each other.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_drank_alcohol_prior_to_the_martyrdom
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smiths-leg-surgery?lang=eng
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=byusq#byu
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/31
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Word_of_Wisdom
Word of Wisdom
Part 2
Word of Wisdom & Cholera
In the early 1800s, a deadly cholera pandemic was spreading across the globe. News of the pandemic spread quickly and people were afraid. LDS Living tells of Joseph’s reaction to the pandemic.
In July 1832, Joseph Smith wrote to William W. Phelps that “cholera is cutting down its hundreds in the city of New York” and was “raging” in other cities in the eastern United States. Joseph also relayed information from a letter he had received from his cousin Almira Mack Scobey, who was visiting friends in Detroit: “cholera is raging in that city to an alarming degree, hundreds of families are fleeing to the country and the country people have torn up the bridges and stopped all communication and even shot peoples horses down under them who attempt to cross the river on any express.” The disease was “so malignant that it baffles the skill of the most eminent Phisicians.”
Wikipedia describes the spread of the second cholera pandemic.
A second cholera pandemic reached Russia (see Cholera Riots), Hungary (about 100,000 deaths) and Germany in 1831; it killed 130,000 people in Egypt that year. In 1832 it reached London and the United Kingdom (where more than 55,000 people died) and Paris. In London, the disease claimed 6,536 victims and came to be known as "King Cholera"; in Paris, 20,000 died (of a population of 650,000), and total deaths in France amounted to 100,000. In 1833, a cholera epidemic killed many Pomo, which are a Native American tribe. The epidemic reached Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New York in the same year, and the Pacific coast of North America by 1834. In the center of the country it spread through the cities linked by the rivers and steamboat traffic.
It was during this pandemic that Joseph Smith received the Word of Wisdom, “a law of health revealed by the Lord for the physical and spiritual benefit of His children.”
Yet, following the Word of Wisdom would have been dangerous for the members or anyone else living for the next 100 years. Until clean water was reliably available, strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom was deadly.
FAIR asserts that following the Word of Wisdom would have been a “death sentence” for the early saints at the time it was revealed.
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 for many Latter-day Saints—especially during the 1832–1833 cholera pandemic, which spread its disease by water.
One of the justifications FAIR gives for continued alcohol use among Joseph Smith, other church leaders and members was the lack of clean water. This argument has a major flaw. Let me explain.
Drinking untreated water often carried deadly diseases, like cholera. During this time; however, adding alcohol was not the most effective way to cleanse the water. Alcohol was unreliable for cleansing water as it was often unavailable and could vary in its efficacy. I was unable to find any modern source that recommended adding alcohol to drinking water to cleanse it.
The absolute best way to make unclean water safe is to boil it. It’s cheap, effective, reliable, and readily available. According to the CDC, “If you don’t have safe bottled water, you should boil your water to make it safe to drink. Boiling is the surest method to kill disease-causing germs, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites.”
One of the main substances forbidden in the Word of Wisdom is found in verse 9 where members are taught that, “And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.”
If a member had obeyed the Word of Wisdom by abstaining from alcohol and hot drinks, their access to any form of clean drinking water would disappear.
Some would argue that strict observance was not expected at the time of the revelation. However, according to a church essay on the Word of Wisdom, the people immediately obeyed.
Soon after receiving the Word of Wisdom, Joseph Smith appeared before the elders of the School of the Prophets and read the revelation to them. The brethren did not have to be told what the words meant. They “immediately threw their tobacco pipes into the fire,” one of the participants in the school recalled.
Nowhere did it say these principles were to applied only decades in the future.
Let’s look closer at the timing of the Word of Wisdom. The revelation was given on February 27, 1833, in the middle of the same cholera pandemic of 1832-1833 referenced by FAIR. Cholera is the result of drinking contaminated water. Yet the revelation restricted both alcohol and the consumption of any hot drinks.
Joseph received a revelation during a pandemic that forbade the very methods of drinking water that would make the members safe.
In a separate article, FAIR verifies the need for boiled water. “Difficulties in assuring clean water supplies also make tea or coffee a sometimes wiser choice for health. Both coffee and tea are made from boiled water, which will kill bacteria.”
According to FAIR, even cold tea would be safer to drink than untreated water. “Even without boiling, the tannic acid in tea would kill the bacteria that caused such scourges as cholera, typhoid, and dysentery—all real risks on the American frontier.”
Cholera continued to be a problem for church members even after 1833. The next year, Joseph organized Zion’s Camp. Due to unclean water, another deadly cholera outbreak occurred. According to a church essay on Zion’s Camp cholera struck again.
On June 22, 1834, he received a revelation stating that it was no longer required that the camp redeem Zion. …The camp began to disband at the end of June. This dispersal was hastened when a cholera epidemic broke out among camp members, eventually killing 13 participants and 2 Missouri Church members. In July 1834, many members of the camp returned to Kirtland.
The Primary manual tells more detail about Zion’s Camp. According to this account, the cure for cholera was being humble and obedient:
After eight days of illness in the camp, Joseph met with many of the group and said that if they would humble themselves before the Lord and covenant to keep his commandments, the cholera would leave immediately. The men raised their hands and covenanted with the Lord, and the illness stopped. About sixty-eight people of Zion’s Camp had suffered from the disease, and fourteen people had died.
If 14 of the 68 men died, the death rate was 20.6 percent. According to the CDC, “If left untreated, 25-50% of severe cholera cases can be fatal.” The death rate of the outbreak during Zion’s Camp was only marginally lower than is typically seen from cholera. Covenanting with the Lord seemed to have a minimal effect on the sick men.
Cholera continued to be a major threat to the saints as they crossed the plains. According to an article by the Deseret News, it was the deadliest threat to the pioneers.
A landmark new study on pioneer mortality indicates that cholera caused an astounding 40 percent of deaths on the Mormon trail. Tragically, historians believe pioneer habits unwittingly created cholera conditions that infected those who traveled later in the season.
Compounding the problem was the fact that the cause of cholera was a mystery to the pioneers. They didn't know how to defend themselves from cholera bacteria, which secrete a toxin that inflames the large intestine, causing diarrhea and rapid dehydration. In severe cases, cholera can kill within hours.
Many pioneers were more lucky than good, regularly boiling water simply because they thought it tasted bad or because they could see organisms in it.
It should be noted that germ theory was not known at the time of these events. It would be many years before it was better understood and adopted. No one can hold any person accountable for their lack of knowledge in the 1830s. However, it is different when the restrictions come as a revelation come from God. To forbid the only methods that could have helped purify water from a raging, deadly disease is dangerous. It would have been incredible, or even prophetic, if the revelation contained details that would have been proven correct by the development of germ theory.
It is important to understand that the very means of protecting the members from sickness were forbidden in the Word of Wisdom at the very time the members were dying from cholera. It is also important to understand that the Word of Wisdom did not contain any information that was not yet known at the time of the revelation. It would have been incredible if the Word of Wisdom was ahead of the world’s knowledge of germ theory and had advice that actually protected people.
https://providentliving.churchofjesuschrist.org/self-reliance/health/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/making-water-safe.html
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/zions-camp-camp-of-israel?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/primary-5/lesson-28?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng
https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-pandemics-come-and-what-is-gods-role-in-them-church-historians-discuss-the-topic/s/94036
Adam-ondi-Ahman
Part 1
“If the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, how did Abraham, Moses and other prophets end up in the Old World?” - FAIR
Joseph Smith claimed that there was a sacred location called Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri. This location was said to be where Adam and Eve went after being cast out of the Garden of Eden. In the future, he prophesied it will be an important gathering site for the saints. I believed I would be called to move my family to this important location in the future.
The church indicates this site will be very important in the future.
Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site of a future grand council where Jesus Christ will meet with His stewards of all dispensations and receive back the keys of the kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming. Only those called to the meeting will know of its occurrence.
D&C 107:53-54 indicates the Lord appeared at Adam-ondi-Ahman before Adam’s death:
53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
D&C 116:1 tells of the future gathering:
1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.
In an article published by BYU Religious Studies we learn that Brigham Young stated:
I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God.
Heber C. Kimball also confirmed this by saying, “The spot chosen for the Garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the state of Missouri, where Independence now stands.”
Adam-ondi-Ahman as the location of the Garden of Eden, or where Adam went after the Garden, is problematic because of one big question:
“If the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, how did Abraham, Moses and other prophets end up in the Old World?”
FAIR gives eight possible answers to this problem. I have summarized them below:
- The earth was one mass named Pangaea
- Noah floated from a New World site to the Old during the flood
- Noah traveled down rivers or from sea coasts with the flood's arrival.
- Migration occurred over the Siberia-Alaska land bridge
- Maybe there were two Adam-ondi-Ahman locations
- It might be more symbolic than literal
- Eden may not have been on the earth
- “Many, perhaps most, members consider the matter of relatively little importance, and have no strong feelings about the issue at all.”
There are no good answers to these questions. FAIR admits, “It must be noted that there is little, if any, scriptural or scientific evidence to support any of the above hypotheses over others.”
As there is no explanation to the problem of Adam being in America but all the prophets being in the Old World, FAIR downplays the importance of this teaching.
Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology.
Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center.
FAIR quotes the LDS Newsroom as saying:
We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
I have been to the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman not once, but twice, in my life. I was taught that the saints will gather in Missouri in the future. FAIR strongly argues that this is a peripheral piece of doctrine with no real importance. However, I really believed I would be called to move back some day. I know of other members who believe the same and are waiting to move or have preemptively moved back to Missouri.
I had a bishop tell me that we would be called one by one to leave our homes and settle in Missouri. This actually caused me a lot of stress because we had worked hard to build a financial life for ourselves in Utah. The potential of being uprooted in the future weighed on my mind continually and made it difficult for me to put down roots fully.
It seems that Adam-ondi-Ahman creates a significant physical and theological problem that FAIR cannot resolve. The approach FAIR has taken is to diminish the importance of the Adam-ondi-Ahman and to direct the members to focus on other teachings. I do not appreciate FAIR’s approach of sidelining this teaching as of no real importance as it means a lot to some faithful members.
Each person must decide for themselves the importance of Adam-ondi-Ahman and how to deal with the problem of the Missouri location.
Is the teaching of Adam-ondi-Ahman of no relevance to the members as FAIR argues?
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Prophet/Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/historic-sites/missouri/adam-ondi-ahman?lang=eng
https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/adam-ondi-ahman-temple/
Mound Builder Myth
Part 1
Martin Harris, Mitchill, and Funding for Book of Mormon
During the 1700s and 1800s people were curious about the discovery of ancient buildings and cities. People began developing a variety of theories about the origin of these structures. Many curious individuals believed white people were superior to the Native Americans. This led to the belief that a superior, white race predated Native Americans. This race was responsible for building these amazing structures.
It was during this time that the Mound Building Myth was developed. Some proponents of this myth believed that the ancient inhabitants of the Americas could have been part of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Wikipedia summarizes the myth as follows:
A number of pre-Columbian cultures in North America were collectively termed "Mound Builders", but the term has no formal meaning. It does not refer to a specific people or archaeological culture, but refers to the characteristic mound earthworks which indigenous peoples erected for an extended period of more than 5,000 years.
“It tapped into the widely accepted view of those times that Native Americans were merely bloodthirsty savages, bent on the destruction of all but their own race. It was inconceivable to Priest and like-minded men that a race so lazy and inept could conceive and build such huge, elaborate structures.” Priest speculated that the original dwellers could be the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
Josiah Priest's 1833 400-page publication American Antiquities centered around his study of the Bible and antiquarian journals, supplemented by information from his travels. After visiting earthworks in Ohio and New York, Priest concluded that these mounds could be traced back to a lost race that had inhabited America even before the Native Americans. This idea is now referred to as the ‘mound builder myth’ and still has supporters in society today. The book grew in popularity because of Priest's views on Native Americans.
An article published by BYU confirms this theory was common.
By contrast, arguably the earliest and surely the most popular and doggedly persistent of all the traditions was the belief that the Native Americans had originated from the lost ten tribes of Israel. Having been forced out of Palestine into parts of the Assyrian empire by King Shalmaneser in the first half of the eighth century bc, remnants of these Israelites, or Hebrew peoples, so the theory argues, eventually made their way over land and sea to the New World.
This idea was promoted in many books. “The Reverend Thomas Thorowgood published his Jewes in America; or, Probabilities That the Americans Are of That Race…”
Such arguments as Crawford’s were later elucidated by Elias Boudinot, founder of the American Bible Society, in his famous A Star in the West (1816). Offering little by way of new evidence, Boudinot nonetheless argued evangelistically that many (though not all) of the Indians were Israelites and that just as God had brought the ancient Israelites across the Red Sea, so later he led the ten lost tribes…to the Americas where they set up “an ensign for the nations.” “They are to be converted to the faith of Christ.”
Another American book, owing much to Boudinot’s analysis and fervor in promoting the same lost tribes traditions, was published twelve years earlier in 1825 by the Reverend Ethan Smith. Entitled View of the Hebrews, this work quoted liberally from Old Testament scripture and prophecy but with little careful observation of any Indian tribes.
Another proponent of a similar theory was Professor Mitchill, a colleague of Charles Anthon. Martin Harris brought reformed Egyptian characters to both Anthon and Mitchill before funding the printing of the Book of Mormon.
According to an article published by BYU Religious Studies, “’Mitchill had been studying the origins of the American Indian people for several years and had painstakingly developed his own ‘two races’ theory of ancient America.’ His interest in the history of the ancient American Indians was therefore at a peak when Harris showed him the transcripts.”
Mitchill took interest in the characters Martin Harris brought because of his belief that, “another great race of people had once coinhabited ancient America— a ‘more delicate race’—which he believed originated in the Polynesian Islands of the South Pacific. These people he called the Australasians or Malays. They were, however, eventually overtaken and exterminated by the more savage, warlike Tartars or Eastern Asiatics to the North—the ancestors of many of the North American Indians—and had long ago become extinct.” “It was probably for these and perhaps other reasons that Mitchill showed deep interest in the transcript of the characters Harris showed him.”
In an article published by BYU, the author suggests that Mitchill’s two race theory is what persuaded Martin Harris to fund the Book of Mormon even after Charles Anthon told Martin he was being “duped”.
If you have ever wondered why Martin Harris would return from his visit with Charles Anthon and promptly commit to support the publication of the Book of Mormon, Professor Richard E. Bennett has produced an answer. Though Anthon in the end gave an entirely negative response to Martin and, in his later recollections of the event, warned Martin that he was being duped, the other messages Martin received on that same journey must have helped him decide that Joseph Smith was not trying to swindle him.
The Book of Mormon emerged while this two race theory was being heavily promoted. Many of the theories found in the mound builder myths are also found in this scripture. An ancient group of advanced people from Jerusalem came to the Americas. They built extensive cities and trade routes before being destroyed. Those that remained were more savage, primitive, and darker skinned than those they had killed. The article about the origin theories published by BYU concludes with:
Thus a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon.
Some claim that the Book of Mormon is "the most famous and certainly the most influential of all Mound-Builder literature." Wikipedia summarizes the similarities to the Mound Builder Myth and the Book of Mormon:
Notable for the association with the Ten Lost Tribes is the Book of Mormon (1830). In this narrative, the Jaredites (3000–2000 BCE) and an Israelite group in 590 BCE (termed Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites). While the Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites were all of Jewish origin coming from Israel around 590 BCE, the Jaradites were a non-Abrahamic people separate in all aspects, except in a belief in Jehovah, from the Nephites. The Book of Mormon depicts these settlers building magnificent cities, which were destroyed by warfare about CE 385. The Book of Mormon can be placed in the tradition of the “Mound-Builder literature” of the period.
It is important to understand the Mound Builder Myth which was widely circulating during the early 1800s. It was a common belief that a superior white race had inhabited the Americas prior to the Native Americans. Mitchill’s similar belief is likely what lead to Martin Harris funding the Book of Mormon. This theory was proposed long before Joseph Smith’s time and the Book of Mormon has many parallels to this myth.
Each person must draw their own conclusions about the influence of the Mound Building Myth and the origin of the Book of Mormon.
Is the Book of Mormon the ancient record the church claims it to be?
Or is it "the most famous and certainly the most influential of all Mound-Builder literature"?
You decide.
Thank you for joining me on this long journey!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1491&context=jbms
Thank You!
This project has been the result of three years of study. I started the process as a faithful member trying to better understand which parts of the church were doctrine and which parts were culture. I had never imagined a future where I was no longer a member of the church. I was unable to find a single topic that held up to scrutiny and it broke me. I felt like I had been ripped apart and I would never be whole again. Putting it on paper has been the single most healing thing I have done.
Many friends and family will choose to remain members of the church while others will leave. I respect either choice but I ask that you do a few things:
- Understand that there are valid reasons for faithful members to leave or stay
- Treat each other with the same love, compassion, friendship, and respect
- Without information there can be no agency. For those who stay, I encourage you to teach the difficult topics accurately to your families and in your classes. No one should go through the temple or go on a mission without enough information to decide for themselves. I hope I provided you with some helpful information from sources you trust and can be used in your teaching.
In the Gospel Principles manual, the church teaches the importance of complete honesty. This definition of honesty should be the standard for all of us.
Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation…God is honest and just in all things... We too must be honest in all things to become like Him…We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest... When we are completely honest, we cannot be corrupted. We are true to every trust, duty, agreement, or covenant, even if it costs us money, friends, or our lives. Then we can face the Lord, ourselves, and others without shame.
I appreciate all who read along as I presented years of study in such a short time period. I know it was a lot to process and reading my posts was likely very painful. Please feel free to reach out anytime with any questions or input. I would love to hear from you!
Feel free to share any of my work with anyone. The work is really not mine at all – it is the product of countless hours by real historians who shared their findings regardless of the repercussions they would endure as a result. That is true integrity.
“I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.”
Richard Bushman – LDS Church Historian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKuBw9mpV9w
The answer is given after the 1:00 mark
“If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed….A lawyer must get at facts, he must consider motives -- he must tear off the mask and lay bare the countenance, however hideous. The frightful skeleton of truth must always be exposed ... [the lawyer] must make every conclusion pass the fiery ordeal of pitiless reason. If their conclusions cannot stand this test, they are false.”
J. Reuben Clark
J. Reuben Clark, as recorded by D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24
The End (for real this time)
Today I am angry. I have tried to keep my own emotions out of this project up to this point. However, ending my posts with the exclusion policy brought up a variety of painful emotions. I did not like the church’s efforts to outlaw gay marriage with Proposition 8, but I didn’t understand enough to be angry. I was bothered by the 2015 policy when it came out, but I had my mental workarounds to justify it. I am deeply disappointed with myself for not being upset enough at the time. I would like to think I would care about how these awful policies hurt people that I didn’t know. It is my lifelong burden to carry that I didn’t care enough until I had my own gay child.
Being raised in the church as a gay person is brutal. I had to sit through my child’s tears as she told me of her self-loathing. She told me how much she wished she could change herself to make her life easier. Our home had been openly accepting of queer people for the past few years so we know where she learned how to hate her sexuality. I had to tell her the temple was not going to be for her anymore. She spent hours sobbing when I told her about the church’s involvement in Proposition 8. She was heartbroken again when I explained the exclusion policy. I haven’t bothered to tell her about the conversion therapy and shock therapy they used at BYU. I will never again be silent when the church hurts people in the name of God.
At the same time, I am so happy. I am so grateful she no longer has to live within a system where she has no place. She doesn’t have to sit through one more homophobic church lesson. She doesn’t have to live a celibate life to be loved by God and gain salvation. The God I know would not ask such things. It has been a beautiful experience to watch her evolve from self-hatred to embracing herself completely. It’s like watching a butterfly emerge from a cocoon. She fully owns and celebrates her orientation and is thriving. She gets to have crushes and first kisses and dates just like the straight kids. She doesn’t have to live in a church that can’t get its doctrine and policies right the first, second, or hundredth time – even though the doctrines and policies come directly from God.
I did not leave the church after my child came out – I left before when I realized that God’s hand was not in this work. The God I know would not demand polygamy for exaltation or deny salvation over skin color. LGBTQ issues are equally destructive and to me, they are evidence that God is not leading this work. It is that simple. The church can preach love, but the actions feel more like hate.
I felt compelled to understand the origin of the church so I could better understand these policies. I used to think that people who left the church over its history were ridiculous. Now I see that history is everything. The church's history is full of violence, affairs, lies, magic, rewritten timelines, scriptural changes, doctrinal changes, temple changes, inconsistencies, coups, and bad translations. All this has been carefully trimmed, rewritten, and sculpted over time into something unrecognizable to the church of the past. The upper leadership has known the truth but chooses to widely circulate a fabricated history, keeping local leaders and members in the dark. Yet church members hang everything on the words of those they can’t trust. They are taught to look to the leaders for all directions, even when they have proven to be unreliable. They are even taught to crush their water bottles to mimic the prophet.
I am not angry with church members; I am angry with the leaders of the system. The church is full of amazing people who are doing the best they can with the information they have. My goal and desire are that the members can have access to better information.
I will end with two pieces of advice:
1. Be prepared for a loved one to come out as LGBTQ+. It takes a lot of courage to come out – especially if the family has said negative things in the past. Choose a topic you don’t understand and learn more. Change how you talk, create a safe environment, and hang a pride flag to show support. When they come out, just love on that person. You don’t know what they have been through. Don’t let the church’s doctrines destroy your family.
2. Be prepared for a loved one to leave the church. The younger generation is leaving rapidly – even after missions and attending BYU. Some estimate 75 percent will leave the church by age 30. They have access to information no one had before them and they often feel hurt and betrayed. Change how you talk about people who left the church. Create a safe environment and just love on them. You don’t know what they have been through. Don’t let the church’s doctrine destroy your family.
Thanks for reading and listening. Let me know if you want an updated PDF of all the topics I have covered. Feel free to reach out to me anytime – my door is always open.