LDS History Archives - FAIR

View Details

In his April 2026 General Conference address, Elder Patrick Kearon taught that Church callings are much more than assignments to fill vacancies or keep a congregation functioning. They are inspired invitations to join Jesus Christ in His redeeming work while allowing Him to refine our own hearts through service. Looking back on his first calling as a newly baptized member, Elder Kearon recognized that what once seemed unexpected became one of the Lord’s greatest tools for his growth.

I could see the Lord working through imperfect servants. . .who were striving to discern His will for those they were serving.

Many people struggle with Church callings. Others struggle with the fact that the Church itself is led and served by imperfect people. If leaders make mistakes or members fall short, does that mean the Church cannot be guided by God?

Elder Kearon’s answer is both honest and hopeful: God has always accomplished His work through imperfect servants who are sincerely striving to follow Him. Rather than being discouraged by human weakness, we can recognize it as evidence of the Savior’s power to accomplish divine purposes through ordinary disciples.

Common Criticism: The Church Can’t Be True Because Its Leaders and Members Are ImperfectOne of the most common criticisms of religion is that if a church truly represents God, its leaders and members should consistently reflect His perfection. When mistakes are made, people sometimes conclude that the Church’s claims to divine guidance must therefore be false.

Elder Kearon responds by shifting our focus from human perfection to divine partnership. God has never waited for perfect people before accomplishing His work.

Fallacy at Work: Perfectionism (The Nirvana Fallacy)

The Nirvana Fallacy occurs when we reject something good because it falls short of an unrealistic ideal.

Instead of comparing the restored Church with real-world alternatives, critics sometimes compare it to an imagined community without weakness, mistakes, or growing disciples. But throughout scripture, the Lord repeatedly entrusted His work to imperfect people—from Moses and Peter to Joseph Smith and the early Saints.

Expecting flawless disciples before believing in divine guidance misunderstands the way God has always worked.

Doctrine

The Lord has consistently called ordinary men and women to accomplish extraordinary purposes. King Benjamin taught that “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God” (Mosiah 2:17), reminding us that service itself is one of God’s principal means of shaping His covenant people.

Likewise, Paul described the Church as the “body of Christ,” where every member contributes according to the gifts God has given (Romans 12:4–5). The strength of the body comes not from the perfection of each individual member, but from Christ, who is its Head.

Elder Kearon reminds us that callings are “tailor-made for our growth” and that “it really isn’t where we serve but how that matters to the Lord.” God is not looking for flawless servants. He is looking for willing ones.

It really isn’t where we serve but how that matters to the Lord.

Elder Kearon’s Correction

Elder Kearon does not pretend that Church leaders always make perfect decisions or that every member serves flawlessly. Instead, he invites us to recognize something more remarkable: Christ patiently works through imperfect people who are striving to discern His will.

That perspective changes how we view callings, ward members, bishops, Relief Society presidents, youth leaders, and even ourselves. Rather than asking whether God’s servants are perfect, we begin asking whether they are honestly seeking to follow Him.

The answer, more often than not, is yes.

And that is exactly how the Lord has always built His kingdom.

Solution

The existence of imperfect servants is not evidence against God’s Church—it is evidence of God’s grace.

If God only worked through perfect people, no one could participate in His work. Instead, He invites imperfect disciples into His service, knowing that as they bless others, He will also sanctify them.

That is one reason Church callings matter so deeply. They are not merely responsibilities; they are one of God’s primary classrooms for discipleship.

Living Apologetics: Looking Beyond Human WeaknessIt is easy to become discouraged when we notice mistakes in Church leaders or fellow members. It is equally easy to become discouraged by our own shortcomings when serving in a calling.

Elder Kearon invites us to remember that Christ’s work has never depended on perfect servants. It depends on willing hearts.

Practical Apologetic Use

If someone says: “If the Church were really true, its leaders wouldn’t make mistakes.”

You can respond: “God has always worked through imperfect people. The real miracle isn’t that His servants never make mistakes—it’s that Christ consistently accomplishes His work through disciples who are humbly striving to follow Him.”

Ways to Apply Today

1️⃣ Extend grace. When someone serving in your ward falls short, remember that they are learning discipleship just as you are.

2️⃣ Support those you sustain. Pray regularly for your leaders and teachers rather than assuming they carry their responsibilities alone.

3️⃣ Embrace your own calling. Don’t wait until you feel perfectly qualified before giving Christ your willing heart.

Keep This Talk With YouElder Kearon’s invitation extends far beyond accepting a Church calling. It invites us to see God’s kingdom through the eyes of Christ. The Savior has never built His Church with perfect people. He has always built it with covenant disciples who are willing to follow Him, repent, learn, and keep serving.

That truth should fill us with both humility and hope. Humility because we recognize our own imperfections. Hope because Christ is not waiting for perfection before inviting us into His work. As we accept opportunities to serve, sustain one another, and trust the Lord’s guiding hand, we discover that He is shaping us even as He blesses others through us.

This week, try one small step:

Thank someone who quietly serves in your ward or branch. Your encouragement may remind them that their efforts matter more than they know.
Pray for someone whose calling seems especially demanding, asking the Lord to strengthen and guide them.
Look for one opportunity outside your formal calling to be “about His Father’s business” through an act of Christlike service.

Then we can learn to see one another the way the Savior does: not as finished disciples, but as willing ones.

How can you better support those the Lord has called, knowing that He accomplishes His work through willing—not perfect—disciples?

The Consider Conference series by FAIR offers an in-depth look at recent General Conference talks to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints navigate common questions, misunderstandings, and criticisms. Each post provides doctrinal insights, historical context, and practical ways to apply gospel principles in everyday conversations. Through this series, we hope to equip readers with faith-promoting resources that encourage thoughtful reflection, respectful dialogue, and a stronger foundation in gospel truths, fostering both personal conviction and meaningful discussions with others.

The post About His Business appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Moses 7: Enoch’s Vision (Jennifer Roach Lees)The vision of Enoch in Moses 7 bridges the gap between ancient scripture and modern discipleship. We can absolutely see ourselves in it.

On the one hand, it’s a text of great scholarly interest. Go read Jeff Bradshaw’s paper. It’s very long, very dense and very scholarly. Moses 7 expands the kind of sparse biblical account of Enoch into this big sweeping narrative.

And on the other hand, it’s a profoundly practical guide for Latter-day Saints seeking to live faithfully in the present, not in some future idealized world on the actual street that you live on.

The dual significance makes Moses 7 a cornerstone for both intellectual exploration and spiritual transformation. Those two are not pitted against each other, right? Those are the same thing.

Ultimately, Moses 7 matters because it shows that scholarship and discipleship are not separate pursuits.

Understanding the text’s historical or theological depth, it enriches our faith so that we are able to live our lives based on its principles.

Welcome BackWelcome back to FAIR’s Come, Follow Me old testament year.

I am Jennifer Roach Lees and today we are talking about one of the most beautiful pieces of scripture, Moses 7. We’re going to look at both some scholarly insights into this passage as well as some of the practical applications.

This passage is one of the most expansive and theologically rich chapters in the Pearl of Great Price – or honestly, in any scripture.

In this vision, the prophet Enoch is transformed from this hesitant kind of slow-of-speech figure into a seer who beholds the entire cosmic drama of God’s dealings with humans.

And for Latter-day Saints, this chapter is remarkable for its doctrinal contributions such as:

a portrayal of God who has emotions, who weeps over his children,
the promise of Zion being taken into heaven,
the sweeping narrative of redemption.

It also has a lot of practical relevance in our modern day discipleship.

Zion as a Lived RealityOne of the most interesting things to me in this chapter is that Zion is not supposed to be just this distant hope or this past thing that Enoch got to experience. It’s supposed to be a lived reality, a community of unity and holiness that invites believers to come and to grow.

Now, it is not always that. And most of us do not live in a Zion-like experience all of the time. But it’s what we’re striving for, right? And I think that part is fascinating.

We will look at this chapter for its scholarly significance as a text and its devotional power as kind of a guide for:

how you even build Zion in your personal life,
your family, and
around the world.

By looking at Enoch’s transformation and God’s compassion, the translation of Zion, we can see how and why this vision is still so important to us today.

Ultimately, this chapter matters because it calls us to participate in God’s work of gathering, healing, and sanctifying. A work that isn’t about like the distant heavens, but about the ordinary choices that you and I make every single day.

Historical and Scriptural ContextSo, first we’ll talk a little bit about the history here and the scriptural context. The account of Enoch in Moses 7 occupies this very distinctive place within Latter-day Saints scripture.

Enoch is mentioned in the Bible, but really only briefly. It’s in Genesis 5.

He’s someone who walked with God and then was translated – taken out of this world – but there is no story beyond that. There’s no narrative given.

So, by contrast, Joseph Smith reveals Enoch’s story as this big, sweeping vision of cosmic scale. He gives us actually 110 verses across Moses 6 and 7 about Enoch’s story compared to less than a handful of verses in the Old Testament.

This expansion really situates Enoch not as just a righteous patriarch, but as a prophet who establishes Zion, right? So, slightly different than some of the other Old Testament patriarchs that we see.

And Enoch beholds the destiny of the earth. As grand as that sounds, that’s what happens with him.

For Latter-day Saints, what’s happening here is that restoring this scripture underscores the restoration’s claim to recover lost truths.

Parallels Between Moses 7 and Apocryphal WritingsNow, scholars have long noted the parallels between Moses 7 and the Jewish apocryphal writings.

The Apocrypha is a collection of pre-new testament works. Somewhere between when the Old Testament ends and when the New Testament begins, we get these writings from Jewish people and we call them the Apocrypha.

Many of them are collected into this translation they call the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. We call those the official Apocrypha. And there are also other apocryphal books outside of that, that are not in this defined collection. But we refer to all of these as apocryphal writings.

There’s a lot in common between Moses 7 and some of these writings. It is pretty fascinating. There are actually connections in other ancient books beyond the accepted Apocrypha.

And one of those books is called the Book of Giants. We’ll get to that one in a minute.

First, let me tell you about one that is in the Apocrypha. It’s called the book of Enoch. Enoch is a visionary.

He ascends to heaven.
He receives some divine secrets.
He intercedes for humanity.

Joseph Smith may or may not have been able to read the Apocrypha. It’s connected to the Catholic Bible still to this day. It’s printed in their Bible. Perhaps he was able to read that.

Ancient Parallels: Book of Enoch and the Book of GiantsThe thematic overlap is certainly there with the book of Enoch and with other ancient traditions. Most striking here is a depiction of a God who weeps over human suffering.

You see that in the book of Enoch and the Apocrypha. It’s very central to Latter-day Saint theology – this divine compassion. We don’t see that in a lot of other places.

The Book of Giants, another very interesting connection. This is the one that gets me.

Jeffrey Bradshaw has a paper called , Moses 6–7 and the Book of Giants: Remarkable Witnesses of Enoch’s Ministry. You can find it on the BYU website. You can download it for free.

It’s also on The Interpreter Foundation’s website. It’s a very long, dense paper. But it is absolutely worth the struggle to get through. If this intrigues you at all, I absolutely recommend you go download his paper.

It’s really, really good.

The Gist of Bradshaw’s ArgumentHere’s the gist of it though. (And Jeff, forgive me for the simplification of your work here, but…)

Bradshaw makes connections between Moses 7 and a book that had long been lost to history called The Book of Giants.

This book, the Book of Giants, was found again when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls. So, it existed, disappeared. We didn’t know of any copies of it. We didn’t know of its existence.

It pops back up along with the Dead Sea Scrolls. There’s a lot of things in those scrolls. The Book of Giants is one of them.

Why is this interesting?

Well, because if the worry is ‘Joseph Smith made up the book of Moses on his own,’ then it’s very hard to explain the similar names and phrases and themes that are found when talking about Enoch in the Book of Moses, and talking about Enoch in The Book of Giants.

There are a lot of similarities.

The Book of Giants was not available to Joseph Smith. It had not yet been rediscovered. And yet today you can go online actually and read the text of The Book of Giants if you want to. You can put that right next to Moses 6 and 7.

And it’s not a copy by any means, but:

There are similar names.
There are certainly similar themes.
There’s similar phrasing.

How did Joseph do that except for by the power of God?

That’s one of my favorite little academic tidbits about all of this.

Early Latter-day Saint Identity and Zion AspirationsHistorically, the Enoch material in Moses 7 really shaped early Latter-day Saint identity.

The vision of Zion taken into heaven inspired Joseph and his followers to pursue creation of Zion communities in Missouri and beyond.

The idea that a people could be so unified and righteous that they would be gathered into God’s presence gave them this really big blueprint for communal living. But also, it gave them some very practical ‘here is how that’s going to have to work out’ steps.

So Moses 7 is not only this expansion, but it’s also a foundational text for the church’s early social and religious aspirations.

Themes in Moses 7The historical and scriptural context of Moses 7 reveals its double significance. It connects us to this great vision and it kind of gives us a framework for how to live today.

We’re going to move into the next section. I want to talk about some of the themes in Moses 7. It unfolds around several interwoven themes and we’re just going to cover a few of them here.

Enoch’s transformation: him as a man, his own transformation;
The establishment of Zion and
The compassion of God.

Actually –

The translation of the city.

All of these, especially when looked at together, offer a framework for understanding how ancient scripture speaks to modern-day discipleship.

And we’re going to look at each one of those closely so you can see what I mean.

Theme 1: Enoch’s Personal TransformationFirst, Enoch’s own personal transformation.

The narrative begins with Enoch as this reluctant prophet. He’s described as slow of speech.

And yet through God’s empowerment, he becomes a mighty seer whose words cause mountains to flee and rivers to change course.

The transformation underscores this great restoration principle, which is: God magnifies the weak to accomplish his purposes.

And for Latter-day Saints, Enoch’s journey is a reminder that discipleship does not require innate brilliance or eloquence, but just willingness to act in faith. We all are standing on equal ground.

In daily life, this theme encourages believers to trust that God can strengthen them:

In their callings,
In their family responsibilities,
In their personal challenges.

Study and Prayer Are Not OppositesSometimes though, people maybe inside or outside of the church try to pit this idea (that God magnifies the weak to accomplish his purposes).

They try to pit that against the idea that it’s good to study and to learn as much as you can about the scriptures, and that intelligence is good. They want to pit these two against each other as if studying for guidance and praying for guidance were opposites.

But they’re not.

Study for its own sake probably doesn’t help very much. But when a scholar works to study all they can, that can be a form of prayer – as well as information that feeds back into how the spirit can speak to that person.

“Study to learn what God has for you” and
“Pray to learn what God has for you”

are not opposites.Those two things work together.

So when we say, “Enoch was this simple man. God magnified his weakness and made him great.”

We’re not saying, “Oh, study is bad. You just have to wait for God to miraculously zap this into you.”

It just isn’t that way. There’s no division between scholar and disciple when both parts have the same goal. Those are not two separate things.

So, that’s a little bit on Enoch’s own development.

Theme 2: The Vision of ZionTheme number two, the vision of Zion.

Perhaps the most defining feature of Moses 7 is its portrayal of Zion, a people united in righteousness, dwelling in safety, and enjoying the presence of the Lord. Sounds pretty good.

And at different times in history, Latter-day Saints have seen Zion as a specific place to gather to, and at other times, we’ve seen it as a theological ideal of covenant community.

Let me give you probably the best example I can think of. If you’ve read the Saints books that the church put out a couple years ago, you see this illustrated really nicely.

The first volume, it’s all about the establishment of the church, right?

The second volume is about the Utah period, establishing Zion here, and the struggles that people went through to get to that goal.

But you get to the third book and the church is beginning to build temples around the world. The writers of that book do a fascinating thing at the end of the third book.

I actually kind of had my jaw open when I read the end of this one and realized what they were doing: the narrative significance of this move. It’s pretty brilliant.

Spoiler alert! If you haven’t read it yet, I’m about to tell you how the book ends.

The Story of Max and Erica ZimmerThe book follows the stories of a lot of people, but it follows one couple who are living in East Berlin, Max and Erica Zimmer. The Berlin Wall has been constructed, but somehow the Zimmers have received permission to leave Berlin and go to the Switzerland Temple.

And while they’re there in Switzerland, they have a legitimate chance to defect to the west and be free. They’re living in East Berlin. The wall is up. They’re behind the Berlin wall. They don’t have freedom here. They find themselves in Switzerland. And they could run. (I’ve got to admit, if it was me, I would run.)

But they don’t. Instead, they decide to go back to East Berlin. Why? To build Zion there.

I wouldn’t make the same choice. Maybe you wouldn’t have either, to be honest. But their story illustrates how the historical changes in the church, how we see Zion, how those have played out.

For this couple, the Zimmers, Zion wasn’t about, “oh, you must go to Utah to get to experience this.” It was “No, we’re going to build Zion exactly where we are.”

This becomes both a theological concept for them and a place that they can inhabit without having to uproot their lives to the other side of the world. It becomes both a real physical place that exists as well as a theological concept.

For modern saints, Zion is both this future hope and present task.

We’re building our homes and our wards and our communities where hopefully love and holiness prevail. And it’s hard, right? It just is. If you spend any amount of time – even with your own family – things are hard. Yet it is the work of building Zion.

There isn’t a place we can go. There isn’t a neighborhood you can move into where Zion’s already established and if you found it your presence there would ruin it and it wouldn’t be Zion anymore, right?

We’re all like learning and growing our own development to bring this together as both concept and place.

Theme 3: The Compassion of GodThird theme, the compassion of God.

One of the most striking passages in Moses 7 depicts God weeping or suffering on behalf of his children. You might not realize this if you’ve kind of grown up in our church and don’t know very much about the theology of other churches. But this image seriously challenges traditional notions about God and if he has emotions at all and if he’s impacted by us.

Sometimes they call it divine impassibility or the idea that God does not feel human emotions and certainly is not swayed by them. That’s the standard non-Latter-day Saint belief. “God doesn’t have passions” is how they would say it.

As silly as it might sound to you to think of God as being kind of cold and distant like that, that’s how he is viewed outside of our church for the most part.

However, interestingly enough, in the last 20 years or so, that conversation has started to change even for Catholics and Protestants.

The theologian Jurgen Moltman was incredibly prolific. He actually died last year. One of the most prolific theologians of the last 50 years. He really started to push the conversation to say, “No, no, we’ve been wrong about this idea that God doesn’t have emotions. We should start reconsidering that.” And because of his status and who he was as a theologian, people listened to him.

And you will find today in some corners of the non-LDS Christian world people who believe, “Oh yeah, of course God has emotions. Of course God is moved by us.” But that’s a new development for them. That has not always been the case.

I think it’s delightful that at least some of them are starting to move toward that.

God Shares in Our PainFor us as Latter-day Saints, this idea that God feels for us and feels because of us offers profound comfort. God is not distant from human pain, but He shares in it.

Our daily discipleship involves seeing others through God’s compassionate eyes, right? Allowing them to move us just like we can move God. That we might suffer for other people just like God suffers for us.

As we work to alleviate suffering, we are doing the work of God the same things that he does for us. We are acting as his children to our brothers and sisters.

Theme 4: The Translation of ZionFourth theme: the translation of Zion.

Finally, Moses 7 describes the City of Zion being taken up into heaven. We call that translation, and it’s actually a really common theme in apocryphal writings.

Earlier I was telling you there’s a set of writings we call the Apocrypha. There are lots of other books beyond that, that we would just call “apocryphal writings”.

This is a really common theme: someone or something being taken from the earth and translated. They don’t die. They are just taken up to be with God. However, it’s usually just an individual that’s translated, not a whole city.

If you’re listening, I would love to hear if you know of any spots in apocryphal literature where a whole city is taken up and translated in that way. I don’t know of any. It’s usually just a single individual.

For Latter-day Saints, I think part of the message here is: we are redeemed together. All of humanity. All of us together, not just individuals.

We who are living, we care about the redemption of our dead. Because if there’s no redemption for them, there’s no redemption for us either. We are all bound together. If something is going to get saved, it’s not us just as isolated individuals. It’s us in the great chain of sealing all being sealed into the same system.

The fact that the whole city is taken up together, not just one holy individual, to me that really symbolizes the redemption of the entire world, of humanity together.

I think that’s really beautiful.

Practical Applications for Daily LifeA few practical applications for daily life.

Moses 7 offers profound theological insights and its enduring power lives and how it shapes our daily lives. So, it’s not just this big thing. It’s a small, little-step thing too.

Enoch’s vision of Zion is not simply this historical curiosity, a thing that used to exist. Or a future promise, something that will someday exist again. It’s a living invitation for us, for Latter-day Saints, for Christians everywhere to embody divine principles in their personal, family and community lives.

Your own personal version of Zion.

Enoch’s transformation from hesitant speaker to mighty prophet illustrates that God magnifies ordinary individuals. For modern saints, this means that discipleship begins with small, faithful acts.

Prayer
Study
Reading the scriptures
Service
Integrity

Right? Building Zion personally involves:

Cultivating compassion,
Resisting cynicism,
Resisting despair,
Trusting that God can strengthen your weakness.

These are all the little micro-building blocks of Zion. Zion isn’t something that’s going to happen to us, or that God is going to zap into us. It’s something we’re going to build with tiny little building blocks just like those.

Building Zion in the FamilyWe also have our families.

No family is perfect.
No family is perfect in unity all the time.
No family is perfect in love all the time.

But a family that’s striving to be like Zion is one where each member believes that no matter what happens,

They are still going to love each other.
They are still going to be moved by each other.
They’re still going to have compassion on each other the very best that they can.

Being a Zion family is not about being perfect.

It’s not about having children who behave perfectly.
It’s not about having adult children who make perfect gospel decisions.
It’s about having compassion for each other’s struggles.

Just like Heavenly Father has compassion on ours, he weeps for us. And sometimes, as sad and hard as it is, sometimes we weep for our other family members while not rejecting them, while still wanting to be there to support them to the degree that we can.

This model of Zion doesn’t require a family to live in some kind of false perfection. It allows lots of room for struggle because we can model the compassion that Heavenly Father has for us.

A Global ZionAnd then finally, a global Zion. Moses 7 expands Zion’s vision to encompass the entire world. God’s weeping over all of humanity calls believers to see all people as children of God. For Latter-day Saints, this means engaging in peacemaking, justice, compassion in and outside of the church. Right?

Daily discipleship may involve

advocating for fairness,
advocating for dignity,
loving your fellow man, and
serving where you can.

In this way, Zion becomes not just a local community as if you happen to just move into a really great ward, right? Or you happen to be born in a really great family. No! This is all of us together, the entire human race, learning to do this with each other. It’s a global ethic.

Moses 7 matters because it transforms this lofty vision of all eternity and redemption into really practical calls to action by building Zion personally. All those little, small building blocks within your family. How we treat each other with compassion and in our worldwide community. We are building Zion.

Latter-day Saints participate in this same divine work that Enoch and his people participated in. This chapter’s relevance lies not in some distant history, but in the choices that saints are making every single day to embody unity and compassion and holiness.

ConclusionThe vision of Enoch in Moses 7 bridges the gap between ancient scripture and modern discipleship. We can absolutely see ourselves in it. On the one hand, it’s a text of great scholarly interest. (Go read Jeff Bradshaw’s paper. It’s very long, dense and scholarly)

Moses 7 expands the sparse biblical account of Enoch into a big, sweeping narrative.

And on the other hand, it’s a profoundly practical guide for Latter-day Saints seeking to live faithfully in the present – not in some future idealized world – on the actual street that you live on.

The dual significance makes Moses 7 a cornerstone for both intellectual exploration and spiritual transformation. Those two are not pitted against each other, right? Those are the same thing. Ultimately, Moses 7 matters because it shows that scholarship and discipleship are not separate pursuits.

Understanding the text’s historical or theological depth, it enriches our faith so that we are able to live our lives based on its principles. In Enoch’s vision, we find this beautifully woven together, a reminder that building Zion is the work of both mind and heart.

Next WeekThank you for joining us today in this conversation. Come back next week! We’re going to look at the last chapter in the book of Moses, chapter 8, as well as Genesis 6-11.

We’ll see you then.

Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Moses 7 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The post Introducing a New Documentary Series about Brigham Young from the Interpreter Foundation appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Jennifer and guest Sarah Allen discuss the books of Moses and Abraham.

Sarah Allen is a Senior Researcher with FAIR, a former member of Scripture Central’s research team, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She is also the co-host of FAIR’s “Me, My Shelf, & I” podcast. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Moses 1; Abraham 3 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

If God is so Powerful, Why Didn’t He Just Stop Their Enemies?by Autumn Dickson

I want to share something from the Official Declaration 1, the declaration that ended the practice of polygamy in the latter-days. This post isn’t specifically about polygamy, but the principle I want to teach is being taught through the polygamy example.

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

He then proceeds to ask the people what would be better: to comply with the law of the land and cease the practice of polygamy or continue to practice polygamy and lose the priesthood organization and temples and be forced to stop polygamy anyway?

I’ve heard people express the idea that the church supposedly believes in revelation but fold the second they receive outside pressure. I’ve heard it conveyed that it was so convenient for the Lord to stop the practice of polygamy when things got too difficult for the people to live it. Even as a teenager, I believed in the church but remember thinking, “Isn’t there a third option? Can’t the Lord enable them to continue practicing polygamy without losing all of the men and the temples?”

Though polygamy is unique in many ways, there is not really any new argument against God. These specific questions boil down to a question that is as old as religion, “If your God is truly so powerful, why doesn’t He enable you?”

The answer to that specific question varies because the circumstances of mankind vary, but I’ll do my best to teach the overarching principles by referring to this specific example of polygamy.

According to President Woodruff, the Saints were facing some pretty dire circumstances. He had a vision of everything that the Saints would lose if they continued the practice of polygamy. To put it shortly, they would lose everything that mattered. I don’t think Satan was worried about stopping polygamy as he was about utilizing polygamy to stop the work in general. If the Saints continued on, this would surely stop the work. They would lose temples and the men; if they lost these, apostasy would reign and Satan would have won (especially since the Lord has promised that we will not fall into a Great Apostasy again).

When we face dire circumstances, the Lord can react in a number of ways and He makes wise decisions based on what will bring about His purposes.

The Lord’s potential reaction #1:

Sometimes He asks us to continue on through difficulty and lose everything. I think of Abinadi. Abinadi was asked to continue preaching despite the fact that it put his life in danger. Abinadi died. Sometimes the Lord asks for the ultimate sacrifice. He could have asked the Saints to make the ultimate sacrifice, but He didn’t.

The Lord’s potential reaction #2:

The Lord can tell His people to keep going and then remove the difficulty. There are a million examples of this, the most obvious being Moses parting the Red Sea.

When it came to polygamy, the Lord could have responded in this way. He could have “parted the sea” and removed the difficulty. The Lord could have enabled His Saints to continue practicing polygamy. He could have wiped out the entire earth other than the Saints if that’s what it took, but He didn’t.

The Lord’s potential reaction #3:

Sometimes the Lord tells us to stop. I think of Alma and his people. They were threatened with death if they prayed, and so they only prayed in their hearts. The Lord could have commanded them to keep praying, but it wasn’t their time and so He didn’t. Technically they kept praying, but there are other instances. For example, there was Zion’s camp. An “army” of members left Kirtland to go win back Missouri for the Saints, but the Lord told them to turn around after they got there. I did a whole video on why the Lord might have chosen after this manner. There was also the time when the Lord excused His people from building the temple in Zion for a time.

Sometimes the Lord does tell us we can stop. People love to act like this is because our God isn’t real or that He isn’t powerful. The answer is neither.

Sometimes the Lord tells us to stop because He is wise.

Despite the fact that the Lord could ask His Saints to sacrifice everything and despite the fact that the Lord could have removed the obstacles they were facing, He chose not to. I emphasize the point that we do not always know why the Lord makes specific choices unless He tells us directly, but let’s think for a bit about why the Lord would have made this decision.

Despite the fact that the Lord reigns over all and despite the fact that He is tremendously powerful, sometimes He chooses to act in a certain way with mankind because of His purposes. The “limitations” are not true limitations; they are self-imposed limitations that enable Him to push His purposes along.

His purpose is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man and because of His chosen purpose, He often works within the constraints of mankind so He doesn’t ruin His own plan. Let’s look at this principle in the context of polygamy.

The Lord’s potential reaction #1:

The Lord could have asked them to continue on in difficulty and sacrifice. They would have lost the temples and priesthood organization that kept His restored church on the earth. That doesn’t really fit His purposes so He’s not going to choose this option.

The Lord’s potential reaction #2:

The Lord could have asked them to continue on and then removed the difficulty for them. This answers the question that I’ve heard posed more than once in my life. Believe it or not, this would have also frustrated His purposes. He COULD have destroyed everyone except the Saints, but that doesn’t contribute to His purposes. He COULD have sent down miracles to stop the rest of America from being able to infiltrate Utah and take the temples and arrest the men, but it would have taken some large-scale miracles in order to keep the work moving forward.

In the history of the world, the Lord has performed some incredible large-scale miracles. We read about these miracles, and we rejoice in them.

However, the Lord does not often choose to work after this manner. He just doesn’t. Why? Because faith is an essential ingredient in His plan. I have studied the purpose of faith over and over and over. You can’t bring about the Plan of Redemption if you wipe out the principle of faith, and large-scale miracles run the risk of doing just that.

The Lord could perform large-scale miracle after large-scale miracle and fix everything, but He doesn’t. Why? Because removing faith from the mortal experience has far dire consequences than anything we could potentially face on earth.

So the Lord COULD have chosen potential reaction #1 or #2, but He didn’t because they don’t contribute to His purposes.

The Lord’s potential reaction #3:

He stops it.

And honestly, this makes sense. Temple work and the priesthood organization were more important. Faith was more important.

I believe that polygamy was a policy laid down by God. I do. I also believe that polygamy doesn’t make logistical sense on a grand scale so it was the wisest choice the Lord could have made.

There are a million arguments made against the church. One of them is the idea of, “If your God is so powerful, why doesn’t He enable you to xyz?”

I testify that God is real and powerful, and I testify that He is in this work. I also testify that God is wise and because He is wise, He has self-imposed limitations in order to bring about His purposes. He could easily interfere with evil on a daily basis, but He knows the cost would be too high. I testify that the Lord is wise enough to make the decisions necessary to bring about our eternal life.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Nine Years: Why God Lets Good People Wait for Answersby Autumn Dickson

This is a message for anyone who feels that they have found God and love Him, but also carry around a doctrine or policy that doesn’t make sense to them; this is for anyone who is having a difficult time reconciling the idea of a loving God (with whom they’ve had good experiences) with doctrines that don’t seem loving to them.

For this week, we are studying Section 137 and 138. It’s important to understand that Section 137 is not in chronological order. It was placed next to Section 138 because doctrinally, they fit together really well. It’s actually really important to understand that Section 137 is out of chronological order for a number of reasons. In order to understand what I want to talk about today, let’s talk about the chronological order of a few more things.

When Joseph was young, he struggled with which church to join. His mother was Methodist, and his father aligned more closely with the ideas of a unitarian. His father didn’t believe that God would send someone to hell because they hadn’t been baptized into a particular church. Joseph received the First Vision and over time, he learned more and more of what it meant to have the restored church of Jesus Christ.

Alvin died in 1823, a few years after the First Vision, before the authority to baptize had been restored. I wonder if Joseph was leaning towards his father’s views that Alvin wouldn’t go to hell just because he hadn’t been baptized. After all, Joseph was taught that the true church was not upon the earth. Maybe Alvin wasn’t in hell.

In 1829, Joseph received the authority to baptize. Joseph learned that baptism was essential, and it hadn’t been done with the right authority for a long time.

Think, for just a moment, about what this means to Joseph. He rejoiced in the restored church. In fact, he was overwhelmed with joy after baptizing his father.

But I also want you to think about the perspectives that Joseph was operating under at this period in time. He knew that authority to baptize was essential. He knew that his brother wasn’t baptized at all, let alone by any needed authority. For a long time, I believe that Joseph still thought Alvin had gone to hell.

It wasn’t until 1832 that Joseph learned there were different kingdoms in heaven. Can you imagine the relief that Joseph felt knowing that Alvin wasn’t burning up in eternal flame? But can you also imagine the pain that Joseph still felt when he believed he had still lost Alvin? There were some conflicting emotions there; Alvin wasn’t in hell, but were they still going to be separated?

Joseph received a vision of Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom in 1836. Here is part of that vision.

Doctrine and Covenants 137:5-6

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

Joseph marveled to see Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom; he was surprised. This is part of the reason for my assumptions. For three years (not including the time before the priesthood was restored), Joseph believed Alvin was still burning up in hell. For four years, Joseph carried around the wound from his beliefs that he would be separated from Alvin.

There is an important implication from this timeline.

Joseph loved God. More than most, Joseph knew that God was real and that there was truth and that you had to be baptized and that there was specific authority. He knew this. Joseph had good experiences with God, but Joseph also carried around this painful wound that something felt tragically unfair.

Despite his knowledge of God, I wonder if Joseph ever still struggled with questions. How could a loving God do this? How could required baptism and authority be congruent with a fair God who loves all of His children? How could God have let Alvin die before the church was restored? What about all the other people who suddenly don’t qualify because the authority wasn’t on the earth?

And perhaps the question most of us have related to at one point or another in our lifetime, “If God is truly so loving, how is this His perfect plan?”

It doesn’t make sense. Joseph knew that God is perfect and just and fair and loving, but for a long time, Joseph was also operating under the assumption that God was going to let those who were unbaptized just suffer. How did Joseph reconcile this? Did he ever reconcile this or did he just hold on anyway?

Do you carry around anything that doesn’t seem congruent with a God who is perfect and just and fair and loving? Have you also had experiences with God and you have felt that He loves you and is leading you along here? Are you having a difficult time reconciling these two facts: that God is good but He also allows “xyz?”

I promise you two things. There is an answer, and there is also Christ’s atonement. Joseph was a prophet who received plenty of revelation, but God chose not to give that particular revelation for a while. Despite Joseph’s close relationship with God and despite his near constant influx of restored information, it took nine years for Joseph to learn that Alvin wasn’t going to be punished for dying before Joseph received the proper authority to baptize.

Take a page out of Joseph’s book. We don’t know everything yet. Is it really so implausible that God knows what He’s doing, that He has a plan that will take care of everything that you’re worried about? This isn’t said to negate any pain that you’re feeling trying to deal with this. Rather, it’s meant to give you hope in the midst of it. There is an answer and beyond that, there is the atonement of Jesus Christ. I don’t know why Joseph had to wait 9 years to learn about Alvin. You would think that Christ could have slipped that in at some point, but Joseph waited.

And Joseph was blessed. God is perfect and is handling everything beautifully. Beyond just a perfect answer, Christ suffered deeply so that He can carry us through the pain while we wait for those answers.

There are answers. If you hold on and rely upon the atonement of Jesus Christ and all of His adjacent promises, you will find answers and you will find joy. Not to mention, everything you’re experienced shall be for your good. The difficulty you’re wading through will transform you into exactly what you were meant to become.

I testify that God has a perfect plan. I testify that He truly is loving and perfect and fair and just. I testify that He is good and is handling everything beautifully. You don’t have to carry this. He’s got this. I also testify that beyond having a perfect plan, Christ paid for the plan and suffered what you suffer so He can run to you and comfort you.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 137–138 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom; Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Spirit World (D&C 137–138)by Mike Parker

(Mike Parker is a long-time FAIR member who has graciously allowed us to use materials he originally prepared for the Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class. The scripture passages covered in his lessons don’t conform exactly to the Come, Follow Me reading schedule, so they will be shared here where they fit best.)

Class Notes

Additional Reading and Videos

Joseph Smith, Journal, 21 January 1836 (pp. 136–37); recorded by Warren Parrish. Read the original entry in Joseph’s journal that was canonized in 1976 and became Doctrine and Covenants Section 137 in 1981.
Joseph F. Smith, “Status of Children in the Resurrection,” Improvement Era 21, no. 7 (May 1918): 567–74. In this address given in the Salt Lake Temple—given only eight months before his vision that is now section 138—President Smith taught about the status of the spirits of children who die and how they will be resurrected.
George S. Tate, “‘The Great World of the Spirits of the Dead’: Death, the Great War, and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as Context for Doctrine and Covenants 138,” BYU Studies 46, no. 1 (2007): 4–40. Tate gives the historical background and context in which Joseph F. Smith received his vision of the redemption of the dead.
Mary Jane Woodger, “From Obscurity to Scripture: Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead,” in You Shall Have My Word: Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Scott C. Esplin, Richard O. Cowan, and Rachel Cope (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University / Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 234–54.

Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 137–138 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Spirit World is Already Hereby Autumn Dickson

We have the opportunity to read two revelations this week. Despite the different times in which they were given, the two revelations were placed together in the Doctrine and Covenants, and they hold more power in that manner. The first recorded vision was received by Joseph Smith, and the second recorded vision was given to Joseph F. Smith. I want to share a couple of verses from the section given to Joseph F. Smith regarding the spirit world.

Doctrine and Covenants 138:22-24

22 Where these (the wicked, unrepentant, rebellious) were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;

23 And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell.

24 Their countenances shone, and the radiance from the presence of the Lord rested upon them, and they sang praises unto his holy name.

These verses talk about the spirit world on the other side of the veil. It gives us a glimpse into what life holds depending on how you chose to live your life and how those choices affected who you became. Taking the time to imagine what it will be like is powerful, especially when you’ve lost someone you love.

But rather than read it from the perspective of the spirit world, I want you to read it again as if it’s speaking about where we dwell now. Despite its insight into the spirit world, it can also be a very accurate description of the mortal life we’re living in.

In the fallen mortality where we dwell, there are people who want nothing to do with the Savior and His gospel. There are many who want the exact opposite of what He stands for and believe the Savior to be oppressive. In those specific places and hearts, darkness reigns. God doesn’t necessarily send darkness or make their world terrible; it’s what they’ve invited into their lives.

Important tangent here. This gets slightly tricky because I don’t believe all non-Christians are dark people. Rather, I believe that at any given moment, we are inviting or shunning darkness. There are a lot of people who accept so much of Christ’s gospel even if they do not yet accept Him personally. They have invited portions of light into their lives by living their lives in a Christlike manner. So not immediately accepting Christ doesn’t mean you live in utter darkness and allow it to reign over you. I do believe they’re missing out on light, but that doesn’t mean I assume they are voluntarily inviting darkness to rule their lives.

Let’s keep going on with reading the description of the spirit world and mortality..

So there are people who don’t want Christ and voluntarily shun Him. They want the darkness. They like it. They don’t see any reason to change.

In other places, sometimes very nearby, there are Saints who are living in the same space but find themselves rejoicing in their redemption. They love the Savior and trust Him. They acknowledge Him and worship Him.

Then, of course, there is a whole spectrum between these groups of people. Even on that spectrum, we’re finding ourselves moving back and forth depending on what we’re inviting and focusing on.

Despite the fact that we can find people all along that spectrum, I want to bring your attention to one other grouping: there are Saints who are trying to live the gospel but still have not found the reason to rejoice. They don’t always feel hope or peace. They don’t feel the radiance of the Lord shining down on them.

We believe in Christ and the gospel, but have we found salvation?

We read this in Alma.

Alma 34:31

Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you.

Immediately. Not just in the spirit world. Immediately. If you truly find Christ, the plan of redemption is brought immediately. Today can be the day of your salvation if you repent and don’t harden your heart.

Immediately, you can find yourself in the same state as those dwelling in spirit paradise. You can rejoice in the Redeemer who freed you from hell and any aspects of it that you may still be clinging to. The radiance of the presence of the Lord can shine upon you.

If you do not yet feel these aspects of salvation, I have a small warning for you. Dying and going to the other side does not immediately bring about those feelings. Dying has very little to do with it. Experiencing spiritual paradise stems from your relationship with Christ. Dying happens somewhere along the way for good reason, but experiencing salvation doesn’t necessarily wait for death. It’s just waiting for you.

When was the last time you let yourself rejoice in Christ? When was the last time you chose to trust Him so deeply that it swallowed up your pain and carried it for a while? When was the last time you chose gratitude for His promises even if you couldn’t choose gratitude for what was directly going on in your life?

Spiritual paradise is a choice, not just a destination on the other side. What happens there is just a continuation of what happens here. You don’t change on the other side unless you go through the same process of changing that you have to experience on this side.

I love the verse from Alma 34 because it doesn’t say, “Follow the Law of Moses perfectly and then you will experience salvation immediately.” It says, “Repent and soften your heart and then you will experience salvation immediately.” Change! Soften! Trust! He loves you and is mighty to save. When you find it within yourself to say, “I’m going to try putting weight on these promises,” you’ll find solid ground. Even if everything comes to disaster in mortality, there is solid ground in Christ.

I testify that trusting Christ and taking Him at His word was one of the most joyful decisions I ever made. Though I obviously fluctuate in that trust as I move about life, continually spending time with Him every day has made that trust more consistent. Spending time with Him every day has forced me to remember His promises. As I’ve moved about my daily life and run into new challenges and all of the pitfalls of mortality, I have found rejoicing alongside my pain. It didn’t come from living the gospel more perfectly; it came from trusting Him more perfectly.

I testify that spirit paradise or allowing darkness to reign are choices we make on a daily basis; they’re not just destinations in the spirit world. I testify that the day of your salvation, the day you find rejoicing in Christ, can be today, and you don’t even have to die in order to find it. You just have to trust.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 137–138 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

An Underrated Section: How to Become Zion…and Heavenby Autumn Dickson

With Joseph and Hyrum martyred, Brigham Young was now the prophet. After the Saints were expelled from Nauvoo, Brigham was in charge of finding them a permanent home in the mountains of the west. Though the westward movement of the Saints was among the most impressive immigrations of Americans, it did not start out that way.

The Saints were starving and freezing along the trail. Muddy quagmires kept the Saints from reaching their goal to plant crops ahead of everyone coming. Brigham described feeling like he was dragging around a 25 ton weight. He felt like he had a large family with no way of taking care of them. At Winter Quarters in Nebraska, he turned to the Lord for guidance.

The Lord told Brigham how to organize the company, but He taught Brigham much more important things that would turn the tide for the Saints’ ability to make it to their destination.

Here is the verse that introduces the important concept that turned things around.

Doctrine and Covenants 136:2

Let all the people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and those who journey with them, be organized into companies, with a covenant and promise to keep all the commandments and statutes of the Lord our God.

The Saints were to be organized into companies that would stick together, and they entered into those companies by making covenants to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

There were two major principles at work here that changed the game.

Principle one. When people normally made their way across towards the west (Saints and non-Saints alike), it was done very loosely with every man vying for his own family. They often travelled together for safety, but companies broke apart and came together with different members more than once. That is the first principle: Brigham Young organized them into companies with leadership at different levels, and each company was expected to stick together throughout the entire journey. If one made it, they were all going to make it.

The second principle was to focus on spirituality again. Not only were they to focus on the eternal nature of their work, but they were to focus on the fact that they believed in the same God who helped many groups of people travel to new destinations, the God of Israel.

This becomes even more significant when you recognize what the Lord was preparing Brigham for.

In 1877, Brigham Young organized the priesthood structure of the church. After travelling around Utah, he found that there were many people scattered and not enrolled in wards. There were overlapping authorities where spiritual jurisdictions were confusing, and it was unclear who would have the responsibility of showing their stewardship to the Lord. There were bishops who had never been ordained, and this was setting the stage for people to become more vulnerable as they were travelling the covenant path.

The Saints had now grown large enough that they needed to be organized or two things would happen: losing people and losing the doctrine that had been restored with such difficulty.

So that’s what Brigham did. Under the direction of the apostles, Saints scattered across Utah were better organized into stakes and wards. Bishops were set apart. Every member found themselves in a ward with a leader who would watch over them. Priesthood roles were clarified so that everyone understood what they were in charge of. This would lessen the gaps in which people could fall through with no one to watch over them, and it would also serve to help the Lord speak to His entire church when He revealed something rather than sending word out and hoping everyone was able to receive it.

It’s hard to overstate the unglamorous importance of what Brigham did.

Let’s tie it back to what we talked about in the beginning, and let’s talk about it from the perspective of an imaginary Saint who could have lived it

A widow is trying to get her kids across the plains to gather with the Saints. Her oldest child is 10 years old and he helps, but he is still only 10. She started out with one company as she began her journey across the plains only to have fallen behind and found herself in a new company. As she tries to nurse her sick baby back to health, they fall behind again as the 10 year old can only get the wagon going so far. She finds herself in a new company once again. At this point, she is simply hoping that she gets to their destination before she reaches the end of the line of companies.

Organizing the Saints into companies that cared for each other changed the game. No one got left behind. This is powerful for the widow, but it’s also powerful for the ones who are watching out for the widow. It’s powerful for the entire company who works together, mourns together, lifts one another. If you can cry with someone, you are very likely to rejoice with each other as well. Everything changes when you’re not alone.

The widow cries as she holds her baby and a 16 year old from another family has stepped up to drive her wagon along. Her 10 year old looks up at the 16 year old with something akin to hero-worship. This is the beginning of hope. The widow finds renewed faith in her ability to make it, and the 16 year old is changed too.

This doesn’t even mention the fact that all of this hope and change invites the Lord to rain down manna on the heads of the Saints.

Now let’s fast forward. The Saints are in the valley, and it is now 1877. There is a young family whose father has broken his leg in a wagon accident. Mother and teenage daughter are doing everything they can to keep the farm and home running, but it’s not going well. What will winter look like if they can’t finish the work?

But then a man shows up and knocks on their door. He sees the ragged family and introduces himself as their bishop. Over the course of the next few weeks, there are rotations of brethren coming in to harvest the family’s crop. There are young women who come in and help mother prepare the crop to last through the winter.

This is all good and beautiful and inspiring, but I want to fast-forward again.

We are accustomed to living in wards and stakes with leadership that enables lightning fast communication from our beloved prophet to each member. If there is a change wanted by the Lord, it is implemented overnight if that’s what He wants. We are organized, and we enter into a covenant in order to become part of the organization.

It changes the game when this kind of organization is used effectively. It didn’t do much good if the companies that were travelling the plains stayed in the same geographical area but still found themselves laboring alone.

When was the last time you looked around your ward and saw a family? When was the last time you made a valiant attempt to make it a ward family? When was the last time you ministered to make sure no one was lost out on the plains, physically or spiritually? When it comes to the Lord’s work, it’s not just about the widow who is being served. It’s about how we change when we forget our own problems, and we all work together towards common purposes.

Picture the vast difference between the beginning of the Saints journey towards Utah and the end of it. That’s the difference we will find in our own lives if we recognize what the Lord has given us in His organization of the church.

I testify that wards and stakes and leadership and priesthood organization are gifts from the Lord. I don’t believe we recognize the full power of what we’ve been given. I worry that we won’t recognize the full power until we’re ready to bring everyone along the covenant path together. Zion is available everywhere; we do not have to wait. The Lord wants us to experience those blessings today, but He can’t force us to find them. He can simply offer the opportunity and wait for us to step into those blessings. I testify that He loves us and gave us organizations to protect us and lift us.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 135–136 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Martyrdom of Joseph & Hyrum Smith; Brigham Young led the Saints west (D&C 135–136)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading and Videos

Alexander L. Baugh and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, “‘I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off from My Shoulders on to Yours’: The 1844/1845 Declaration of the Quorum of the Twelve Regarding Apostolic Succession,” BYU Studies 49, no. 3 (2010): 4–19.
Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review 9, no. 4 (Winter 1965): 862–903. Oaks argued that the Nauvoo city council’s action to destroy the Expositor press was legal within the understanding of the law in Joseph’s time. (This article was published twenty years before he became an apostle.)
Joseph L. Lyon and David W. Lyon, “Physical Evidence at Carthage Jail and What It Reveals about the Assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith,” BYU Studies 47, no. 4 (2008): 4–50.
Mark Lyman Staker and LaJean Purcell Carruth, “John Taylor’s June 27, 1854, Account of the Martyrdom,” BYU Studies 50, no. 3 (2011): 25–62.
D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies 16, no. 2 (Winter 1976): 187–233. Quinn argued that Joseph did not leave clear directions on who should succeed him and this spurred a crisis that was resolved only when the majority of the Saints threw their support behind Brigham Young and the Twelve.
Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: A Succession of Continuity,” BYU Studies 21, no. 3 (Summer 1981): 301–41. Esplin countered Quinn’s article by arguing that the path of succession was clear from Joseph’s statements and the canonized revelations.
Russel R. Rich, “Nineteenth-Century Break-offs,” Ensign, September 1979, 68–71. Rich described some of the schismatic groups that broke away from the restored Church during the Prophet Joseph’s life and after his death.
R. Jean Addams, “Aftermath of the Martyrdom: Aspirants to the Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 335–402. Addams examines the individuals who claimed the mantle of the Joseph Smith, their motives, and the churches or organizations they founded in the decade following the death of the Prophet.
Road to Carthage: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is an eight-part documentary miniseries that explores the history of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844. The episodes focus on the historical events that led to the assassination of the Prophet and his brother by a mob, as well as the aftermath of that tragic event. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.
LaJean Carruth, “Brigham Young on Brigham Young: His Life, Conversion, and Faith, in his Own Words,” 2024 FAIR Conference.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Appreciating Brother Brigham,” 2024 FAIR Conference.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 135–136 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

You Don’t Have to be Ready, Just Willingby Autumn Dickson

Joseph Smith was 38 years old when he was murdered in Carthage Jail. He received the First Vision at age 14. He began translating The Book of Mormon at age 21, and he completed it at age 24. The Church was also organized when he was 24. The Kirtland temple was built, the Nauvoo temple began, temple ordinances were restored, the work of salvation for the dead was set in motion, numerous revelations were received, and missionaries were sent abroad.

He had the vision at age 14, and he was taught annually by Moroni, but his true ministry began at the age of 21 as he started translating The Book of Mormon. His ministry was 17 years.

Here is a verse in the Doctrine and Covenants that was written in the announcement of his death.

Doctrine and Covenants 135:3

Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated!

Could anyone else do what Joseph did?

I don’t know.

I believe that the Lord can enable anyone to do anything if they’re willing, but were any of us willing? I really don’t know. I believe so, but I don’t know. I think of great men like the apostles who stood with Christ during his ministry. I think of Old Testament prophets and New Testament missionaries. I think of the stripling warriors who learned from their own mothers and followed in obedience. I think of pillars of faith in latter-day church history. I think of other men who were placed in different roles who were willing to do what God has assigned them to do, men like Martin Luther King Jr. Beyond that, I think there are a great number of quiet individuals who went about doing the Lord’s will in their own lives even though it brought about no acclaim. I know plenty of women who are likewise incredible if that was the organization that the Lord had chosen.

But He chose Joseph.

I’m not sure why God places us in the roles that He does. I’m sure there are many reasons for His decisions, but I’m not sure what they are. He probably doesn’t explain Himself because the reasons are situational. For example, He had specific roles that needed to be filled, and perhaps there were multiple people who could have filled those roles, but He also looked at us as individuals. What were the lessons we needed to learn in order to become what He wanted us to become?

If we want to learn what the Lord wants us to learn and if we want to bless the world in the most powerful way available to us, there are a couple of characteristics of Joseph’s that we can develop.

The number one characteristic that came to my mind today is the willingness to follow His will no matter where it takes us. I believe that all the other attributes we could possibly develop in order to be prepared to fulfill our roles here on earth can all contribute to this one significant characteristic: we follow Heavenly Father and what He wants for us. If we can stand before God, (or better yet, kneel), and tell Him, “I’m not sure what you want me to do. I don’t know what I need to learn in order to do it. I don’t know who I need to become in order to do it, and I’m sure there will be many times that I feel that I can’t do it. And yet, I want Thou to show me the way and make me who I need to be. Lead me. I will follow.”

You don’t have to be ready for your various roles yet. I repeat, you don’t have to be ready. You just have to be willing. He can take care of the rest. The only thing you can truly give Him is your willingness to follow Him and do what He asks. He is capable of speaking to you in a way that you can understand and helping you know what you need to know. He can help you develop the specific testimonies you’re going to need to carry you through. He can mold you. Sure, you’ll make mistakes, but that’s why we start today. We give Him time to work with us so we have had time to practice what we need to be.

I was thinking of some grand moment in which you could promise God to follow Him, and yet, many of us already made that promise a long time ago at 8 years old. Some of us made that promise when we were a bit older, and maybe some of us have yet to make that promise. Perhaps we have already made the promise, but we are only just now feeling prepared to truly hand over our will.

Lucky for us, we have this thing called the sacrament where we renew those promises every single week. How powerful could we become if we simply whispered to the Lord (and to ourselves) each week that we were willing to follow wherever, willing to learn what was necessary, willing to become what God wanted for us?

When I think of Joseph’s willingness, I don’t think it was just one decision. I think it was a million decisions. When he would look at the vast amount of work he needed to do, he would turn to the Lord for guidance about what to prioritize. Then he would have faith that the Lord would enable him to do what was absolutely necessary. There was so much that needed to happen to restore Christ’s church upon the earth; there is only so much he could accomplish with the time he was given on earth. So it wasn’t about accomplishing everything; it was about just doing what God had for him each day.

I love and honor Joseph Smith for his willingness to jump in and devote his time and life to what God wanted, whether that was building an impressive temple or living in squalor for four months in a prison.

Most of all, I love and honor Joseph because he set the foundation a long time ago for me to find Christ.

Joseph did more, save Jesus only, to save mankind. I think it’s important to note that Jesus was the one who did the most.

And wasn’t this His defining characteristic? He was willing to do what the Father sent Him here to do. His ministry was only four years, He spent some of that time playing with children or taking quiet time to Himself. You would think that having only four years available to change the world would make someone rush a bit more, but that’s not what the Father needed. Christ simply did what the Father wanted and because of that, His four year ministry changed everything.

I testify that each of us have roles in the work of salvation. I testify that the Lord is capable of helping you fulfill that role if you simply tell Him that you’re willing and ask Him to lead you along. I testify that you don’t have to be capable or incredible, just willing. I testify that He is more than capable, loves you, and wants to include you.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 135–136 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Leaving Babylon, Building Zionby Autumn Dickson

At one point in time, the call to gather Zion was a physical one. The Lord commanded those who were getting baptized to come and gather with the rest of the Saints. That commandment changed to a spiritual one as the needs of the Saints likewise changed. It will one day change again as we are commanded to gather in one physical place to await the coming of the Savior.

But for now, we gather Zion spiritually. We leave Babylon, and we create Zion by changing the state of our hearts rather than the state in which we dwell.

The Lord repeats the sentiment that we should gather to Zion multiple times throughout Doctrine and Covenants 133, but here is one of those repetitions.

Doctrine and Covenants 133:4-5

4 Wherefore, prepare ye, prepare ye, O my people; sanctify yourselves; gather ye together, O ye people of my church, upon the land of Zion, all you that have not been commanded to tarry.

5 Go ye out from Babylon. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.

Prepare and sanctify. Gather together upon the land of Zion. Leave Babylon and be clean.

There is a quote in the Institute Manual that gives us some extra insight into Babylon.

“The antithesis and antagonist of Zion is Babylon. The city of Babylon was originally Babel, of Tower of Babel fame, and later became the capital of the Babylonian empire.”

The Institute Manual goes on to describe how Babylon worshipped evil with perversions and decadence. There are a lot of things we could cover in those two topics, and yet, my very first thought was this: the people at the Tower of Babel were cursed by the Lord to all speak different languages so that they couldn’t understand each other.

Zion is meant to be a place of unity where everyone understands each other, takes care of each other, loves each other despite our differences. I think sometimes people picture a place where everyone is going to think the same and have the same perspectives but not so. Zion will be a place of peacemakers and bridge builders.

At the time of writing this, the United States has just experienced a politically motivated assassination. Though most of the rhetoric I’ve seen condemns the violence, there is still plenty of vitriol between people of differing political parties. There is an immense amount of division. There are a lot of unproductive conversations taking place, and it seems very difficult to understand one another. Almost as if we’re speaking different languages.

Babylon is the opposite of Zion, and one of the key characteristics of Zion is unity. Note that the key characteristic isn’t eerily similar tastes and perspectives; it is unity.

When we read The Book of Mormon, we are constantly reading about how two nations were enemies despite the fact that they were brothers. They all came off of the same family. They couldn’t find it within themselves to love each other.

I’m convinced that Satan isn’t walking the earth parading as one political party or the other in any nation. He utilizes political parties to his own destructive ends in a myriad of ways, and one of those destructive ends includes creating nations of “us” and “them.”

The true enemy here is division. That is one of Satan’s favorite tools. He makes us believe we’re the good guys and the others are the bad guys. The true solution is unity despite differences.

The Savior isn’t waiting for the world to become wicked enough for Him to come again; He is waiting for the world to become righteous enough. President Nelson could announce tomorrow that we need to gather in Missouri, and we could all do that. We could create the buildings and homes and businesses, but if we do not spiritually create Zion, it’s going to be a while before Christ shows up.

Are we ready to build Zion in all of the ways that matter?

If you were called to go to Zion tomorrow, would you be able to love your neighbor if they felt differently about healthcare, approaching LGBTQ issues, world affairs, government systems, and how to combat poverty?

I guess a better question is this, “Do you currently love your neighbor who looks at all of these issues with a different perspective?” And I’m not talking about “trying to change all of their perspectives to your own because you love them” kind of love. I’m talking about being able to look at another person with respect and dignity, to look at another person and assume that they’re trying to make the world a better place. I’m talking about building Zion right where you are with any neighbor you’ve been given.

President Nelson has asked us to build bridges. Building bridges doesn’t mean making everyone move from one body of land to another body of land. It means creating a space where people can come from different places and meet together.

The Lord has asked us to leave Babylon and come to Zion. We have not yet been called to that physically, but we have been asked to build Zion spiritually. This includes living righteously in terms of worldliness and chastity, but it also means that we speak in a way that we can understand each other. We seek to understand each other. We seek to be unified.

I testify that the Lord asks for unity because He knows it’ll bless us. He’s not worried about everyone having the perfect perspectives just yet. Someday, we will all gain the knowledge we need to see the world clearly. Until then, the most happiness we can possibly garner will come from being unified despite our differences. It will come from watching out for each other and loving each other. Our different perspectives will enlighten each other and help us draw closer to the truth until the day when we will understand everything. I testify that the Lord asks for unity because He knows what it will do for us.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 133–134 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Eternal marriage & plural marriage (D&C 132; Official Declaration 1)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading and Videos

Gospel Topics Essays on plural marriage. These articles, published by the Church with the help of Latter-day Saint scholars, review the history and practice of plural marriage in nineteenth century:

“Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (an introductory essay).
“Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” (on polygamy as revealed and practiced by Joseph Smith).
“Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah” (how polygamy was practiced in the Utah period).
“The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage” (how the practice was discontinued).

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy is the website for Brian and Laura Hales’ book series on Joseph Smith and the establishment and practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo. The Hales are the most thorough and reliable scholars working on this subject. Works in the series include Brian’s three-volume scholarly examination of Joseph’s practice of plural marriage and Brian and Laura’s brief, one-volume book that summarizes his work for a lay audience.

Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 2: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 3: Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015)

Gregory L. Smith, “Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” FAIR (2005). Smith explores some of the difficult issues surrounding plural marriage, including Joseph Smith’s public denials that he was practicing it. * Brian Hales, “Controversies in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.” Presentation given at the 2010 FAIR Conference. * Brittany Chapman Nash, “Let’s Talk About Polygamy.” Presentation given at the 2021 FAIR Conference. * Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900,” BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (Spring 1974): 291–314. Irving’s article reviews the early Mormon practice of being sealed as a son or daughter to a prominent Church leader, a practice President Wilford Woodruff did away with by revelation in 1894. Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 132 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Second Coming: Is the World Righteous Enough?by Autumn Dickson

In the readings for this week, Joseph Smith helps us glimpse into eternity so we can see a portion of what it looks like. Understanding what eternity looks like can help us more fully take advantage of what the Lord has given us with this mortal experience. He covers a variety of topics. Here is one of the things that Joseph Smith taught.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-15

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

Before I went to bed last night, I had a very clear thought pop into my head. I knew it was revelation, and so I rolled over and wrote it in my phone quickly before rolling back over and falling asleep. When I woke up in the morning, I couldn’t remember what the Lord had whispered to me until I opened my phone to reread it. It said this.

“The Lord is not waiting for the world to become wicked enough in order to come again. He is waiting for us to be righteous enough. We seem to be waiting on the world to grow wicked enough rather than ardently focusing on becoming righteous enough.”

The scriptures often speak about how the world will grow more and more wicked and scary in the last days, and yet, I don’t think that’s a product of the Lord’s minimum level of wickedness before He’s willing to come. I think it’s merely a prophecy about the state of the world when we finally become prepared to receive Him.

The Second Coming is not a waiting game for us. The Lord is waiting, but we should not be. We should be building.

I studied Elementary Education in college, and one of the courses you take is how to design assessments for your students. When you’re trying to build a foundation of knowledge for your students, it’s important to understand where they’re at. If you skip steps in the foundation, there will be shakiness as you continue to build. If you keep trying to pour the same layer, you’re going to be wasting time. It is essential to understand where your students are at so you can take them where they need to go.

I actually loved this class for a lot of reasons and one of those reasons included the fact that my idea of what assessment truly looked like was immensely expanded. When we think of assessing our student’s knowledge, we often picture traditional multiple-choice questions. This class taught me that the most powerful way of assessing a student’s knowledge and skill was to design an assessment that put them as closely as possible to a real-life scenario.

Isn’t that what we’re trying to prepare them for as teachers? We’re trying to prepare them for life. Maybe they can use a formula that you repeated over and over and over, but if they run into a problem in real life, will they know to use that formula and how to plug the right information into that formula?

That is the ideal kind of assessment. If your goal is to prepare your student to function in real life, then designing an assessment that is close to real life is your best shot at understanding whether you succeeded and how far you have to go.

So what is God’s goal? To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Immortality? Check. Thank you resurrection of Christ.

Eternal life? Well, let’s read a verse from this week’s reading.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

Society will be similar to what we experience here except there will also be glory. It’s almost like God took the same class that I did.

This life is our assessment. Eternal life is the goal.

There are a lot of directions I could take this idea. I could talk about the importance of relationships. I could talk about how we seek righteousness and change, but ultimately, glory is added later by the power of Jesus Christ. So many directions, but I’m going to choose to pursue what the Lord whispered to me last night.

We often picture this life as an individual assessment, and ultimately, it will be an individual assessment. How those around you act will not influence your judgment other than context. The Lord will be looking at you, what you produced with what you were given, and whether you’re prepared to live how He lives.

So yes, this life is an individual assessment. However, there are other parts of this assessment that we should be aware of.

I want you to picture the idea that we’re all part of a group project. Our goal? To make a society that is righteous enough to welcome the Savior back to earth, to create Zion.

This is so powerful because that’s what we’ll be doing on the other side. Heaven is where you go to be amongst others who actively choose to love and serve and give. That’s Heavenly Father’s goal. Perhaps He is waiting for us to create that here as our group project.

Down here, it’s a little bit different. We are surrounded by people who have different perspectives even within the church. Down here, we are all plagued by mistakes and flaws and blindness. If our goal is to eventually live in heaven where these won’t be a problem, why didn’t the Lord create a mortality that was more closely aligned with heaven?

Because we will still need to be prepared to work with and love future generations that still have lessons to learn.

We have to start truly loving our neighbor. This isn’t about being polite but secretly just tolerating. This isn’t about being nice and smiling at someone we disagree with but wishing they would just go away. This is about changing deeply within our core to love and offer dignity to everyone around us.

And so we practice and build it here. We show the Lord that we are prepared to survive and thrive in our next life. Most importantly, we become the kind of people who are prepared to survive and thrive in our next life. And as we build Zion, as we build heaven (or as closely as we can considering we dwell in a fallen world), we create a society in which the Savior can come again.

I testify that the Lord is waiting, and we should not be. I testify that creating Zion around you will be one of the most important and rewarding projects you step into. I testify that as we strive to be prepared to live in our next life, the Lord will take care of the rest (cleansing and adding glory). I’m grateful that changing and becoming are the tasks that were delegated to me. I’m grateful that despite my flaws, the Lord felt I was worth investing in. I’m grateful that He paid and paved the way for me.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 129–132 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Doctrinal Developments in Nauvooby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

This week’s lesson notes include a comparison of the sources used to compile section 130. (See notes, pp. 15–32.)
Joseph Smith’s teachings about the Holy Ghost in D&C 130:22 were emended in 1854 under the direction of Brigham Young. For an explanation of what happened and why, see Ronald E. Bartholomew, “The Textual Development of D&C 130:22 and the Embodiment of the Holy Ghost,” BYU Studies Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2013): 4–24.
Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 193–208. Joseph’s 7 April 1844 sermon, delivered at the funeral of his friend, Elder King Follett, is arguably the most important of his published discourses. In it, Joseph explained his understanding of the nature of God, including the doctrine that God the Father is an exalted Man who once had a mortal existence. Four different individuals took notes during Joseph’s sermon. Their accounts were synthesized into a single text in 1855 by Church scribe Jonathan Grimshaw; Grimshaw’s version was published by B. H. Roberts in his seven-volume History of the Church (6:302–17) and in many other Church publications. Stan Larson’s 1978 amalgamated text attempted to remove Grimshaw’s textual emendations and provide proper weight and balance to the various accounts.
On 16 June 1844, only eleven days before his death, Joseph gave his “Sermon in the Grove” that expanded on the nature of God and other ideas he had presented in the King Follett Discourse. The most complete account of his sermon was made by Thomas Bullock; you can read his handwritten notes on the website of the Joseph Smith Papers or a parallel comparison of his and two other accounts on the archived website of the Book of Abraham Project.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 129–131 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Redoubling Works or Effort: A Lesson on Faith in God’s Timingby Autumn Dickson

There is a verse in this week’s readings that always jumps out to me. It came at a time when I was praying about what I needed to do. I had started my blog, and then a while later, I found out that I was pregnant. I prayed about taking a break during the pregnancy and postpartum periods before working on everything again. I prayed, confident that the Lord would be fine with me taking a step back and then continuing on again.

Boy, was I wrong.

I prayed, flipped open my scriptures at random, and read this:

Doctrine and Covenants 127:4 And again, verily thus saith the Lord: Let the work of my temple, and all the works which I have appointed unto you, be continued on and not cease; and let your diligence, and your perseverance, and patience, and your works be redoubled, and you shall in nowise lose your reward, saith the Lord of Hosts…

I wasn’t doing temple work, but I knew what work the Lord was referring to. At that moment, I also knew that the Lord expected me to start creating posts for multiple weeks in order to give myself a break after having a baby. I had to redouble my efforts.

This verse has always stuck out to me for that reason. I’ll never forget the shock I felt when I read that. I had been so sure I would be able to just step away for a little bit and come back. Nope.

And though this verse has always stuck out to me and reminded me of this time and season, a couple of other things stuck out to me as I read it this time. For anyone who feels overwhelmed with the sheer volume of expectations in the church, this is a powerful verse in understanding what the Lord truly wants.

Let your diligence, perseverance, patience, and works be redoubled. Diligence and perseverance are both wonderful principles in helping to build the kingdom on earth. When I think about the Lord asking me to redouble my diligence and perseverance, those feel pretty normal. However, it was actually the other two words that struck me this week: patience and works.

So first: patience.

When the Lord gives us a work to do, do we often consider our need for patience with the project? We think about how the Lord often requires sacrifice, but does that sometimes include our best efforts for patience? Sometimes holding still feels like it requires more sacrifice than the Lord enabling us to finish everything at once with one huge, herculean effort.

I’m a herculean effort kind of girl. I want to get everything done at once, and I have a very difficult time enjoying myself when there are tasks that I could be completing. This was all fine and dandy when I received a syllabus in college and literally wrote all of my term papers in the first month of school so I could enjoy the semester. This has not translated well into motherhood and has been a consistent lesson the Lord has tried to impress upon me.

I struggle with the patience of His timeline because I’m willing to kill myself to get it done now so I don’t have to do anything tomorrow. Instead, He lets me sit in anxiety throughout today and still have to do it tomorrow. Why? Why does He make us wait to get it done if we have the time and desire to do it today?

I talk often about how the Lord requires our best efforts because anything less would leave us unprepared for what He wants to give us. Our best efforts include the acquired attribute of patience. The Lord puts us on a timeline because if we want to be able to do the work that He does, patience is absolutely essential. We have to acquire the patience needed to wait for the right moment to move.

So why does the Lord let me sit in my anxiety instead of giving me what I need to complete my tasks today? It’s because He needs me to acquire this valuable attribute: patience. I have to learn to be comfortable waiting, and I won’t ever learn it if He gives me what I want and helps me finish it all the first day. He keeps giving me opportunities to sit and wait and learn to be okay.

Second: works. Let your works be redoubled. This might feel opposite to what we were just discussing. Some of the time, I believe this implies the idea that we literally need to double the number of actions we’re utilizing to draw closer to Him. There are times in my life when redoubling my actions would have been helpful. However, I read this differently today. The wording of this verse is so particular, and the Lord is nothing if not careful in His words.

Let…your works be redoubled.

As in, allow your works to double. Sometimes, it’s not about doubling our actions so much as getting out of our own way and allowing the Lord to magnify our efforts.

There have been times in my life where I’ve needed to increase the amount of my efforts, and there have been times when I’ve needed to decrease the amount of my outward efforts and increase my faith.

I used to prepare these Come Follow Me posts the week before I needed to post them. I’m farther ahead now, but that was not the case for a very long time. I would write and prep everything throughout the week, film on Thursday, and then I would edit and upload on Fridays for the posts to go live Sunday at 12:00 am.

The Lord had been telling me to slow down for a long time, and I was adamant in my refusal to listen. I insisted that if I slowed down, everything would fall apart. After a long time of refusing to do this voluntarily, the Lord took away any other option. For a couple of months, I found myself beating my head against a wall in trying to prepare content. I felt so strongly that the Lord wanted me to do this, and yet, He wasn’t giving me anything. I tried redoubling my efforts, denying myself any naps or downtime in the evenings. I would sit in front of my computer for hours, trying to get anything written down, but it was to no avail.

Then, each Friday, the Lord would help me write a post, prep it, film it, and edit it all in one Friday afternoon while my kids napped. I finally got the memo that this pattern would continue until I chilled out and let it go. And so I did. Every day, I would sit down and put my heart into it for 20 minutes. If nothing was forthcoming, I would step away and accomplish something else or go take a nap. After doing this repeatedly, the Lord stopped pushing everything to Fridays and let me start getting things done throughout the week again. I started getting inspired on other days instead of Friday afternoons.

The Lord could do His own work. I just had to let Him do it according to His own terms. Redoubling my patience helped, and then I needed to let the work be redoubled.

Sometimes the lesson the Lord is trying to teach us has nothing to do with the idea that we’re not giving enough. Sometimes the lesson is that He wants more of our trust, trust in His timeline and trust in His ability to do His own work. Redouble your faith that He can make a mountain of miracles out of the molehill of effort that you can currently provide. He’s got this. He just wanted you to be a part of it so that you could grow.

I testify that there are appropriate times to put in more effort than we’ve been doing. I testify that there are also appropriate times to increase our faith instead. I testify that at any given moment, He is asking for what is going to truly prepare us to step into our divine destinies. He is asking for what is going to give us the most fulfilled, free, satisfactory life that can be provided in mortality. I also testify that it won’t be the fulfillment, freedom, and satisfaction that the world tries to peddle, but a deeper, more abiding kind.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 125–128 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Deep Water: Lessons from Joseph Smith and a Croatian Free Diverby Autumn Dickson

Context for this week: Joseph Smith and his companions were freed from prison by sympathizing guards during a transfer. Though they returned to their families, persecution rendered it necessary for Joseph to go into hiding. Some of what we read this week came through letters that Joseph had dictated with the will of the Lord.

In Section 127, there is a verse written by Joseph Smith that speaks of his ability to handle stressful situations. After repeatedly being placed in difficult circumstances, his ability to handle it grew tremendously.

Doctrine and Covenants 127:2 And as for the perils which I am called to pass through, they seem but a small thing to me…deep water is what I am wont to swim in. It all has become a second nature to me; and I feel, like Paul, to glory in tribulation; for to this day has the God of my fathers delivered me out of them all, and will deliver me from henceforth; for behold, and lo, I shall triumph over all my enemies, for the Lord God hath spoken it.

Deep water is what I am wont to swim in.

I feel like coming across this message was rather timely for me. At the time that I’m writing this post, I just read about a Croatian freediver named Vitomir Maričić. Maričić just set the world record for holding your breath, a whopping 29 minutes and 3 seconds. He beat the last world record by almost five minutes.

I researched what Maričić had to do in order to become this incredible freediver who could handle this kind of extreme duress. He obviously engaged in cardiovascular training, but it was not sufficient for this kind of world record. He also engaged in specifically training his diaphragm to take much slower, longer breaths. He stretched and performed breathing exercises in order to increase lung capacity. He worked with carbon dioxide tables in which he would hold his breath for a set amount of time and gradually decrease his rest intervals; for example, he would hold his breath for two minutes at a time while taking breaks that gradually shortened in between each two-minute period. He did the opposite with oxygen tables where the rest intervals were fixed, and the amount of time he would hold his breath would increase. He would walk while holding his breath to put extra stress on the body to acclimate. He literally worked to condition his spleen to release an increased number of oxygen-rich red blood cells.

He also worked mentally. At a certain point in holding your breath, your diaphragm starts to contract as a defense mechanism for the lack of oxygen. At about 20 minutes, Maričić felt these contractions but held the mental resolve to continue.

In order to prepare for the dive, he breathed pure oxygen for ten minutes. This can also cause problems, and he had to consciously work on building up his endurance for pure oxygen.

One of the main principles Maričić took advantage of was progressive overload where you continuously increase the stress you’re under to increase the amount of pressure you can handle. He did this under proper safety protocols and teams who could take care of him if something went dramatically wrong.

Deep water is what I am wont to swim in. Deep water is what Joseph Smith was accustomed to swimming in. It is one of our goals of mortality: to learn how to swim in deep water.

Why does it matter if we can swim in deep water?

Because that’s where Heavenly Father lives His life, in the deep end. He is fully engaged, completely immersed, surrounded by difficult circumstances that He doesn’t shy away from. Because of His willingness to enter into this state, He finds its opposite side of the coin: deep joy, contentment, and satisfaction in an eternal existence that has the potential to hold a lot of emptiness.

If we want to find that same kind of existence, an existence where we find meaning and purpose and joy in a never-ending lifetime, we have to be prepared to swim in deep water. You can’t get involved in loving imperfect others without consequent pain, but you can’t completely avoid relationships if you want joy. They come together.

Somehow, we have to develop the kind of fortitude where we can find joy while buried in deep water. Eternal life is not actually about waiting to get pulled out of the water; it’s about finding the resilience to be okay in the thick of it.

That’s difficult to find when the Lord allows us to perpetually stay in the shallow end.

There have been times in my life where I have found myself in the deep end, and I did not improve in my ability to find peace or joy. There have been times when I have simply panicked the entire time. Yet, there are other times when I have been able to school myself into being okay while being placed in a situation that’s uncomfortable.

Just like with Maričić, there are many methods that we can utilize to purposefully maximize our training rather than floundering and screaming the whole time and missing the entire point of the exercise. Let’s talk about one method today.

I taught swimming lessons growing up, and I’m not too shabby at it. As I taught my oldest daughter to swim, I would take her out into the deep end while holding her. I would count to 3 and dip her all the way under the water. I wasn’t holding her under. We were literally just dipping under and out. I made her do it 3 times every time we swam (which was nearly every day), and then she could be done and do whatever she wanted in the shallow end.

For the first week, she screamed bloody murder at me every time. I think I made the lifeguards rather uncomfortable. I definitely made the other patrons uncomfortable. But I knew that my daughter could do this, and I also knew that she would be a very happy person once she learned that going under the water wasn’t going to kill her.

The true turning point in this practice was when I asked a friend to take a video of her going underwater. She still screamed, but then I showed her the video. I made a big deal about the fact that she was so cool for being able to do that. I showed her what she was capable of.

She literally never screamed again. She didn’t love it immediately, but she didn’t scream anymore.

And then she did grow into what I knew she could be. She did grow into someone who had more opportunities for joy. I can’t keep the girl above the water anymore. Her siblings have followed right in after her, and no one is stressed or screaming about it except for me trying to keep an eye on three of my five young children, trying to determine who has been underwater too long.

One of the methods for taking full advantage of mortality is realizing who we are meant to be like. When you can catch a glimpse of what you’re meant to be, it makes the water worth it. And when something is worth it, it changes the game. It changes you. It is much harder to handle training and coaching when you don’t realize that there is a purpose in it.

I testify that you can swim in deep water. I testify that it’s worth training. I also testify that like Maričić, you have an extremely talented team that knows the progressive overload you need and can handle. There are angels standing around you to guide you. And, of course, you have the ultimate Lifeguard. The only thing that matters in that water is that you grow. He doesn’t care if you make mistakes. In the end, it won’t matter what happened to you because He can heal it. You just have to grow, and He will be there to fix everything.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 125–128 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Choosing Faith Through Failure: God’s Timetable for Zionby Autumn Dickson

Because of an extermination order, the Saints were driven out of Missouri and into Nauvoo. In Doctrine and Covenants 124, the Lord excuses His people from building the temple in Missouri after they had been driven out.

Doctrine and Covenants 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

The Saints were driven out and persecuted. They had been commanded to build Zion, and they had been commanded to build a temple, and it didn’t happen. The Lord explains Himself by saying that if people work really hard to do what they were commanded and they are stopped by enemies, He accepts their offering and doesn’t require it anymore.

Some might see this as rather convenient for Joseph when his prophecy didn’t work out, but what do you see?

What we choose to see is important because perspective is a choice. There are so many ways to look at any given scenario. Do we choose faith?

We can choose to look at what happened in Missouri, and say, “The Lord must not be in this. He commanded something, and it didn’t work out.” Didn’t Nephi say that if the Lord commands something, He will make it happen? Don’t we teach that all of the time?

Absolutely, we teach that. I reaffirm that. I also reaffirm that what the Lord declares can take a long time to come to pass. Let’s look at a couple of other scenarios.

First, there is the mortal ministry of Christ. Many of the Jews rejected Christ because they were looking for a different kind of savior. They wanted someone to come and throw the yoke of the Romans off their backs. They interpreted the scriptures incorrectly and because of that, they missed out on some of the greatest miracles that ever took place. They didn’t see. Their perspective was wrong.

Second, there is the death of Christ. The apostles were quite forlorn after Christ was crucified, and they were all immensely surprised to find Him alive again. One of them refused to believe that Christ had risen again until he personally saw Christ. Do we abandon our faith when things don’t look how we thought they were supposed to look?

Let’s look at some other examples.

One of the Old Testament stories that strikes me as important is that of Daniel and his friends. Babylon besieged and conquered the kingdom of Judah. As part of the conquest, they took the sons of Jewish nobility and put them into the Babylonian court to train and assimilate them. Daniel and his friends refused the food from the king’s table because it had not been prepared according to the Law of Moses. Daniel and his friends believed it would be a sin to eat it.

Think about that for a moment. Biblical scholars believe that these boys ranged from age 14-18. Their home had just been conquered. They had lost against a wicked, secular kingdom. It would have been easy for Daniel to think, “Is God really on our side? Do I really want to make the Babylonian king mad? He beat us. Why would I believe that we have the true God? Why would I keep following the religious laws of my defeated nation when it puts my friends and me in danger?”

But that is not the perspective that Daniel chose. Despite evidence that pointed to the contrary, David chose to believe. Despite religious beliefs that the Jews were chosen by an all-powerful God and still getting conquered, David chose to believe. Despite the fact that conquering nations paid homage to their gods in response to winning wars, David did not see His God as less powerful. He kept obeying.

Perspective is a choice.

Some may see a God who abandoned His people or was never there. Some may see the effects of a frenzied mind. Some may see a fallen prophet or a charlatan.

I see a God who is actually rather unconcerned with a location. Everyone is so caught up in wanting to know where Zion is or move there immediately, and Heavenly Father is like, “Okay. I see the future. I know where it is, but you’re missing the most important part…” I see a God who knows what mortality is actually for, and He delivers on His promises of growth and deliverance. I see a God who makes and keeps promises but also doesn’t have a pocket watch because time is only measured unto man. Sure, the Saints were driven out, and they didn’t build a temple. It took Nephi a couple of tries to get the plates. Let’s do this on God’s timetable, not our’s. We will build Zion, and we will build a temple there. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it’s not going to. It doesn’t prove anything.

I testify of a Lord who was very aware of His Saints. I testify that He was powerful enough to win Zion over immediately and kick out all of their enemies, but I also testify that He has reasons for what He does. I testify that He has a plan and a timetable, and I testify that it is the best that we could ask for. I testify that trusting Him and choosing a perspective of faith brings blessings and hope and peace.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 124 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Establishment of Nauvoo; Baptism for the Dead & the Endowmentby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

T. Edgar Lyon, “Doctrinal Development of the Church During the Nauvoo Sojourn, 1839–1846,” BYU Studies 15, no. 4 (Summer 1975): 435–46. Lyon gives a brief overview of the new doctrines and interpretations Joseph Smith introduced in Nauvoo concerning the Godhead, the priesthood, the temple, and salvation.
Minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 17 March 1842. The Relief Society’s minutes record the counsel given by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by Society President Emma Smith on the date of its founding and the discussion over its name and goals.
FAIR has information on the Kinderhook Plates with links to several other resources.
The Nauvoo Temple: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is an eight-part documentary miniseries that explores the history and legacy of the temple that Latter-day Saints constructed in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840s. The episodes consider what the Nauvoo Temple meant to the men and women who constructed it and the role in played in their religious devotion and worship. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 124–128 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

“Controversies in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: New Evidences and New Observations Indicate Fawn Brodie Should Have Done More Research” by Brian C. Hales at the 2010 FAIR ConferenceWhy did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage? There are three different places we could go for answers.

We can go to the naturalists—like Fawn Brodie—and the cynics, which are kind of in the same group. We can go to Latter-day Saint apologists, who gave us their own set of reasons. And then we can go to Joseph Smith himself. I’d like to look at these three sources.

The first source is the naturalist—and what I mean by that is somebody who is sure God’s not involved. Okay? It’s all natural processes—hormones, libido, job one—and sex. That’s what’s driving polygamy. That’s their answer.

And Fawn Brodie kind of codified this idea in her 1945 biography, which unfortunately is still probably the most influential book ever written on Joseph Smith. Brodie totally botched the treatment of his sexuality in polygamy. She didn’t even want to get it right—that’s my frustration.

The purest naturalistic view is found in George D. Smith’s 2008 novel, which he called “Nauvoo Polygamy: … but we called it celestial marriage.” I doubt there will ever be a purer naturalistic view written of Joseph the man.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Classic FAIR – Why Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy? – Brian Hales, 2010 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

An Unchanging God, Individualized Graceby Autumn Dickson

In August of 1840, Joseph Smith delivered a sermon that introduced the concept of baptisms for the dead. People rejoiced and began being baptized for their kindred dead shortly thereafter. The Mississippi River was often the choice of setting for these sacred ordinances.

In January of 1841, Joseph Smith received Doctrine and Covenants 124 along with this instruction.

Doctrine and Covenants 124:31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

The Lord commanded the Saints to build a temple again, and He told them that He would give them sufficient time to do so. Until then, He would accept their baptisms for the dead that occurred in the river.

We’ve talked about the fact that the Lord tailors His commandments for His people. For example, He made the Word of Wisdom advice before He ever made it a commandment or requirement for the temple. In this case, He allowed the Saints to give their best effort in preparing the temple but allowed them to still offer salvation to their loved ones in the meantime. The willingness exhibited by the Lord to work with us is always a gift.

And yet, in other examples, He seems unrelenting in what He demands of His Saints. For example, some of the trials the Saints went through leading up to Nauvoo are difficult to read about, let alone endure. He required a beautiful, massive temple from people who were poverty-stricken and inexperienced. He sent fathers out on missions while their families struggled at home.

At times, He stands ready to accept their best efforts. At other times, they are chastised for not fulfilling commandments to the letter. Some may see this as variability in personality. Some may see an arbitrary God who demands or allows depending on His mood.

I see a God who eternally loves us and makes decisions based on His purposes for us: to turn us into little versions of Him so that we can enjoy what He enjoys.

This is why He can simultaneously overthrow moneychangers in a temple but speak gently to an adulterer. It’s why He can strike Uzziah but forgive a Canaanite prostitute named Rahab. These decisions aren’t based on His ever-changing moods. They’re based on individuals who actually need wildly different things. And even within those individuals, their needs are going to vary from day to day.

There is a philosophy adopted by humans that we need to treat all of our children the same. I understand that consistency is vital to a child, but maybe we’re being consistent in the wrong things. I have tried to approach parenting a little differently. Rather than being consistent across the board with each child, trying to remember how I handled any given situation so that I can do the same thing for a sibling, I am consistent in my love for each child.

And because I am consistent in my love for each child, my reactions and decisions are going to vary by child.

At any given moment, does my child need me to meet them where they’re at or hold to a high standard? What is going to help them progress depending on how they slept, whether they’re hungry, whether they’re stressed from sitting at school all day? Do they need connection and mercy or connection and discipline? Which will help them see reality more accurately and help them acquire correct attitudes towards that reality?

I am not Heavenly Mother (or Father) and so unfortunately (or fortunately) for my children, sometimes my decisions ARE based off of my mood and limited capacities for wisdom and patience as much as I try to center them on each individual child.

But not so with the Lord.

He stands ready with infinite wisdom and patience in guiding us along. If He seems impatient or demanding, perhaps it is us who need to reframe our perspective. He is not annoyed with us; He isn’t ready to wash His hands of us (even when we wash our hands of Him). Rather, He is making individualized decisions about what to require and how to meet us where we’re at. He is parenting and coaching and coaxing in the most divine way possible.

If He seems cross or unrelenting, it is likely because He knows that pushing us to a higher standard is what we need. It’s going to require more of our souls. It’s going to push us to the point where we need Him; or more accurately, it will push us to the point where we recognize how much we need Him.

If He is gentle and accepting, it is likely because that is the approach that is going to help us progress faster in that moment.

The Saints had just experienced some intense devastation. They had been harmed cruelly. They had sacrificed so much. That sacrifice and difficulty wasn’t necessarily over, but Nauvoo became a period of rest for the Saints. The Lord knows what He’s doing. He knows that difficulty is why we came here; He knows the divine purpose of opposition. And yet, He’s also wise enough to know that we’re not ready for constant opposition. Moments of quiet and peace can balance all of that out and help bring out the best in us.

So here we see the Lord meeting His Saints where they’re at. He rejoices in the excitement of their hearts to perform this work. He loves their eagerness to provide saving ordinances for their kindred dead. That doesn’t mean He let go of the standard; baptisms for the dead belong to the temple. But He was also willing to give them stepping stones towards that standard.

He is not a changing Lord, making decisions based on whether He slept good last night or whether He’s hungry. He is a perfect Lord who knows whether His Saints need a stepping stone or chastisement.

I testify of a Lord who loves us and makes decisions based on each individual. I testify that even in the most tragic circumstances, He is there ready to carry us and give us the hope we need to be resilient. I testify of a Lord who loves us enough to whip us into shape or meet us where we’re at, depending on what is going to help us progress into our best selves. He is infinitely good, wise, and patient, but He is not afraid to push us. I love Him, and I’m grateful for how He has pushed me.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 124 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

There is Love in the Lack that God Givesby Autumn Dickson

In my last message, I shared some of the words of Joseph Smith when he spoke to the Lord. Those words have been canonized as part of Section 121. For this message, I want to share something similar from the same time period though it’s not canonized. Like the prayer of Joseph Smith, I hope that these words can become our words.

Emma Smith was amongst the Saints who were driven out of Missouri at gunpoint. She left behind what she owned and took her children into a frozen wilderness. Not only did she leave behind her possessions, but she was leaving behind her husband who was stuck inside of Liberty Jail. She wrote about this in a letter to her husband, but here is the portion that I hope to emulate in my own life.

Was it not for conscious innocence, and the direct interposition of divine mercy, I am very sure I never should have been able to have endured the scenes of suffering that I have passed through … ; but I still live and am yet willing to suffer more if it is the will of kind Heaven that I should for your sake.

What Emma went through would not be described as divine mercy by most, and yet, she found the hand of the Lord. She saw the Lord and His goodness and mercy (just as Joseph did), and because of what she saw in faith, she was “yet willing to suffer more if it is the will of kind Heaven…”

That is a powerful point to reach. To look at the Lord in any situation and say, I will take whatever You choose to hand out, good or bad. To accept your cross, pick it up, and start following with a childlike trust that He has your best interest at heart.

There are many little lessons that lead us to this point. There are many trust-falls that lead to the kind of relationship where you’re willing to accept what the Lord sends your way. There are a lot of principles and truths that we can internalize in order to reach this powerful point in our relationship with God.

Let’s talk about one truth that we can internalize that will shift how we look at our lives.

As I sat in Relief Society this weekend, the Spirit whispered to me, “There is love in the lack that God gives to you.”

We love to testify of tender mercies and divine “coincidences.” We rejoice when someone knocks on our door at the right time. We celebrate the moments when everything comes together for our good. In so many instances, these are the circumstances that build the foundation of our trust in God. It is because of these small moments that we look up and say, “I know He loves me and takes care of me.”

What if we could recognize the hand of God in everything?

Whenever Conner and I struggled to make things come together, my mom loved to tell me that the Lord would take care of us. She’s absolutely right and yet one time, I responded with, “Like He took care of the Willie and Martin handcart companies?” I was being facetious rather than bitter, but there’s still a lesson there.

The Lord did take care of the Willie and Martin handcart companies, and I’m not just talking about the moment they were rescued or the moment they stepped through the veil into spirit paradise.

It is easy to associate comfort, intervention, and safety with the Lord’s love; it is powerful to associate discomfort, silence, and perceived danger with the Lord’s love. We needed and wanted mortality with all of its pitfalls. And yet, when the Lord delivers on His promise of growth, we suddenly start to question whether He’s even there. There is no other way for Him to deliver on that promise!

Imagine for a moment that He sent us down here and didn’t allow bad things to happen, or maybe He just didn’t let super bad things happen. Being annoyed doesn’t call upon the depths of our soul. It doesn’t prepare us to step into His shoes and perform the work that He performs. Sure, the Lord lives in heaven and experiences all of those positively associated emotions, but He also has to stand back and watch the tragedies unfold on earth. If we can’t hang, we don’t get to step into His shoes.

He is giving us exactly what He asked for. He is giving us depth of life. The depth of your sorrow can unlock the height of your joy. They are inseparable sides of the same coin.

Life changes when we see the Lord’s hand in the tragedy and not just in the rescue. It changes even more when we see His hand in the tragedy before we reach the happy ending. When your spouse loses their job, when you’re lonely, when your family member or friend gets sick, when you lose your favorite pet, when you lose your health. How would these experiences change if you knew that the Lord had His hand in it and that He had your best interest at heart? What if He could show you the ending? And by the ending, I mean, what if He could show you how powerful you become as a result of the tragedy? What if He showed you the end result, your glory, as well as what He went through to make sure you wouldn’t walk the path alone?

Would it change your fear? Would it change your bitterness or devastation?

How would your life change if you saw His love immediately as tragedy strikes? How would your life change if you could see His love in the lack that He gives to you?”

It enabled Emma to carry more than most. The perspective of “His love in the tragedy” carried her.

That doesn’t mean that Emma never suffered again. Her faith didn’t immunize her against mental, emotional, and physical suffering. In her letter to her husband, she also references deep pain. Our trust in God’s love, whether in the rescuing or the tragedy, doesn’t take away the suffering. Life isn’t about escaping pain; eternal life isn’t about escaping pain.

Which is why I ask again: How would your experience change if you knew He had a hand in it and that He had your best interest at heart?

How do you describe the change that comes from knowing heaven is right on the other side of the veil? I’ve shared this analogy before, and I share it again.

It’s like being homeless, hungry, and exposed to the elements but knowing that everything you could possibly dream of awaits you in a couple of days. It doesn’t erase what you’re immediately feeling. You still feel the hunger, the weather, the lack of a bed. And yet, it does change how you feel about what you’re experiencing.

I testify that every decision the Lord is making to manipulate the details around you is in your favor even when it doesn’t feel like it. I testify that there is love in the lack that He chooses to give just as there was love in the suffering that ultimately rescues us. I testify that trusting Him through everything changes you for the better, and it brings the hope He promises.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 121–123 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The “Mormon War” of 1838; Joseph Smith’s letter from Liberty Jailby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

FAIR has an article on The Danites with links to several other resources.
R. Scott Lloyd, “Hawn’s Mill Massacre: ‘New Insights and Interpretations’,” Church News, 9 November 2013. Recent research indicates that the name of the Mormon settlement was spelled Hawn’s Mill, rather than Haun’s, and that the Saints there were not aware of Joseph Smith’s counsel to move closer to Far West to avoid violence.
Transcript and photograph of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ “Extermination Order,” Missouri Executive Order 44, issued 27 October 1838.
Emma Smith’s letter to Joseph Smith, Jr. in Liberty Jail, 7 March 1839. In her letter, Emma updated her incarcerated husband on her status and the the welfare of their children: “Was it not for conscious innocence, and the direct interposition of divine mercy, I am very sure I never should have been able to have endured the scenes of suffering that I have passed through…but I still live and am yet willing to suffer more if it is the will of kind Heaven, that I should for your sake.”
Sections 121, 122, and 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants are extracts from a letter written by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders from Liberty Jail on 20 and (c.) 22 March 1839. Images of the original letter, along with an uncorrected transcript, are available on the Joseph Smith Papers website: Part 1 (20 March 1839); Part 2 (ca. 22 March 1839).
Kent P. Jackson and Robert D. Hunt, “Reprove, Betimes, and Sharpness in the Vocabulary of Joseph Smith,” The Religious Educator 6, no. 2 (2005): 97–104. Jackson and Hunt explain what these words meant in 1839 and the context in which they were used in D&C 121:43.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 121–123 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Three Truths to Transform Your Prayersby Autumn Dickson

Context.

Joseph stayed in a frigid prison with some of his companions for four months. It was one of the coldest winters on record in Missouri. They didn’t have sufficient clothing to keep them warm; the food was scarce and rotten. On at least four occasions, the food was poisoned. They couldn’t stand up straight because the prison was too short. There was no trial because of insufficient evidence, and witnesses were intimidated from testifying on behalf of Joseph and his companions.

This suffering was compounded by what was happening to their loved ones. They were separated from family and friends who were also suffering tremendously. Joseph’s band of followers had been expelled from Missouri through an extermination order and found themselves camped on the side of a river in winter time. As the men froze in the horrible prison, their people froze on the banks of a river. Joseph and his friends listened to their captors tell stories of the assault and murder of their friends and family back in Missouri, specifically the recounting of Haun’s Mill.

Dark times.

I have experienced some level of darkness and even if mine is comparatively lesser to Joseph and the Saints, I still believe that what we read in these sections can uplift us, carry us, and help us see more clearly. There are three principles that we’re going to talk about in relation to prayer that have the power to bring light back into our life.

Doctrine and Covenants 121 is a revelation that occurred during this time period, and it is unique in the sense that it is one of very few sections that include words spoken by man and not just the voice of the Lord. I want to talk about the specific verses coming from Joseph’s own voice. Though it was Joseph speaking and not the Lord, we can learn something profound.

If you want a good example of how to pray in faith, look no further than Joseph in Liberty Jail. Instead of reading consecutive verses, I’m going to read phrases from different verses to emphasize my point. Here are some of the words we read from Joseph.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:1-6

O God, where art thou? How long shall thy…pure eye, behold the wrongs of thy people…? O Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven, earth, and seas, and of all things that in them are…Remember thy suffering saints, O our God; and thy servants will rejoice in thy name forever.

Are we able to rejoice in the Lord under all circumstances? Even in the midst of tragedy, do we acknowledge His presence, purity, and power? In the midst of despair, are we able to still recognize ourselves as His?

Let’s talk about three ways Joseph shows his faith.

First, Joseph acknowledges Him. Perhaps we have not received manifestations to the extent that Joseph did, but we have had manifestations. Though the Lord wasn’t providing solutions or softening hearts or providing ways of escape, Joseph reached for the Lord.

Second, he acknowledges the perfect characteristics of God. Despite the less than perfect circumstances, despite the seemingly juxtaposed concepts of God’s goodness and God’s willingness to allow the current despair, Joseph calls His Lord good.

Third, Joseph acknowledges the sacred relationship between him and his God. It’s easy to be tempted to believe that God is angry or disappointed with us when things get sticky. If I had been in Joseph’s circumstances, I surely would have felt like I had done something wrong. I would have assumed that if I had been better or wiser or more righteous, I could have circumvented this terrible halt in the Lord’s plans. Not Joseph. More than once, Joseph describes the Saints with adjectives that imply ownership. Joseph and the other Saints belong to Christ. At least within this prayer, Joseph doesn’t waver in that.

Joseph’s prayer is filled with faith. It is fascinating to me how each of these three principles of faith are almost like stepping stones in our progression of faith that eventually becomes powerful enough to move mountains. As we apply that faith in prayer, we find the salvation we’re looking for. Here are the three principles of faith put into concise terms.

1) I believe that God is there.

2) I believe that God is good and powerful.

3) I belive that I am God’s child, and He loves me.

After it became a habit to write my prayers, I found myself inadvertently going through these three principles when I found myself in trouble. I didn’t even realize I was doing it (thank you Spirit) until the Lord guided me to write this. As I acknowledge the pattern this Lord has helped me establish, I realize that it has changed the course of my prayers, and therefore, my life.

If you are in a place of darkness, there is a lot of benefit in taking your troubles to the Lord. I’m sure there were plenty of times when Joseph talked to the Lord about all the things that he and the Saints were experiencing. I have found a lot of goodness in this strategy, and I employ it often.

And yet, some of my most powerful prayers have not come when I’ve poured out my heart about what’s going on and pleaded for some specific form of deliverance. My most powerful prayers are those drenched in those three principles of faith: I believe God is there, I believe He is good and powerful, and I believe that I am a child of God and He loves me.

When I take the time to acknowledge those three beliefs (in the same way that Joseph did), I find myself healing and comforted before I’ve ever gotten direction or deliverance. My problems and danger feel much smaller, the rewards greater. It makes everything I’m going through more manageable because I have remembered to compare it against some of the most powerful facts in existence. My problems don’t stand a chance against that.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that Joseph wasn’t immediately delivered from his prison after showing faith. Faith can move mountains, but the most important thing that faith can do is change us in the face of those mountains. Being changed at the end of this mortal experience is infinitely more important than being delivered from a jail cell. There’s no comparison.

I testify of God. I testify that He is there, that He is powerful and good, and I testify that He loves you because you are His child. I testify that those facts are true, and yet, they don’t hold much power in our life if we don’t believe them. God cannot prove Himself, His goodness, His power, or His love any more than He already is. We have to be the ones who change if we want to find those pieces of salvation He keeps handing out.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 121–123 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Rejoicing During Failingby Autumn Dickson

We are in an interesting section of church history here. This portion of history is often very difficult for some people because it calls Joseph’s prophetic calling into question…again. While the Saints were living in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph encouraged the Saints to invest in the Kirtland Safety Society. The Kirtland Safety Society was meant to be a bank, but the state of Ohio rejected the Saints charter to form one. Instead, they utilized a loophole and made it a joint-stock company. You don’t really have to understand economics or legalities to understand that it failed. Many people lost a lot, and when we consider the fact that there are many people who don’t have a lot already, it can be easy to wonder how Joseph got it so wrong.

Why didn’t the Lord help the Saints with this? Or, at the very least, why didn’t the Lord warn Joseph against forming the Kirtland Safety Society? People listened to him because he’s the prophet, and they got burned. In fact, this is one of the reasons many Saints (including members of the twelve apostles) apostasized.

Interestingly enough, very shortly after the Saints fled Kirtland, Joseph was praying about the church’s difficult financial situation. Here is one of the verses in the revelations he received.

Doctrine and Covenants 119:1, 4

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

So the Kirtland Safety Society failed, and then Joseph received a revelation that the Saints needed to give more. Again.

If this is the Lord’s church, why isn’t He enabling them to do what they need to do? LIke build Zion? Or build temples? If He has all of these expensive things that He desires of His Saints, why does He keep taking away? Or, at the very least, why is He allowing it all to be taken away?

I’ve got a theory.

My theory calls upon a story found in the New Testament, specifically in John 6. Christ feeds the 5,000 with a couple loaves of bread and fish. In modern times, we revere this beautiful miracle and use it to teach all sorts of lessons, but the story gets even more interesting. The people did not take all of the spiritual lessons that we often pull from it. Instead, they try to force Christ to be their king. He departs, and they find Him again, presumably to look for more free bread. I presume this because they don’t really like it when He refuses to make more bread. Many disciples leave and walk no more with Him.

Despite the gigantic miracle that did take place, we find a bunch of murmuring people who start to get mad at Christ. The second that Christ takes away the free bread, the people essentially start saying, “Who is this guy? He is just the son of Joseph and Mary.”

The parallels with the people who apostasized during this period in church history is astounding. Anyway.

Christ had to take away the bread in order to provide an opportunity for people to follow after Him for spiritual reasons. Otherwise, they would have followed Him for eternity continually receiving the bread but never actually finding the joy that was meant to be theirs. They never would have found it. They were too distracted by bread.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. We rejoice in Him when He gives, and we rejoice in Him when He takes away. Otherwise, it’s not really the kind of faith that brings salvation. If we want salvation from our faith, it has to be a specific kind of faith. Let me show you the differences.

It cannot be faith that says, “I trust that God can give me everything I want.”

It has to be faith that says, “I trust God no matter where He takes me.” It is only this kind of faith that moves the mountains within us. It is only this faith that brings salvation in the truest sense.

Let’s bring this back to the Kirtland Safety Society. It would have been very easy for Heavenly Father to build up the city and the bank and the temple all by Himself. He built the earth; I’m pretty sure construction is not the problem here. I’m sure He could have enabled the Kirtland Safety Society to succeed wonderfully. But He didn’t, and it shook the faith of many. This is not the first time that Christ has “taken away,” and it’s not the first time that people abandoned ship because of it. It’s not the first time that people turned their backs on all of the other miracles that were performed. It’s not the first time people were too distracted by earthly problems to miss the eternal, spiritual lessons that had far more significance.

Let’s take this a step farther. The Lord took away, and then He called upon the people to give even more after they had just fled their homes in Kirtland.

In our day, I have seen many people call for an end to tithing, at least for the poor. For a church that is worth a lot of money, it really makes them upset that it would require the sacrifice of the widow who only has a mite to give. I understand where they’re coming from. Imagine a billionaire asking the poor for donations. It would spark outrage.

But, like the disciples of old who walked no more with Christ, they are missing the entire point.

Christ is the ultimate billionaire. Trillionaire. Yeah, it goes beyond that but I don’t know the label for someone who has infinite funds. He could end world hunger and physical suffering. He could stop all of it, but then we would be so distracted that we would never learn the weightier matters.

I don’t care what you say; bread can’t bring true happiness. Bread will one day be a part of our eternal reward. If you live righteously, all of your needs will be provided for. I’m pretty sure that even if you live wickedly, all of your needs get provided for in the other kingdoms. However, none of that will amount to the joy and peace and salvation that is meant to be yours if you do not learn the weightier matters.

Our God is wise and knows that taking away is essential to learning the weightier matters. He takes away, and He asks for sacrifice because only complete and utter faith in Him will bring salvation and all of its associated positive emotions. Christ doesn’t need your tithing. You need your tithing.

In Doctrine and Covenants 119:6, the Lord says that if His people do not follow the law of tithing, “…it shall not be a land of Zion unto (them).” I want to give an analogy to take this further.

Let’s say I build a house for my kids. It has absolutely everything they need, and I give it to them for free. It’s a gift. However, I can’t force my kids to enjoy the house. I can’t force them to live together in harmony and work together and love each other. I can’t force the house to be heavenly. They have to do that with their actions and more importantly, their attitudes. It doesn’t matter how much I gift them heaven if they’re not living in a heavenly manner so that it brings all the joy that the gift was meant to bring.

In that sense, I am offering them a gift of “Zion” in which they can have everything they need and where they can experience all the joy that comes with living in harmony and love with others. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I cannot truly force Zion’s joy upon them. I can tell them how to experience it by forgiving and loving and taking care of what they’ve been given, but if they choose to ignore my laws, then it will not be Zion to them. It doesn’t matter how much I provide and offer the gift. It will not be Zion to them if they are not living Zion-like lives.

If my children continue to ignore my laws to the extent that they’re miserable, then perhaps the most merciful and loving thing I can do is to kick them out of the house so that they can learn to appreciate what they were given. Perhaps that sounds dismissive, unmerciful, or uncaring, but it also holds a grain of truth. We can’t experience Zion unless we are changed to appreciate it. No matter how long you stay in the land of Zion, you will be miserable until you are changed.

Sometimes the only way to change is when He takes it away or when He asks us to sacrifice it. Maybe you don’t believe me, but believe Christ. He knew He had to take away the bread FOR THE BENEFIT of His disciples so long ago. They chose to leave anyway, but they would have refused the eternal blessings anyway because they would have been distracted by a piece of bread.

I testify that following the Lord no matter where He leads is the most incredible journey you can take. I testify that if you want joy, you trust the Lord. I testify that you need tithing, not the Lord. I testify that the weightier matters will bring you more than a piece of bread.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 115–120 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

When You Covet What You Haveby Autumn Dickson

The Saints began to flee Kirtland in January 1838 because of religious persecution and mounting debts. A majority of them went to Far West, Missouri. When July came around, Newel K. Whitney and William Marks were still in Kirtland. They had originally been left behind to settle affairs, but they had remained there longer than necessary because they were attached to their property and didn’t want to liquidate it too quickly.

Honestly, no judgment. It would be hard to flee. It would be hard to just close the door on something you had worked so hard for. It would be hard to turn off the lights for the last time and know you would likely never see the place again. It’s difficult to close a chapter even when you have confidence in a well-laid plan for the next chapter, which Whitney and Marks didn’t necessarily have.

And yet, here is what the Lord counseled them.

Doctrine and Covenants 117:4 Let them repent of all their sins, and of all their covetous desires, before me, saith the Lord; for what is property unto me? saith the Lord.

According to the “Guide to the Scriptures,” part of the definition for “covet,” is to “have an excessive desire towards.” Our desires for our own things can be excessive. We are not always accustomed to speaking of coveting something that already belongs to us. Usually when we speak about coveting, we’re talking about wanting something that someone else has. And yet, the Lord is speaking to these men about their own property. You can covet your own property.

I think it’s important that the definition includes the word “excessive.” We do not need to banish any desire we have for things. We can want a house, good food, clothing, and objects that make our life nicer or easier. We just need to keep our desires from becoming excessive.

I believe that excessively desiring our own property can look like a couple of different things. I want to talk about two different scenarios of coveting your own property as well as ways that we can overcome that coveting.

I’ve watched people be perfectly content with what they have until after they started earning more and having more. I’ve watched them start to covet what they already have only after they were given more. This is a legitimate pattern. Despite the fact that we usually speak of coveting something that someone else has, I’ve found that the most common form of coveting is when you have an excessive desire for your own stuff. We see it all the time in The Book of Mormon with the pride cycle. The people start out humble and poor and taking care of each other. It’s only after they start having nice things that they truly get caught up in the things of the world.

So how do we keep ourselves grounded? How do we not get caught up in owning things in this scenario?

It can feel tricky since the Lord doesn’t begrudge us laboring to increase what we have. There isn’t anything wrong with an appropriate desire for things. Those desires just can’t be excessive. How do we keep our desires balanced?

I’m sure there are plenty of ways that we can keep our desires for our own things at appropriate levels: humility, gratitude, giving, recognition of stewardship. However, I want to talk about one specific way we can keep ourselves from coveting our own property when we find ourselves with more than what’s normal.

We keep ourselves grounded by accurately placing our desires alongside our desire for eternal things. When we have an accurate view of eternity and what that entails, it becomes much easier to see the actual worth of our property. So what is this accurate view of eternity?

The accurate view is that the Lord is building a mansion for you. You are meant to be a king or queen. It is your divine birthright to walk on streets of gold and have everything you need. It is also part of your birthright to grow into a glorious being capable of eternal happiness. Walking on streets of gold can only bring so much happiness. When you find yourself in the eternities, you’re not going to be able to derive any little bursts of happiness from having more than those around you because they will also be walking on gold. When you’re in the eternities, walking on gold will be nice to the extent that you have what you need. However, you will very quickly start to realize that there is only so much joy you can derive from gold. The accurate view of eternity is that you will have all you need and want; however, if you don’t also have the weightier matters, you’re going to be miserable and empty.

So we keep ourselves grounded by balancing our desires for our own stuff with our desires for what truly brings happiness. When you’re feeling a little miserable or empty, it can be tempting to want to go buy something to fill that little void. Rather, if we can remember to invest in relationships and serving and turning outwards when we’re seeking happiness, we’re going to find it. You cannot find deep, lasting happiness in stuff in this life or the next. It is only when your stuff is a part of something more important and enduring, that you can derive all the joy and peace that was meant to be your’s.

There is another way that we can covet our own property, and I think this particular scenario is closer to what William Marks and Newel K. Whitney were experiencing.

We have observed a pattern of how becoming richer can actually make you more susceptible to coveting your own property. Despite this being a regular pattern, I believe it’s just as possible to covet your own things when you don’t have as much. Perhaps you’re not looking around and yearning for what everyone else has, but perhaps you’re plagued by fear of losing what little you do have.

And isn’t that the very definition of sin? Wickedness never was happiness. Being plagued by fear of losing what you have is not happiness which is why it can also be classified as sin. We have already established that getting richer doesn’t inoculate you from coveting your own property. The only way we can truly rid ourselves of the weight of envying our own property is by changing our hearts.

The only way to experience true happiness, and not Satan’s counterfeit, is by changing our hearts to trust Him and desire righteousness.

You don’t have to wait until you have more stuff to find the peace you’re looking for. You don’t have to wait until your pantry is full to trust that the Lord is taking care of you. In fact, you may not find peace or trust even after you have everything you wished for.

We are seeking joy and peace. That doesn’t come from our stuff. It cannot come from our stuff! Property is incapable of providing it. Joy and peace only come from following the pattern of living laid down by our Savior. Just as the Lord instructs in Doctrine and Covenants 117, we have to repent of our covetous desires. We have to change our heart to desire the best things and to trust Him enough to find peace in a world that is filled with turmoil.

I testify of a Lord who loves us. I testify that it is not difficult for Him to give you everything you could possibly desire and want. Property is nothing to Him because there is no end to His property. He’s trying to teach us that. We don’t want to be afraid of what we won’t have tomorrow but that doesn’t come from having enough. Even if you become the richest person in the world, you can still lose everything. There is no security but in the Lord. I testify that if you want joy and peace, you have to follow after the Lord.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 115–120 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Mistakes Were Part of the Planby Autumn Dickson

The church is running into some issues. They have incurred heavy debts, and leaders are growing increasingly worried. There was a member, Brother Burgess, who spoke of a widow who had left behind a lot of money hiding in her cellar. Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery travelled to Salem, Massachusetts to attempt to find this treasure. It was never found.

It’s important to note that this account was written 53 years later by a former church member. We may not have every detail correct, but here is a verse from that stay in Salem that may be referring to this experience.

Doctrine and Covenants 111:1 I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies.

The Lord isn’t mad that they went to Salem despite their follies. A folly is an error in judgment, a mistake. The Lord is not afraid of us making mistakes. He warns against sin making us unhappy, but an error in judgment does not need to tear us down. Joseph and his companions had sought means to relieve the debts of the church. How could the Lord be upset with that? They were proactive and sought to do all within their power to fix the problems they were facing.

This is actually really important to understand; it’s very important to internalize. The Lord isn’t angry when we make mistakes.

We came to earth so that we could eventually become like Jesus Christ. We did not come to earth to never make mistakes.

It may sound like the same thing sometimes, but it’s not.

I’m going to ask some questions now that I’m desperately hoping do not come off sounding sacrilegious. There are many definitions of some of the words I’m about to use, and I’m asking questions so we can better understand the scriptures.

What do the scriptures mean when they say that Christ is perfect? Did it mean that He never fell down when He was learning to walk? Did it mean that He never found Himself with setbacks on a journey because of unforeseen circumstances? Or did it mean that He handled unforeseen circumstances with absolute faith? Is that partially why people in Nazareth rejected Him? Is it because they had seen Him grow up and make mistakes (not sin! mistakes!)?

This is the gospel according to Autumn, but I’m not sure that’s what the scriptures meant when they described Christ as perfect. I believe He faced a lot of the same trials we did in mortality. He had the same veil placed over his eyes and had to learn who He was. He faced situations where He didn’t know the outcome or the most effective decision, and maybe He didn’t even know the perfect thing to say. We know that scriptures taught that the Savior increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. How can you increase beyond the traditional definition of perfection?

When the scriptures say that Christ was perfect, I believe it means that He never sinned. Sin is not the same thing as a mistake. I believe that when He faced two roads that He could travel, He didn’t always know which one to take. Instead, He moved forward with faith and listened to see if His Father would correct Him. I believe that when He faced setbacks, He never faltered in that faith and devotion. I believe that when He faced people who had experienced tremendous grief, He wasn’t necessarily given perfect words (because I believe there are situations in which there are no perfect words) but His words were filled with power because of His perfect love.

When the scriptures ask us to be perfect, I believe the scriptures are asking us to become devoted to the Savior. We become so devoted that our hearts become perfectly filled with faith in the Savior and perfectly turned outwards towards others. Does that mean we will never face a situation where we don’t immediately know what we’re supposed to do? No. Does that mean we’ll never face obstacles because we’re simply going to know everything to say ahead of time? Does it mean that we’re going to be proactive in making decisions that we completely circumvent every setback as we’re going about the work of the Lord?

I don’t think so. I could be wrong for sure. But I believe perfection, as described by the scriptures, is a state of heart in which we are wholly turned towards the Lord and then towards others. I don’t think it extends to omnipotence until the next life.

If we become paralyzed with fear of mistakes, we prevent ourselves from acquiring growth. Growth is essential to the entire purpose of the Plan of Salvation. So there you go. We didn’t come to earth to avoid mistakes. We came to earth to become like Jesus Christ.

And honestly, I believe this extends towards sin. This is the part where we obviously differ from Christ. We’re going to sin and make mistakes. And though the Lord was talking about the debts the church had incurred in Kirtland, the Lord loves to have layers of meaning in His words. Here is another verse from the same section.

Doctrine and Covenants 111:5 Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.

Christ is not concerned with our debts. He already paid them. He knows the price because it was paid a long time ago. He isn’t concerned. He had enough to cover it.

He is wholly focused on your growth.

If Heavenly Father was wholly focused on avoiding sin, He never would have sent us here to earth at all because it was impossible to come to earth without sinning and making mistakes.

This doesn’t mean that we run around excusing ourselves and doing whatever we want because Christ paid the debt and Heavenly Father is wholly focused on our growth. He is not concerned when we have flaws we’re trying to overcome, and He is not concerned with our follies. He is concerned when we’re refusing to grow and receive the joy that comes with following after Him.

If you are actively repenting, if you are trying to orient your heart towards the Savior, if you are trying to turn your heart outward towards your fellow man, then rejoice. The Savior isn’t mad at your mistakes. Rejoice; don’t be concerned about your debts. They are taken care of.

I testify of a Savior who is perfect. I testify that He was wholly devoted to His Father and rejoiced in His Father because of His faith. I testify that He rejoices in your repentance and growth to the extent that He is not angry, nor concerned. I testify that He loves you perfectly even though He knows you exactly as you are; you don’t have to be afraid of your flaws or lack of wisdom about how to handle every circumstance in your life because He already knows and He loves you anyway.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 111–114 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

End of the Kirtland period; revelations in Missouri, 1838by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

BMC Team, “Why Was Martin Harris Cut Off from the Church?”, Book of Mormon Central, 1 June 2021. This brief article explains why Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, was excommunicated from the Church in late 1837 during a period of mass apostasy.
Stephen C. Harper, “The Tithing of My People,” Church History: Revelations in Context, last modified 13 January 2016. Harper, a historian for the Church History Department, explains how the Saints in Missouri understood how to calculate “one-tenth of all their interest annually” as tithing. (D&C 119:4)
Dennis B. Horne, “Reexamining Lorenzo Snow’s 1899 Tithing Revelation,” Mormon Historical Studies – Fall 2013, Vol. 14, No. 2. President Lorenzo Snow did not prophesy an end to the southern Utah drought at the time he received his famous tithing revelation in St. George in 1899 (as portrayed in the church-produced movie “The Windows of Heaven”). The tithing manifestation was indeed true and real, but President Snow’s son LeRoi C. later created an accompanying fiction of a prophecy that if the locals paid their full tithing it would yet rain that very season and save their livestock and crops. President Snow uttered no such prophecy and there was no end to the drought for two years.
Elder Boyd K. Packer, “The Least of These,” General Conference, October 2004. “I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord.” (D&C 117:12)
Elizabeth Kuehn, “Finances and Faith in the Kirtland Crisis of 1837,” 2017 FAIR Conference.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 111–112, 114–115, 117–120 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Power of Conversion: Healing Through Christby Autumn Dickson

Thomas B. Marsh was frustrated with Joseph Smith for calling two of the apostles on missions without consulting him. He received a revelation that helped him repent and gave him spiritual counsel. Within the counsel he receives, there are two phrases that are found next to each other which take on profound meaning when you observe them together.

Doctrine and Covenants 112:13 And after their temptations, and much tribulation, behold, I, the Lord, will feel after them, and if they harden not their hearts, and stiffen not their necks against me, they shall be converted, and I will heal them.

The Lord is talking to Marsh about the apostles. The Lord told Marsh to correct them and be an example to them before sharing this verse where He promises to reach out to them. The phrases that are interesting when placed together are, “…they shall be converted, and I will heal them.”

There are a couple of definitions of the word convert that are relevant. The first one is, “change in form, character, or function.” The second definition is to, “change one’s religious faith or other beliefs.” Let’s talk about both definitions and how they lead to healing. I’m actually going to talk about the second definition first.

To change one’s religious faith or other beliefs. This is an interesting one. We’re obviously not talking about converting to a different religion, but even within our own church, we need to be evolving our own beliefs as we learn more about the gospel. Let me give an example. It’s a long one, but sharing all of the details helps me teach the principle.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve actually had multiple friends come to me with marital problems and I shared a piece of advice that I had received. Love your spouse when you don’t feel loved. Interestingly enough, this is good advice no matter what kind of marriage you find yourself in. Even more interestingly, this is good advice for any relationship you’re in.

I can imagine that this might cause some outrage, especially for people who have escaped abusive relationships, but let me explain further.

God loves us infinitely more than anyone else. His love leads Him to act mercifully, to make sacrifices on our behalf, to continually turn towards us even when we’ve rejected Him. God’s love has also led Him to reject us, to put up boundaries, to separate us from Himself and others.

Love is a feeling, not a specific action.

When I originally shared this advice with my friends, some of them struggled with it. They felt that they had already sacrificed enough, and they weren’t seeing enough sacrifice on the part of their spouses. AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I’M TRYING TO TEACH.

They struggled with the advice because they had inaccurate ideas of what love means and what it looks like. When I explained to them that my definition of love was a feeling that could lead to several different appropriate actions, that softened the blow a bit.

When we talk about converting in relation to the gospel, we’re talking about changing aspects of our faith and beliefs. I’m not talking about getting baptized in a different church; I’m talking about true, internal change within our hearts as we receive new perspectives and interpretations of doctrine. The more we convert, the more we heal. Let’s look at our example of love again.

I also gave this piece of advice to a friend whose significant other broke up with them in a hurtful way. I told my friend to love her, truly love her enough that you wanted what was best for her. I told him that if he wanted to heal from getting hurt in this manner, his best strategy was to love her. Love didn’t mean following her around. He had to change his belief of what love was and looked like, and if he chose to allow a more accurate definition of love to take hold in his heart, he was going to find healing.

As we convert closer and closer to the gospel, we are going to naturally find healing. Even as members of Christ’s church on the earth, we still have some inaccurate ideas surrounding gospel principles that we’re going to weed out as we grow older.

When we learn that forgiveness can look like complete mercy and letting go of past grievances as well as loving someone from a healthy distance, we can find healing.

When we learn that serving can bring about resentment if we’re not throwing our heart into the mix, we can soften our own hearts and find healing.

When we learn that humility doesn’t mean squashing ourselves and the spiritual gifts we’ve been given, we start to step into our divine destinies, and we find healing.

There are so many different aspects of faith that need to evolve as we learn more about the gospel. Following gospel principles inaccurately can make things more difficult, but if we convert our faith as we learn a more accurate perspective on these same principles, we will find the healing that Christ has talked about.

The first definition that I mentioned was to “change in form, character, or function.” I’m not going to elaborate too much on this because it’s simply another way of saying what has already been said. We change. Not only do we change our functions (i.e. the outward actions of the gospel), but we change in character. If you can utilize the actions to actually change your character, you find the salvation that Christ promised.

I testify that following Christ accurately is what brings about the true blessings of the gospel. I testify that we do need to convert as we learn more and more and more about what Christ meant when He gave certain commandments. I also testify that when we allow our faith to convert and transform, we will find the healing that He promised us.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 111–114 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Building the Kingdom in Diapers and Day Jobsby Autumn Dickson

The Saints have built the Kirtland temple. This week we read about the dedication event, including the revealed prayer from the Lord, and we read about the Lord restoring priesthood keys within the temple. Here is one of the verses from the prayer that was revealed to Joseph Smith.

Doctrine and Covenants 109:9 That your incomings may be in the name of the Lord, that your outgoings may be in the name of the Lord, that all your salutations may be in the name of the Lord, with uplifted hand unto the Most High–

This verse is talking about temple worship. When you come into the temple, your heart should be turned towards the Lord. When you leave the temple, that state of heart should follow you into the world. During temple worship, all of your salutations (or, in other words, your interpersonal communications) should reflect the Lord and His holiness.

There is a lot of power in focusing on Christ in the temple. Temple worship reflects the antiquity of the gospel, and it can feel very different than how we normally worship. When we use every part of the temple to reflect on Christ and look at every symbol through a lens of Christ, the worship experience becomes more meaningful.

However, I want to take this beyond the walls of the temple.

When I was a teenager, I remember attending EFY camps, fireside, Sunday youth classes, and all sorts of youth activities. Oftentimes, we would be invited to spend more time with the Savior. Being the perfectionist that I was, I often took this goal beyond what my leaders had likely intended. I would make goals about reading my scriptures, praying, and doing other spiritual activities that went beyond the bounds of what was balanced or even appropriate.

As an adult, I recall the Spirit whispering a very important truth to me. Spending time with the Savior is not just about going and doing traditionally spiritual things; it’s also about inviting the Savior into the rest of your life. Our incomings, outgoings, and salutations can be in the name of the Lord regardless of whether they are directly about the Lord.

Rather than constantly immersing myself in scripture study, I can take my learning to a new level as I bring Christ into the rest of my life. This has many outcomes, but let’s talk about a couple of them.

The first effect is that it transforms my life.

I can listen to secular music, read my favorite romance novels, go out to dinner with my husband, and hang out with my girl friends with the Savior as my companion. I remember driving to go buy a dress for a Christmas party. The sun was shining, and my Apple Playlist was giving me all of the best songs. The Spirit whispered to me that I should remember Christ, and I did. I thanked Him for moments like that, and it made it all the sweeter. I knew He was happy for me and that He was enjoying my happiness and gratitude.

Eternal life isn’t all work. I don’t know what the Savior does for fun, but I believe that fun is an important part of a healthy and balanced spiritual life. The Savior wants to be included in those moments too.

As a stay-at-home mom, my life can also get a bit repetitive meeting the needs of my kids. Helping the kids with their tasks that I’m trying to teach, making bottles, changing diapers, wiping the counter, picking up things so that I don’t trip over it, and refereeing can take its toll sometimes. The daily tasks can feel so mundane sometimes until you place them in the context of eternity. But then I bring the Savior into it. Eternity isn’t about learning some huge new lesson every few weeks. It’s not about giant, transformational experiences. It’s about daily habits that make us who we are.

When I invite the Savior to walk with me in my experience, it reminds me that I’m building discipleship into the rapidly developing brains of my children. Showing up for them over and over and over and over and over sets the stage for them to understand their Savior. He gives power and purpose to the mundane parts of my life. And though I speak of my personal experience as a stay-at-home mom, these principles extend beyond that. You can find power and purpose in the mundane parts of your life.

So we’re working on letting our incomings, outgoings, and salutations be in the name of the Lord. The first effect is that it transforms our lives. It makes sweet moments sweeter. It fills the mundane parts of life with purpose. And I didn’t talk about it, but it also soothes the hard moments.

The second effect is that it makes your work more powerful.

When you do something in the name of the Lord, it adds power. Acting in His name means that we are standing in for Him as if He were here. We are His representative. We are doing what He would do in our situation. Christ left His carpentry job to be a full-time missionary for 3 years, but that’s not our mission. He made premortal promises, and He fulfilled them. We also made premortal promises, but ours are not the same as His.

You don’t abandon your day job. You transform your day job. It’s “Bring the Savior to work day.” This has a couple of outcomes.

It quickens your ability to do your job. I watch my husband receive revelation all the time in his engineering designs. I pray all the time for his inspiration. The Saints were building the Kirtland temple, and I’m sure they learned a lot of spiritual lessons. They also developed some major construction skills. Maybe that doesn’t seem like an important skill until you realize that the Lord is preparing us to create like He did. Invite Him to join you, and do all things in His name. It can add purpose, and it can make you more capable.

When you do your day job in the name of the Lord, you also find ways to build the kingdom in creative ways. Sometimes we think building the kingdom means we go to church and do our calling, but building the kingdom can happen everywhere around you. Can you imagine how quickly our ability to build the kingdom would collapse if all the farmers left their jobs to be full-time missionaries? Jobs that are not traditionally thought of as spiritual can be done in the name of the Lord, and they can help build the kingdom.

Let all your salutations, incomings, and outgoings be done in the name of the Lord. That doesn’t mean you immediately need to preach to your coworker. It can also mean finding purpose, power, and fulfillment in the work that you are a part of. It doesn’t mean abandoning your day job to knock doors; it means bringing the Savior with you everywhere you go.

I testify that doing so transforms your life and your work. The Savior is the best companion on this unofficial mission we’ve been called to do. He knows the importance of daily tasks and can help us remember how our small contributions matter. He knows how to have fun. He finds great joy in your joy. He can expand your capacities and help you creatively utilize them for good.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 109-110 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This book review was originally published here on December 12, 2021. It is being reposted now to help people get to know President Oaks better. It also contains information about the origin of the Proclamation on the Family, which is currently having its 30th anniversary celebrated.

Available from the FAIR BookstoreThis biography of Dallin H. Oaks was written by Richard E. Turley, Jr., who has been associated with Oaks throughout most of his (Turley’s) professional life. Turley has served as the Director of the Church History Department (originally selected to work for the department by Oaks), Assistant Church Historian, and Director of Public Affairs. He has previously written or co-written several other books, including Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hoffman Case and Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American Tragedy.

The Beginning of Dallin H. Oak’s LifeDallin Harris Oaks was born August 12, 1932 in Provo, Utah. “Harris” comes from his mom’s side of the family, who was descended from a brother of Martin Harris. He grew up in Provo; Twin Falls, Idaho; Payson (where he stayed with his grandparents at times due to the death of his father when he was 7); and Vernal. As a child, he came close to dying several, beginning with his birth, with miraculous preservation of his life occurring each time.

Education, Marriage and MilitaryOaks eventually made it to Brigham Young University, where he met his first wife, June Dixon, and married her in his junior year. He was in the Utah National Guard, and the Korean War was going on, so he was unable to serve a mission. After BYU, he graduated cum laude from the University of Chicago Law School, worked as a clerk for the Supreme Court, and then began working at a law practice. During this time he also served as a stake missionary.

He then returned to the University of Chicago Law School as a professor (also serving in the stake presidency) until he was chosen to be the president of Brigham Young University. From there he went on to become a justice of the Utah Supreme Court. He was a potential candidate twice for the United States Supreme Court, but both times felt it wasn’t right. When asked about it once, he said: “That job is like being called to be a General Authority. Only a fool would aspire to it, but no one would turn it down” (page 168).

Called to the ApostleshipIn 1984 he received a surprise phone call from President Gordon B. Hinckley of the First Presidency, and he was called as an apostle, which he found to be shocking. “‘I feel so unworthy and so unprepared for this sacred calling,’ he confessed, ‘Yet I do know that there is nothing I cannot do if I am worthy of the help of our Heavenly Father. My challenge is to be worthy and to be in tune’” (page 180).

During his time as an apostle, he had many assignments and took very seriously his role as a special witness of the name of Christ. He became known for his doctrinal addresses. “He felt the heavy responsibility of spiritually feeding those who came–or tuned in–to hear him, and he wanted to align his will with God’s in selecting, developing, and addressing topics of importance in advancing the Lord’s purposes” (page 322).

Powerful Priesthood WitnessOne of his talks that is among my favorites was “Healing the Sick,” given in the April 2010 General Conference. Oaks gained faith in the power of the priesthood early in his life. His father was a doctor and someone once “asked him if he was going to grow up to be a doctor like his father and heal people. ‘No,’ he answered. He was going to be a ‘high priest like my father and bless babies’” (page 7).

Later, when he was ten years old, he had an experience that “has been a significant influence on my faith in the power of the priesthood” (page 15). When he was staying with his grandfather, his younger cousin fell unnoticed into an irrigation ditch and wasn’t found for 20 or 30 minutes. He had been floating facedown and was dead. His grandfather gave him a blessing and he was revived. “‘He suffered no after-effects, filling a mission to Australia, marrying a lovely girl, and living an exemplary life as a Latter-day Saint husband and father. I am witness,’ Dallin concluded, ‘to the miracle of his childhood death and restoration’” (page 17).

The Mark Hoffman CaseOne of his assignments was with Public Affairs, and this was when the Mark Hofmann case occurred. He was involved in responding to the media and encouraged transparency from the First Presidency in their dealings with Hofmann. After Hofmann was arrested and pleaded guilty, he wrote: “The outcome vindicates the Church in every particular! How blessed are we! The Lord truly looks after His work and His servants. We are buffeted by the world and afflicted with the consequences of our own mistakes, but when the stakes are large and the survival or significant momentum of the work is on the line, we are saved as by a miracle” (page 208).

When later reviewing the manuscript of Turley’s Victims, he wrote: “The facts are there, and his effort will set the record straight for purposes of history. Those who want to believe the worst about the Church and its leaders will do so, but those who want the truth and have ears to hear and hearts to understand will at last have the complete facts on the Church…involvement in the Hofmann affair” (page 209).

Travel AssignmentsThere were many travel assignments, including time spent as the Philippines Area President. As he got older, this became harder, and in 2006 during a trip to Africa, he wrote: “As I reflect on what I have been doing on this trip…I have been impressed with the fact that I am working so hard that I would not possibly do this for money. I love doing this for the Lord, and I love the people with whom I work and those I meet on these trips” (page 292).

The Family: A Proclamation to the WorldThe book gives us some information about the creation of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and Oaks’ role:

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

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

During the period that the proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts…. (Page 215.)

There has been a theory that the Proclamation began as a response to the legalization efforts in Hawaii, and was written by a team of lawyers, but this clearly shows that not to be the case. If it sounds like it might have been written by legal experts, it’s probably because two of its co-writers were Oaks (a former Utah Supreme Court Justice) and Faust (a former lawyer).

Widower and Second MarriageDallin’s wife, June, died in 1998. He later had an experience in the temple where he felt her presence and heard her voice in his mind. She told him “(1) she is busy and happy, and (2) she knows why she died at this time. I was comforted.”

Four months after she had died, he was in the temple again. This time he didn’t feel her presence, but “I did feel a thought she had left for me, somewhat like a written message: ‘Your needs are not so great now, so I will not visit you on a regular basis, but from time to time as you need.’…Elder Oaks wrote that he ‘went away strengthened for a new era in my life’” (pages 235-236).

After that, he began thinking of remarriage and received advice and help from Elder L. Tom Perry, who introduced him to Kristen McMain. After a brief courtship and with the consent of his children, they were married.

Written CorrespondenceAs an apostle, Oaks responded to many letters. There are portions of some of his responses in the book. Here are some excerpts from those that I found interesting:

On another occasion…Elder Oaks offered four suggestions. The first was about reading from varied sources in searching for truth. Sometimes, Elder Oaks observed, those who say they read broadly exclude reading sources “that will sustain and nourish faith.” Second, he explained, “while doubt can be a virtue when it moves people to seek knowledge, it is also an eternal principle that faith precedes the receipt of knowledge from above.” Third, knowing the Church is true does not require “the kind of transcendental experience the Prophet Joseph Smith had.” That knowledge can come from simply keeping the Lord’s commandments. Fourth, we must avoid judging godly things “according to what seems ‘godly’ according to our standards or culture or experience.” Instead, “we are to learn from Him, not teach Him or confine Him within our criteria.” Finally, Elder Oaks wrote, no one can pass the responsibility for personal conversion to another. “The whole case is in your hands…and its resolution is between you and your Heavenly Father.”

…To a man who wrote on reconciling science and religion, Elder Oaks responded, “Because our knowledge of the truths of the gospel is still evolving with continuing revelation, and because the ‘truths’ of science are also very dynamic, I am skeptical about bringing them together at present, though I know that they will each be gloriously consistent when all truths are known.”

A man wrote asking whether he should refrain from promoting new concepts that came to him about Christ’s Atonement. “The Lord has given us a prophet and his two counselors,” Elder Oaks replied, “and they are the ones to whom we look for ‘new concepts’ on our doctrine. The rest of us should refrain.”

…One correspondent was bothered that a family member talked openly about purported spiritual manifestations… “Have you noticed,” Elder Oaks asked in response, “that General Authorities, fifteen of whom are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, rarely speak about personal and sacred spiritual experiences?

“That cannot be a coincidence,” he taught. “It is also true that there are many miracles and sacred spiritual experiences among the Latter-day Saints, and we rarely hear of them across the pulpit or in classes. That cannot be a coincidence either.

“True,” Elder Oaks agreed, “some individuals speak of their personal and sacred spiritual experiences, but I have noticed that those individuals are cautioned not to do so, and if they persist, they are generally released from their Church positions or requested not to speak in Church meetings.

“What explains all of this?” Elder Oaks inquired of the writer. “A person has only to read the directions in the Doctrine and Covenants to see that the Lord has told us that our sacred experiences are personal and are not to be shown before the world.” He concluded, “If every person would be careful to limit the use of their spiritual experiences to their own personal benefit, instead of using them for other purposes, the adversary would have less occasion to mislead us by counterfeit spiritual experiences.” (Pages 336-341.)

Called to the First PresidencyIn 2018, Elder Oaks became President Oaks as he was called to be a counselor in the First Presidency. At this time, I observed that there were some that felt that the counselor under President Monson that he was effectively replacing (Dieter F. Uchtdorf) was being demoted. However, when Uchtdorf “met with President Nelson, he recommended two other men to be counselors in the First Presidency. ‘Elder Oaks was one of my recommendations,’ he later explained.

‘Through the course of those interviews,’ President Nelson recounted, ‘it became very clear to me, as I prayed about it, that Dallin should be First Counselor because, upon my demise, he’s the next President of the Church. That’s the kindest thing I could do to the Church and for him…to give that exposure” (page 345).

As a member of the First Presidency,

“My understanding of the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ has increased enormously. As a judge, I applied mortal laws and penalties. In contrast, as I have reviewed the cases of persons who have sinned previously and now seek renewal in the Church, I have been awed by the love of God and His merciful forgiveness of those who repent and return to Him…. I have greatly increased in knowledge of and appreciation for the inspired service of the members of the Twelve, the Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric, our General Officers, and our local leaders…. I have grown in my testimony of the reality of revelation to our living prophet, President Russell M. Nelson” (page 368).

Describing the First Presidency meetings, he said they

“continue to be very revelatory for all three of us: open discussion of different points of view followed by sweet coming together in unity” (page 356).

On another occasion he wrote that

“The Lord is in charge, and with His direction we can make big changes” (pages 358-359).

Later he wrote, “President Nelson is receiving…inspiration, and it is always confirmed to President Eyring and me. Thrilling!” (page 359).

Changes in the ChurchSpeaking of the many changes that have been made by the First Presidency since it was formed, Oaks said to members in Arizona:

“Change is almost always exciting… But as I have thought about the many recent changes in the Church, I have felt some caution. The changes we have experienced in our Church meetings and policies should help us, but by themselves they won’t get our members to where our Heavenly Father wants us to be. The changes that make a difference to our position on the covenant path are not changes in Church policies or practices, but the changes we make in our own desires and actions” (page 361).

How the Book is OrganizedThe book goes through Oaks’ life chronologically until his calling as an apostle. At that point, it shifts into being arranged thematically. This includes a chapter devoted to his first wife. It’s followed by a chapter about his courtship and marriage to his second wife. The last three chapters cover his calling to the First Presidency and events leading up until the publishing of the book. A summary of the book can be found in the final chapter.

I would have preferred as much detail of his later life as there is of earlier parts of his life. But it’s understandable that many aspects of being an apostle and member of the First Presidency require confidentiality. (The author does explain this problem in the introduction.) The details that we are given are extremely interesting. I can see the value of arranging his apostolic ministry into themes. Many things would have been interwoven throughout multiple years otherwise.

I enjoyed this book so much that I gave a copy to my dad for his birthday. He read it and then bought a copy for his sister. President Oaks has truly lived a remarkable life. This book has inspired me to be a better person and increased my testimony of living prophets and apostles.

AuthorTrevor Holyoak is the Vice President of FAIR. He joined FAIR in 1997 and received the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award in 2014. Trevor graduated magna cum laude from Weber State University with a BS in computer science and now works as a programmer and systems administrator. Currently, he is currently serving as a young mens advisor in his ward. In his spare time, Trevor is also involved in the leadership of the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club. He and his wife have five children and live in Cedar Hills, Utah.

The post Book Review: “In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Your Body as a Temple: Surprising Lessons from the Kirtland Templeby Autumn Dickson

We have been asked to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. Oftentimes, I look at this from the perspective of studying the people who lived at the time of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. As I study the events surrounding the revelations, I am able to learn so much more about what the Lord is trying to teach. I am able to relate, if not in situation than in feeling, to these Saints and the Lord’s words answer me just as it answered them.

Though I often go through this process in relation to people, there is another way to liken the scriptures to us this week.

The Lord declares that our body is a temple. When He declares this, He implies many things. Our bodies are tabernacles through which we experience mortal life and the (hopefully) resulting spiritual growth. Our bodies can house the Spirit. We treat our bodies as a gift from the Lord.

What can we learn from Section 110 that teaches us even more about our bodies that were given to us by the Lord? I want to pull out a couple of phrases and ideas.

The first idea is that the Kirtland temple was unique amongst temples in this dispensation.

Traditionally, a temple in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a place where we go to receive further instruction and power by entering into covenants with the Lord. Interestingly enough, temples looked very different before the Lord came to fulfill His mortal ministry. Even in this dispensation, we have the Kirtland Temple. Within the Kirtland Temple, there was no baptismal font or rooms for sealings. There was no endowment. It looked like a church. There was a place for the congregants to sit, worship, learn, and sing. There was a pulpit.

This uniqueness holds many implications for our own bodies. The first implication I can think of is the progression of the gospel, or the idea of a living church. We believe that the church does change. The doctrine doesn’t change, but we grow closer and closer and closer to the truth. The Kirtland Temple was not completely ready to start performing additional ordinances en masse. Neither were the people ready en masse to receive that ordinance. It was a step in the right direction as the Lord continued to give further light and knowledge. We grow and progress and sacrifice and learn before we also receive further ordinances.

There were also three keys that were restored in the Kirtland temple. Moses came and gave the keys of the gathering of Israel. Elias came with the gospel of Abraham, and Elijah came to restore the sealing power. A grand majority of us will never hold those keys, male and female alike. However, those keys unlocked power for everyone there. One of those purposes of the Kirtland Temple was to create a place and a people who were prepared to receive these keys, and it worked. The Saints sacrificed and toiled, and it prepared their hearts to utilize the power that was unlocked from those keys.

And so we work and sacrifice and prepare ourselves to receive the power of those keys to the same extent that the Saints felt the power of those keys. Priesthood keys unlock power. The Lord wants these restored keys to unlock power in each of our lives. He wants us to experience the power of the Gathering of Israel. He wants us to understand what it means to be part of the family of Abraham. He wants us to be sealed together as part of His eternal family.

There are more phrases and implications, but I want to discuss one more verse.

Doctrine and Covenants 110:7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.

In verse 7, the Lord accepts His house and places His name upon it. He also promises to manifest Himself there. We looked to eventually be accepted of the Lord as we build and refine ourselves. We carry His name upon us. And then there is also the matter of the manifestation of the Lord.

The Lord visited the Kirtland temple as a fulfilment of the promise He made that He would enter into His house if the Saints would allow no unclean thing to enter therein. I believe the Lord is willing to reveal as much as we are willing to bear, including the manifestation of Himself, and so we utilize His atonement to be cleansed and we work on ourselves to be prepared to hold that responsibility.

I believe this has another implication. The Lord will manifest Himself to His people. Sometimes a manifestation of the Lord is not always the act of standing in His presence. Honestly, looking at a sunset is a manifestation of Him if we’re looking through spiritual eyes. I believe that we can manifest the Savior to others. He can visit His people through us as we work to lift where we stand. When I strengthen my husband, kiss my children, and love my friends, they are receiving miniscule doses of the Savior. We can be walking temples that house the Spirit and bring the Savior closer to everyone on this earth.

I testify that there are many reasons that the Lord described our bodies as temples. I testify that one of those reasons is because we can parallel temples in many regards. We can look to temples to better understand what the Lord has in store for us. We can look to temples to better understand what the Lord expects of us. I testify that He can sanctify our sacrifices and efforts and make us clean as we work to become a type of the House of the Lord.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 109-110 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What are Priesthood Keys?by Autumn Dickson

The Lord restored the priesthood to mankind some time ago, and yet, He did not reveal the structure in which He wanted everything to be organized. There were many who had received callings and knew their responsibilities, but putting it together in a structural whole would serve to provide organization so that the Lord’s house could be a house of order.

One of the organizational tools for the Lord’s priesthood is that of keys.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:8-9

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

9 The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

These verses are talking about rights. Verse 8 explains that the Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and the Presidency of the High Priesthood (or in our day, the First Presidency) has a right to officiate in any capacity in the church.

Here is a quote that connects the idea of rights to keys. Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “While all men hold the priesthood who are ordained to any office, yet there are special, or directing, authorities, bestowed upon those who are called to preside. These authorities are called keys.”

I’m going to zoom out a bit so that we can attempt to understand different aspects of the priesthood and organize it all.

First, we have the priesthood. The priesthood, in its simplest definition, is the power of God. It is the power by which He created. It is the power by which rules.

Second, there is the Melchizedek Priesthood. As stated in my previous video from this week, the Melchizedek Priesthood stands independent of any office or calling. In its simplest definition, it is the power of God that is given to man to further the work of salvation on the earth. In other words, it’s a portion of the priesthood power that is held by our Heavenly Father. He only gave us a portion of the power that we needed for this life.

Third, there is the Aaronic Priesthood. This is actually not a separate priesthood from the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It was another way of organizing the priesthood and delegating responsibilities.

Fourth, there are priesthood ordinations and offices. When men come of age, they are ordained to the priesthood and progress through priesthood offices. Different priesthood offices delegate different priesthood responsibilities. Quick tangent. Only men are ordained to the priesthood, but women can utilize the priesthood without being ordained. The Lord has still not answered why He has chosen this path or whether it’s doctrine or policy. There are plenty of theories, but the Lord has not chosen to explain it.

And the last thing I want to talk about today: priesthood keys. Priesthood keys take priesthood offices just a tiny step further. Priesthood keys are the right to govern. You can hold a priesthood office without holding any keys. You can hold the office of Elder or High Priest but not have any keys with which to direct the work. You simply have responsibilities to function underneath those keys. The church website teaches us which offices and leaders hold keys.

Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold all the keys necessary for governing the Church. Only the President of the Church has the right to exercise all of those keys. He delegates these keys to others who preside in the Church—temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents, including deacons and teachers quorum presidents.

Oftentimes these keys are to overlook specific responsibilities and geographical jurisdictions. They eventually trace back to the prophet, and ultimately, to the Savior, Himself.

When I think of keys, I think of unlocking rooms. Let’s pretend that God’s various works (including those not directly associated with the earth) are a giant castle. Different rooms hold different responsibilities and powers that the Lord governs.

The Lord has given a grouping of rooms to the President of the Church on earth, or the prophet. When the Lord gave the prophet the keys, a couple of things happened. He gave the prophet a stewardship. The prophet is now in charge of making sure that what occurs in those rooms are in alignment with what the Lord would have occurring in those rooms.

But as the church grew bigger, it became very difficult for one prophet to oversee so many rooms and consequent responsibilities so he started delegating keys. The prophet can still access any of these rooms and perform responsibilities associated with those rooms, but he often chooses, delegates, and allows other leaders to perform their responsibilities without too much interference.

A mission president is over a room of missionaries found within a geographical area. If a mission president is called over the Salt Lake City North mission, he has no jurisdiction over any other missionaries than the one in his mission. He also doesn’t hold authority over the members. His specific room is for the missionaries.

The same idea goes to temple presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and quorum leaders. Eventually these men get released from their callings and they hand their keys back to be given to a new leader.

As I said previously, the person who holds the key for a specific room is in charge of making sure that everything that occurs in that room aligns with the Lord. Are ordinances being performed correctly? Is the doctrine kept pure from apostasy? Keeping a massive, worldwide church on track is no easy task. Keys help to make sure that the Lord’s church is the same everywhere.

It is also important to note that you don’t need keys to help push the work further along. Though a leader is chosen to hold the keys, all of us have access to God’s priesthood power to make a difference. We can’t get caught up in the idea of leadership. Christ’s example of leadership should give us a real taste of what it means to govern. You don’t have to be a leader to access power or even change the world.

Interestingly enough, I don’t know if priesthood keys are doctrine or policy. If anyone does know, please feel free to comment. I don’t know if keys exist independently or if the Lord created the priesthood organizational system, and the keys were part of the system that He created. I don’t know if keys were just meant to help create a house of order or if they belong to the category of doctrine in which they don’t really get changed.

This post definitely was definitely more informational than some of my other posts, but being able to zoom out and understand some of the basic organizations of God’s priesthood has also helped me better understand my own priesthood responsibilities. It helps me understand the access I have to priesthood power, not just in the form of receiving blessings but also the power I am capable of wielding to further the work of salvation.

There is beauty in the fact that the Lord knows what He’s doing. There is beauty in knowing that there is truth, and I can trust that truth to remain pure no matter where I go and attend church services. The Lord has achieved an incredible amount of unity and continuity in a worldwide church that many world leaders only dream of.

As we come closer and closer to a knowledge of Christ’s character, we receive more and more salvation. We experience more happiness. That’s why the keys are so essential. It keeps our knowledge of Christ accurate and enables us to remain close to Him through the ordinances that He put forth.

I am grateful for a Lord who is wise enough to set up His church as He did. I’m grateful that despite all the imperfections of mankind, He has done a phenomenal job of keeping His truths and ordinances pure so that we can draw as close to Him as possible. I testify that the priesthood is ultimately His to delegate, and that He offers His power to anyone who is worthy and willing. I also testify that He set up a priesthood organization in which He delegated certain responsibilities to push us to become better and keep things as close to the truth as humanly possible.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 106-108 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Prevail Against Mine Enemiesby Autumn Dickson

The Saints were driven from their homes and living as refugees in Clay County, Missouri. Joseph Smith and other church leaders received letters with news regarding what had happened. Besides the letters, Joseph also received a revelation from the Lord with this declaration:

Doctrine and Covenants 103:6 Behold they shall, for I have decreed it, begin to prevail against mine enemies from this very hour.

The Lord declares that the Saints will begin to succeed over His enemies immediately. This likely brought great hope to those who were worried about the redemption of what was meant to be Zion. As Joseph and other leaders gathered Zion’s camp to go and win back the Saints’ lands, I’m sure they were full of faith that the Lord would help them restore the Saints back to their homes.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), Zion’s camp was disbanded. The Saints lived in Clay County and then Caldwell County before being ultimately expelled approximately five years later. They never made it back to their homes in Jackson County where Zion was supposed to be.

Some would argue that they did not succeed against their enemies. Then again, perhaps they were succeeding against the Lord’s enemies. And who is truly the Lord’s enemy? Satan.

It brings to mind different stories from the scriptures.

The Lord commanded Nephi to go and get the brass plates. It took multiple tries before Nephi succeeded against Laban, but what did Nephi learn as he “failed” first? The growth that Nephi received must have been a true victory for the Lord.

The Lord commanded Moses to go and save the Israelites. Plague after plague seemed to fail in softening Pharaoh’s heart. What did the Israelites learn in the meantime as things actually grew progressively harder for them at first? What did they learn as they looked back upon the fact that things were difficult before they were free?

And then of course, the most important battle that ever occurred.

Christ suffered in Gethsemane, and no mortal man watched. He was taken by soldiers, tortured, and then killed. Not exactly a resounding victory to anyone objectively looking from the outside. He rose three days later, and yet, that was only part of the victory. The victory was found in His resurrection, but the victory was also found within His pain and death.

Interestingly enough, the Jews were looking for a Savior to free them from the Romans, and so they completely missed the mark of what would be the most important victory in their unending lives.

What does victory look like to the Lord? His ways are not our ways, and so we can assume that the Saints were likely mistaken when He declared that they would prevail over their enemies and they got excited that they would be restored to their homes in Jackson County.

Some of my most important victories have occurred in what would objectively be seen as losing a battle by the world.

There was a time when my husband’s chosen career path was being taken away from him by lies. I remember watching it all unfolding, and I remember retiring to my room and praying. I told the Lord I knew how powerful He was. We were scrambling to find alternate solutions to keep things on track, but nothing was looking super promising. I pleaded with the Lord to stop the man who was lying and to stop the men who were acting because of those lies. I told the Lord that I knew He was more powerful and could open a door that we didn’t know about and stop everything in its tracks. I knew it would be easy for Him to save us.

I also distinctly remember the Spirit whispering that I should stop praying for that. At that moment, I knew we would “lose.”

Of course, those moments of loss marked the beginning of much more important victories in our lives. The Lord has been merciful in helping me see that our loss led to my husband being placed on a path that would ultimately lead him towards fulfilling the promises he made before he came here. That loss made him grow. It made me grow. Despite all worldly signs pointing to the opposite, I count it as a great victory.

As those Saints struggled along the banks of the river, as they fought persecution for years to come, as they found themselves ultimately driven out, and as they were pushed thousands of miles west, they were finding a victory much more important than land. Within these darkest moments, the Lord was winning His most important victories.

I testify of a Lord who knows what He is talking about and fulfills all His words. I testify that Zion will be redeemed one day, and that the Saints will return there. I also testify that the Lord was beginning His victory against His enemies in the moment He declared so. I testify that He is mighty to save, and I testify that He utilizes our dark moments as part of that victory.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 102-105 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Did the Lord Fail?by Autumn Dickson

To give a bit of content for what we’re reading about this week, the Saints have been driven from their homes in Missouri, and Joseph Smith received a revelation that talked about gathering a group of Saints to go and win back their homes. After marching towards Jackson County, the camp was actually disbanded.

Doctrine and Covenants 105:13 Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion.

The Lord called off what the Saints believed to be the original purpose of the Zion’s camp: redeeming the Saints’ lands in Missouri. Here is a bit of what the Lord said about His true purpose.

Doctrine and Covenants 105:19 …and it is expedient in me that they should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith.

There are two ways that the Saints could have their faith built during this experience. The first way is how to stick around when the going gets tough.

Being a part of Zion’s Camp was not an easy thing. It was hot and muggy. Food and water could be scarce. There was disease, and members of Zion’s camp even died of cholera on this expedition that did not provide the results that many Saints looked for.

One of the characteristics the Lord is trying to instill and test us in is the idea that we will follow Him. Truly follow Him, not just rewards.

In the New Testament, many followers left when they realized that He wasn’t going to keep miraculously giving out bread. Interestingly enough, the bread was a distraction from the most important, life-changing aspects of following Christ. They couldn’t see the miracle of who Christ was because they were too distracted by their want of bread. Never mind that Christ had performed an incredible miracle and dispersed an immense amount of food. The people in the New Testament were too distracted by the fact that their bread stopped to remember that He had done something powerful in their lives. They were too distraught by the lack of bread to stick around and wonder if there was something more powerful at work.

The Lord doesn’t want obedient dogs. He didn’t keep giving out bread just to keep people coming back. He wants the loyalty and love of His people through anything. He doesn’t want to give us a treat every time we show up. He wants us to truly follow Him through thick and thin. He wants us to trust Him when the treat doesn’t immediately appear. He wants us to choose to love Him and follow Him through difficulty just as He followed us through difficulty. The only way that He can instill and test this aspect of faith is to allow us to face incredible obstacles and choose Him.

Trials can try the faith. When you’re trying to fulfill the Lord’s commands and there are obstacles, it can lead you to wonder whether you’re truly fulfilling the Lord’s commands. Understanding the purpose of mortal life can help us understand the irreplaceable effect of trials. The Lord needed to try us or we would never be able to grow into what we needed to become. Trials are not just a punishment; trials are also to help the righteous grow. We cannot afford to see them as proof that the Lord is not with us otherwise it completely prevents us from accessing a level of growth that is completely necessary.

But this experience wasn’t just about trials. There was a second way that this experience could make or break the faith of the Saints.

This faith-shaking experience was not just about a difficult trip; it was about the fact that the trip seemed unsuccessful. This could easily call Joseph’s prophetic call into question, and it did. This experience caused many to wonder, and yet, it did the exact opposite for others. In the Come Follow Me manual we read, “Faithful members of Zion’s Camp, many of whom later became leaders of the Church, testified that the experience deepened their faith in God’s power, in Joseph Smith’s divine call, and in Zion—not just Zion the place but Zion the people of God.”

It deepened their faith in God’s power and Joseph Smith’s divine calling as prophet. From the world’s perspective, this is ridiculous. Why would you believe more in the God that is being preached to you when He couldn’t deliver on His promises? Why would you believe more in Joseph’s calling at the end of this? The idea that the Lord was trying to create a Zion-like people may feel like a thinly-veiled excuse for bailing after the governor rescinded his promise to send a militia to aid the Saints. Why on earth should we believe and continue to follow?

Exploring this concept is important because there are plenty of aspects in the church that don’t make sense from a worldly perspective. There are revelations that seem like sad excuses. For example, the Lord rescinded His command for polygamy when the United States threatened to take away everything that was beloved by the church and Saints. If the Lord is so powerful and if He is truly leading His Saints along through a prophet, why did He bail on Zion’s Camp? Why did He continue to enforce polygamy until the going got too tough?

When it comes to the gospel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make things make sense from a worldly perspective. Faith precedes understanding. It is impossible to convince someone of Joseph’s prophetic call. If you try to explain that the Lord was trying to build a Zion-people rather than being concerned about the land, they will laugh in your face.

When it comes to the gospel, your testimony cannot form from the idea that it has to make sense before you choose to believe. Sooner or later, you are going to come across something that doesn’t come together in your mind. You are going to come across principles, policies, or history that feel like they create cognitive dissonance in your mind.

It would seem like the Lord would try to avoid these faith-shaking experiences altogether. He’s trying to build our faith. Why would He allow it to be shaken after this manner?

Interestingly enough, the only way to build a truly strong faith is to let it be shaken. Faith is not knowing everything. Faith is choosing to trust when we don’t know.

The Lord wants to take our testimony from, “I know the Lord leads His church today because He made this miracle happen,” to, “I know the Lord leads His church today, and I will follow Him through hell if He calls me to do so.” When we can unlock that second level of faith, we become powerful disciples. We find a new level of salvation when we find that trust and relinquish our need to control and understand everything.

How do we make that jump in faith? How did the members of the Zion’s Camp come out of this experience with stronger faith rather than weaker faith?

I’m sure there are many answers, but I can only truly share my own.

I talk to God, and He answers. For me, that is the single largest portion of my testimony.

I have had experiences where I have looked back in awe at how the Lord made everything come together for me. I was amazed when I saw how He manipulated details from the years before to help everything stitch together and help me come out on top. Those are faith-building experiences. They helped me grow in my faith.

But they no longer define my faith. I am immensely grateful for those experiences. I cannot begin to describe how grateful I am to look back and see how the Lord saved me because He has indeed saved me. I am grateful, but they do not define my faith.

My faith has shifted. I talk to Him on a regular basis, and He answers, and I will not deny it. When things don’t go as planned, when I feel confused, when something new comes along that makes me wonder if I’m on the right track, I talk to Him and He answers. Regardless of whether He chooses to give me a new perspective or help me understand something, I have talked with Him enough that I trust Him. He is my Friend. He has shown me His power enough, and I will follow Him.

I have had enough experiences with Him to hold on, and I am happier since I have let go and chosen to trust Him through anything. I testify that when you choose to keep at it and continue to follow this path that has been presented to you, you will find the same results. In fact, you will be grateful that He allowed you the experience of questioning and finding Him again and again.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 102-105 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

To Become Like Himby Autumn Dickson

We read about many stories in the scriptures where someone is a type of Christ. We seek to be a type of Christ. We seek to pattern our lives after Him. There is a verse in Doctrine and Covenants that puts forth a similar idea.

Doctrine and Covenants 101:4 Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.

In the story of Abraham and Isaac, Isaac is a type of Christ who was willing to follow his father’s will. And though we often speak of people being a type of Christ, it’s interesting to me how Abraham was able to be a type of Heavenly Father. He was willing to sacrifice his son if that’s what was required.

The Saints in Missouri at this time were driven out of their homes and were camped out on the river in the cold. Approximately 200 of their homes had been burned down, and many had lost all. They had not been asked to sacrifice their son, but they had been asked to sacrifice something they had longed for – a safe home.

Why would the Lord ask His people to sacrifice these things? Why would He ask Abraham to sacrifice his son? Why would He allow the Saints to be tried in this manner? As the Saints continue to flee persecution in this time period, many will lose more than homes.

Why does the Lord take away so much and ask us to love Him anyway?

Let’s explore it.

We are meant to be more than a type of Christ. We are meant to be more than a type of Heavenly Father. We are meant to become like Them. We are meant to inherit what They have. We are meant to inherit Their characteristics, who They are.

Our Heavenly Parents cannot allow us to inherit all that They have without us being prepared to act responsibly.

The Lord allowed the Saints to be expelled from Missouri because they were not spiritually prepared to build up Zion, and they would not become spiritually prepared by remaining there. Zion would have been forever lost if the Lord allowed anyone to live there just as heaven would be lost if He was not willing to make the necessary judgment calls. In order to preserve Zion, in order to preserve heaven, the Savior had to be willing to make the difficult decision.

Why does He ask us to sacrifice so much? Because we have to be like Him; we have to be prepared to make difficult decisions. We have to be tried to the extent that we are willing to sacrifice as Abraham was willing to sacrifice. If we are not prepared to live like Him and if He chose to allow us to inherit all that He has anyway, we would destroy heaven when we couldn’t make the difficult decisions that He has to make. When we have to watch our own children experiencing mortality, will we be strong enough to allow them to struggle and strive in order to become all they’re capable of becoming? Will we love them enough to let them suffer if it is the only means by which they can eventually reach a full happiness? If not, the Lord has to be willing to withhold some of His blessings in the next life. He has to be willing to sacrifice all that He had in mind for us if we are not prepared to receive it.

Despite His willingness to make those decisions, make no mistake; it was difficult for the Lord to watch His Saints on the bank of that river. It hurts Him to watch us suffer.

Doctrine and Covenants 101:9 Verily I say unto you, notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them. I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember my mercy.

He loves us. He, more than anyone, loves us. And this is precisely why He requires so much sacrifice of us.

Going back to the original verse in this post, we read that the Saints have to be chastened and tried even as Abraham. The word “chasten” means to correct or to discipline. We’ve heard that definition many times. I was interested to learn that “chasten” also means to “have a restraining or moderating effect on.” It implies the idea of subduing intense feelings. This definition makes a lot of sense when I think of Heavenly Father having to sacrifice His Beloved Son. He had to subdue His intense love for His Son on behalf of the rest of us; there was no other way. And then He also needed to not hate the rest of mankind for requiring such a sacrifice.

That’s what we have to become. We have to be willing to sacrifice and continue to love those around us because that’s what our Heavenly Father is. That’s what our Savior is. It is the only kind of Being that can truly live an eternally joyful life.

To recap, our Heavenly Father loves us dearly. We are His children. He was willing to sacrifice His Son on our behalf, and He was willing to love the rest of mankind that required that sacrifice. It was the only way He could save us. He was willing to watch His Saints sit on the river banks in the dead of winter for their own behalf. It was the only way He could save us. He had to subdue His intense feelings of love in order to help us reach the greatest good. More accurately, He had to subdue the intense desire to shield us because He loves us.

If we want to receive all that He has, we have to hold those same characteristics. The only way we can gain those kinds of characteristics is in real-life practice. And so the Lord allows us to be chastened and tried even as Abraham, and we get to see whether we’re willing to endure chastening and still love Him afterwards. We cannot learn the importance of these lessons unless we live them.

I testify of a Lord and Savior who loves us so much that He is willing to subdue His strong inclinations to protect us in order to help us become all that we are capable of becoming. I testify that all that we suffer can one day contribute to the glory He intends to give. I testify that loving Him for what He gives and loving Him for what He chooses to take away can bring the greatest peace, happiness, and joy.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 98-101 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Lord’s people & secular governmentsby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

In March 1907, the First Presidency issued a proclamation affirming that the Church is politically neutral, and that the state should not control the church, neither should the church control the state: “An Address: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the World,”, Improvement Era 10, no. 5 (May 1907): 492–93.
Today’s First Presidency has continued to reaffirm this policy; see “Political Neutrality,” Newsroom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Spencer W. Kimball, “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, June 1976, 3–6. President Kimball’s First Presidency message, criticizing militarism among Latter-day Saints, was published one month before the commemoration of the United States bicentennial.
Rodney Stark, “The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History,” PBS Frontline: From Jesus to Christ, April 1998. Stark, a world-renowned sociologist of religion, argues that what made early Christianity unique—and one reason why it prospered and became a world religion—was because it “taught that mercy is one of the primary virtues—that a merciful God requires humans to be merciful.”

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 98–99, 102, 106, 108, 134 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In Peace and Troubleby Autumn Dickson

The Saints in Missouri were experiencing tremendous persecution at this time. The leaders of the mob wanted the Saints to promise that they would leave Missouri by spring, and they wanted the Saints to promise it within 15 minutes of demanding that they do so. The situation was tricky. The Lord had commanded them to build up Zion, but the opportunity to do so was being taken forcefully out of their hands.

How would you have responded? You’ve been commanded to build up Zion, but you’re still finding yourself under the influence of evil men. The Lord is all-powerful and able to defend you against all your enemies, but He’s been pretty quiet.

When the leaders didn’t immediately promise that they would leave, the violence escalated. Property was destroyed. People were attacked. The leaders finally relented and promised to leave.

I’m not sure how many of us have been threatened with bodily harm if we do not relent following the commandments, but the Lord often allows obstacles to arise to oppose us as we try to follow His commandments. So what do you do?

The Lord recommends this course of action.

Doctrine and Covenants 98:1-2

1 Verily I say unto you my friends, fear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks;

2 Waiting patiently on the Lord, for your prayers have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded with this seal and testament—the Lord hath sworn and decreed that they shall be granted.

Fear not. Be comforted. Rejoice. Give thanks. Wait on the Lord.

Let’s talk about the first three together. Fear not; be comforted; rejoice.

Whenever I’ve felt commanded by the Lord to do something and it’s not working out, my main fear has become that I’m not doing enough to follow through on the Lord’s commands. I think of Nephi. If the Lord commands it, then it’s going to happen. So am I not being faithful enough? I worry that the Lord is upset with me or that I’m not being good enough.

Since then, I have learned that if I am putting forth an honest effort, I don’t need to be afraid of the Lord being angry. Nephi didn’t obtain the brass plates the first time despite his tremendous faith. The Lord wasn’t punishing him; He wasn’t upset with Nephi. Sometimes, the Lord simply doesn’t allow us to succeed the first time despite His ability to help us succeed the first time. It’s not because our faith is insufficient to bring the miracle immediately; it’s because true faith is acquired and shown when we keep at it after it didn’t work out the first time.

We do not have to be afraid that the Lord isn’t powerful enough to follow through. We do not have to be afraid we’re innately insufficient to fulfill what He has asked. We do not have to be afraid when it doesn’t work out how we were expecting. We do not have to be afraid that the Lord is angry with us because it doesn’t feel like it’s immediately coming together.

We can choose to trust the Lord so completely that we feel comforted and rejoice in His yet-to-be-fulfilled promises. If He promised it, it’s happening even if it takes a little while.

So fear not. Be comforted. Rejoice.

His next piece of advice is to give thanks. Interestingly enough, giving thanks is one practical way to help ourselves get to the point where we can set aside our fears, allow ourselves to be comforted, and rejoice. “Giving thanks” isn’t an “end;” it’s a journey that takes us to our desired end: peace and joy in Christ. We thank Him for the times He has shown up before. We thank Him that nothing in this life can take away our happy ending. We thank Him that despite our own imperfections, He is mighty to save. As we reflect and find gratitude for Him and His choices, we find that comfort and joy.

And as we rejoice, we show up diligently doing our best and wait on Him to come and do His own work on His own timetable. Waiting on Him is His last piece of advice.

If you were a leader in Missouri at this time, the right course of action is to wait on the Lord. We read about stories in the scriptures where the Lord fights all the battles for His people. We read about stories where the Lord commands His people to flee. We read about stories where He allows them to be attacked regardless of whether they were being righteous because sometimes He simply allows His children to be tried.

We might not be sure which scenario the Lord is going for, and so we wait on Him to answer and do the best we can in the meantime because He doesn’t always answer immediately even when the situation feels dire. We choose to trust the Lord in times of plenty and in times of scarcity. We rejoice in His wisdom in what He allows to come to pass, and we wait for all He’s promised.

I testify of a Lord who is all-powerful to save, but I also testify of a Lord who doesn’t step in to stop every tragedy. I testify of a Lord who has a plan even if He doesn’t reveal it immediately. I testify of a Lord who we can trust in, and I testify that if we trust in Him, we will find comfort and peace even when the situation is trying to pummel us with the opposite. We can set aside our fears, allow ourselves to be comforted, give thanks for however He chooses to let things play out, and we wait.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 98-101 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Kirtland Templeby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Elwin C. Robison, The First Mormon Temple: Design, Construction, and Historic Context of the Kirtland Temple (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1997). For this book, Robison thoroughly investigated the temple architecture and structure, integrating that information with historic photographs and documents.
“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve,” Improvement Era 19, no. 10 (August 1916): 934–42. This official declaration firmly rooted the identification of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, with Jesus Christ. Prior to this, the name-title Jehovah was used by Latter-day Saints to indicate either the Father or the Son (as seen in section 109).
These two articles explore the identity of the figure of Elias who appeared in the Kirtland Temple on 3 April 1836 (D&C 110:12): Kevin Barney, “Who was the Elias of D&C 110?,” By Common Consent, 2 March 2006; Samuel Brown, “The Prophet Elias Puzzle,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 1–17.
Trever Anderson, “Doctrine and Covenants Section 110: From Vision to Canonization,” master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, July 2010. Anderson explores how the account of the appearances of Christ, Moses, Elias, and Elijah was recorded, taught, and eventually canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 2, 94–97, 109–110 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Building the Templeby Autumn Dickson

One of the most impressive accomplishments made by the early Saints of this dispensation was to build the Kirtland temple. Many Saints didn’t have much to begin with, and many of them abandoned what they had in order to gather in Kirtland, Ohio. Brigham Young recorded that some of the workers didn’t have shoes.

But the temple was a requirement of the Lord, and He strongly reiterated His command to build one.

Doctrine and Covenants 97:10 Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.

The Lord wanted His house built, and He wanted it according to His own plans.

In the book Saints, we learn that, “Lucy Mack Smith remembered a council meeting in which it was decided that a frame building would be too expensive; a log house was proposed instead. Joseph Smith reminded them ‘that they were not making a house for themselves or any other man but a house for God.’ He said, “And shall we, brethren, build a house for Our God of logs? No, brethren, I have a better plan than that. I have the plan of the house of the Lord given by himself.”

Sometimes the Lord gives us a task, and we want to use logs. It’s practical to use logs. It’s cheaper. You can do basically the same thing with logs. If you use logs, then you can use other resources for other important tasks. And yet, sometimes the Lord asks for stone anyway.

Why does the Lord require stone? Judging from what we know about Him, I wouldn’t say it’s because He’s got an ego and refuses to take less. It’s not because He wants us to spend as much as we can on Him. Honestly, it’s not really about Him.

My mother always taught me that serving someone helps you love them. The world often thinks that love stems from someone treating you right and saying all the perfect things, but it’s not true. That can help the process, but real, lasting love comes when you choose to serve someone else before yourself. We see this process occur constantly with mothers and children.

When the Saints left Kirtland, they were devastated to lose their temple so quickly after dedicating it. Some might argue that it was cruel for the Lord to ask for those sacrifices when He knew that they would be driven out shortly after. Some might question Joseph’s connection to heaven; how come he didn’t know they would lose the temple? Why would he waste so many resources when they could have saved and built a temple in a more permanent home?

But it’s not really about the building!

Imagine for a moment that the Lord told the Saints that they could build a log cabin instead of the mighty temple that they built. I understand that I’m making assumptions here, but I’m also making assumptions off of normal human nature. If the Saints had built their temple from logs, I imagine the Saints looking back in devastation over their homes rather than the temple as they were driven out. I’m sure many Saints mourned their homes AND the stone temple, but if the temple had been constructed of logs, I imagine very few of them would have missed it in the same manner.

Why do I make these assumptions?

Because we see it all the time in our day. I am grateful for the temple, but I don’t think I appreciate it on the same level as someone who has saved and worked and waited for the opportunity to travel hundreds of miles in order to go and take out their endowment and be sealed to their families. It is actually more difficult for me to prepare my heart for the temple in comparison to someone who has had to work so hard for it. Ironic, right?

The Saints mourned the temple they had worked so hard for because the Saints loved the temple and what it gave them. The Saints appreciated what they were given there because they dedicated so much to it. It was difficult to leave it behind, but that’s precisely the type of heart the Lord was looking to nurture. Though they mourned that magnificent building they had sacrificed for, the Lord rejoiced over how their hearts had turned towards what He was offering them. He rejoiced that requiring stone gave them the opportunity to give over their hearts bit by bit. It enabled the process by which they could more fully appreciate the ordinances therein.

The Lord wants us to love Him more than anything else. He wants us to love Him more than anything earthly and sometimes developing that kind of love requires an opportunity for us to choose Him over earthly things. What do we really prioritize? What do we really value? You can’t truly know until it’s asked of you. And if it frustrates you that the Lord would ask you to sacrifice, then you probably love what you’re sacrificing more than you love the Lord. Hence, He asks us to sacrifice. He wants our hearts.

The Lord can endow us with power in a log cabin, but preparing our hearts to love and receive and honor requires more. He can’t force us to love Him. He has to give us opportunities to build that love and then hope we take advantage of it.

I testify of a loving and wise Heavenly Father. I testify that He does ask for sacrifice, not because He can’t provide enough resources and make the process easy but because it’s difficult to hand over our hearts when we don’t have to lose anything for it. He gave us agency, and He refuses to take it away. So instead of taking away our agency and forcing us to “love” Him, He provides us with opportunities to decide whether we’re going to choose Him.

I testify that choosing Him is worth it. I’ve never had to sacrifice much to attend the temple, but I have had to sacrifice things I love to put Him first. It has been worth it every time. Even when those sacrifices didn’t seem to amount to anything, they pushed my heart towards the Lord and that’s the most important thing. I’m so grateful He gives me opportunities to choose Him and love Him. I rejoice in it.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 94-97 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2025 conference held earlier this month. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming.

This audio podcast version has been edited to make it easier for listening. If you would like to watch the full presentation, it is available here.

Daniel C. Peterson is the president of the Interpreter Foundation, which publishes the online periodical Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, produces books, convenes conferences, and sponsors a weekly radio program: https://interpreterfoundation.org. He and his wife were the executive producers of the 2021 theatrical film Witnesses and have served in the same capacity for its 2022 docudrama sequel, Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

A native of southern California who earned his doctorate at UCLA after study at BYU, in Jerusalem, and in Cairo, he retired on 1 July 2021 as a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, where he had taught since 1985.

Formerly director of research and chairman of the board of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), now BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, he is also a former president of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology and is currently a member of the board of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.

Dr. Peterson served in the Switzerland Zürich Mission (1972-1974), and, for approximately eight years, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also presided for a time as the bishop of a singles ward adjacent to Utah Valley University.

He is married to the former Deborah Stephens, of Lakewood, Colorado, and they have three sons and three granddaughters.

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #83 – Daniel C. Peterson, “Brigham Young and Slavery” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Word of Wisdom (D&C section 89)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Paul H. Peterson and Ronald W. Walker, “Brigham Young’s Word of Wisdom Legacy,” BYU Studies 42, no. 3–4 (2003): 29–64.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 89 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

For the Weakest Saintby Autumn Dickson

The Word of Wisdom is a gift. Some view this advice as ridiculous and unnecessary. Honestly, it reminds me of when my son thinks it’s ridiculous and unnecessary for him to wear shoes and a helmet when he rides his dirt bike. Sure, he may ride his dirt bike and never get seriously injured. Maybe it even feels better to ride his dirt bike without a helmet, but it is worth protecting yourself.

As I read the Word of Wisdom this week, this verse stuck out to me.

Doctrine and Covenants 89:3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

The Word of Wisdom, our health law given from God, was “adapted to the capacity of the weakest of all saints.” If the Lord adapted it, it means that He “made something suitable for a new purpose.” The Lord modified the Word of Wisdom so that the weakest saints would be capable of following it. The Lord did this in a couple of ways.

The first interpretation was the fact that the Word of Wisdom did not originally come as a commandment. In 1833, it was given to the Saints as some strong advice, as a revelation filled with wisdom. In 1882, the Lord told John Taylor that the Word of Wisdom was to be formally recognized as a commandment. In 1919, Heber J. Grant made it a requirement for the temple recommend. The Lord could have come out and made it a commandment immediately, but there were many people who were addicted to these substances. So the Lord adapted the law for His vulnerable saints. He changed it to start out as advice so that the people could become prepared to live it before it would condemn them.

Though this section is about the Word of Wisdom, this idea of adaptation from the Lord has numerous implications. One of those implications is the fact that the Lord is willing to meet us where we’re at and work with us until we’re where He wants us to be. He knows we’re imperfect and weak. He adapts on a societal level such as when He installed the Law of Moses to give the Israelites a step up towards His higher law. He also adapts on an individual level where He chooses to look at the bigger picture, unafraid of our mistakes along the way.

I had a dear friend who was overcoming a serious, serious pornography addiction. Addiction is definitely a spectrum, and he was thoroughly enmeshed. He didn’t have much support at home and had started extremely young. If I remember correctly, he found himself entrapped in pornography even before the age of accountability. In many ways, he was on his own to overcome it. And without support, especially as a young kid, overcoming it was going to be difficult (to put it lightly).

He had some wonderful youth leaders who took him in. One of those leaders was inspired by God to help him change his goals in relation to pornography. Because he was so deeply addicted, she recommended taking baby steps. Instead of trying to cut everything out and move on, she recommended starting with smaller goals that would eventually build to that ultimate goal.

His first goal was to make it an hour without looking at some version of pornography. That goal would build to 24 hours. Eventually he would make it to a week, a month, a year. She didn’t worry about what he would pull up at the end of that hour when he had reached his small goal. Rather, she gave him baby steps to work towards that law.

As we speak of adapting, I worry that this could sometimes get taken out of context and used as justification. Adaptation and justification are not the same thing. The entire point of adaptation on the part of the Lord is to help us step towards exaltation. The Law of Moses was definitely a step down from the law Christ wanted to give the Israelites, and yet, it was a step in the correct direction. This is not about justifying our sins or changing the law because we think we’re too weak. It’s about setting ourselves up for eventual success in following the Lord.

The Lord did not give the Word of Wisdom as a full-on commandment in the beginning because He needed to adapt it for those who were already addicted.

There is also a second interpretation of adaptation that I find important. I want to teach this second perspective by jumping back to that original analogy I used with my son and his helmet.

We have a rule in our home that you wear your helmet when you go out on the dirt bike. Imagine if our house rule was actually, “You don’t have to wear a helmet if you’re really strong and talented. Only the weakest family members need to wear a helmet.” There are a few problems that could arise.

First of all, none of my kids would classify themselves as weak riders, not even the four year old. I might as well not bring up the helmets at all. Secondly, even the strongest riders can make mistakes. No matter how strong and talented you are, a blow to the head can cause serious and permanent damage.

The Lord created the Word of Wisdom to protect the weakest of Saints, but He asked all of us to live it because He’s wise enough to know that none of us would classify ourselves as weak. We all think we would be strong enough to use dangerous substances wisely, and there would be significantly more problems. I’m not just talking about addiction. I’m also talking about the kinds of problems that arise within families when inhibitions have been dampened and lines are crossed.

This concept also extends to the idea of the strongest members running into issues. Even if you’re spiritually strong and only utilize substances at certain times, you are still leaving yourself incredibly vulnerable to others with bad intentions. Even the strongest can take a “blow to the head” when they are not adequately mentally present to protect themselves.

The Lord knows that experiences with substances do not always lead to destroyed lives, but the Lord is also wise enough to know that it causes enough pain and destruction to just avoid it altogether. He adapted these principles for the weakest of saints, but these principles protect all of us.

I testify of a Lord who is wise enough and cares enough to get involved and help us stay away from compromising and dangerous situations. I testify of a Lord who wants us to be safe and even though He desires a world where the most vulnerable are protected, I testify that He’s smart enough to know that’s not the world we live in yet. For now, we need these rules to keep us safe and help us protect ourselves more fully. Some see the Word of Wisdom as a desire to control. I see a wise and loving Father who is just trying to help His children live life more fully and healthy. I’m grateful for His protections and sage advice.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 89-92 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

“I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church” by Davis Bitton at the 2004 FAIR ConferenceI don’t have a testimony of the history of the Church. That is why I can be a historian and also a believing Latter-day Saint. I will expand on this idea, but first let me address some related questions.

Do all well-informed historians become anti-Mormons?

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of Church history and–shock and dismay!–they came across this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the Church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.

Let’s get one thing clear: There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our Church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Classic FAIR – I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church – Davis Bitton, 2004 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

“The Olive Leaf”; the divine natures of God and man (D&C sections 88, 93)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Diana L. Mahony and Marla D. Corson, “Light-Mindedness versus Lightheartedness: Conflicting Conceptions of Laughter among Latter-day Saints,” BYU Studies 42, no. 2 (2003): 115–29.
Kenneth W. Godfrey, “The History of Intelligence in Latter-day Saint Thought,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University, 1989), 213–36.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants sections 88, 93 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Prophecy of war; expulsion from Independence; Zion’s Camp (D&C sections 87, 90, 100–101, 103, 105)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Elder Graham W. Doxey, “Missouri Myths,” Ensign, April 1979, pp. 64–66. Brother Doxey, who had been president of the Missouri Independence Mission (1973–1976), explored some of the “urban legends” about Missouri that persist among Latter-day Saints.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 87, 90, 100–101, 103, 105 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Holy Places and Taresby Autumn Dickson

I want to talk about two different themes from the sections assigned this week, standing in holy places and the parable of the wheat and tares. I’m not sure whether the Lord purposefully put these two themes right next to each other, but now it’s caught my attention and won’t leave me alone. Here are just a couple of excerpts from the Lord regarding these themes.

In the parable of the wheat and tares, the Lord says this.

Doctrine and Covenants 86:6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

In the parable of the wheat and tares, the wheat are the righteous and the tares are the wicked. Many biblical scholars believe that the tares are darnell, a plant that looks incredibly similar to wheat until it’s fully grown. Only at the last day are they divided, after what they truly are comes to fruition.

Then the Lord prophesies of immense war through Joseph Smith before teaching us this:

Doctrine and Covenants 87:8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

In Section 86, we learn that we will be surrounded by the wicked and the righteous until the day of the Lord.

In Section 87, He tells His Saints that they should stand in holy places until the day of the Lord.

Even though the Lord allows us to grow amongst wickedness, He asks us to stand where it’s holy.

How do we stand in holy places when much of the world around us isn’t holy? We cannot forever stand on temple grounds. We cannot stay in the chapel indefinitely. Even if we can turn our homes into sacred spaces, I don’t think it’s advisable to never leave your home.

In the guide to the scriptures, we learn that “Holiness indicates purity of a person’s heart and intent.”

THIS IS SO DANG COOL TO ME. It’s cool because wheat and tares look incredibly similar. You can’t really tell them apart in a field until they are fully ripe. And though wheat and tares look similar, what they truly are is hidden internally. Holiness is something that happens internally. When a place is holy, it’s because the things that are happening within that place are turned towards the Lord.

We can make ourselves a holy place. The space that we inhabit, the air that we breathe, can be a holy place if we are pure in heart and intent. We can stand in holy places by making ourselves holy.

How do we make ourselves holy? How do we purify our hearts and intent?

Get this. We weed out any of our personal tare tendencies.

Tare and wheat look similar. Sometimes we have traits that look Christlike but aren’t. Sometimes we do things that look Christlike but are not truly so.

For example, sometimes we serve and find resentment. Sometimes we go out and try to correct someone from a pedestal we’ve put ourselves upon. Sometimes we think we’re so wonderful for tolerating someone to their face, but find ourselves relieved when they’re gone because we haven’t taken the time to truly develop love for them. Christ felt true love. He didn’t tolerate people and then secretly rejoice when they left. And yet sometimes we think we’re being Christlike because we’re nice on the outside. We’re nice, but we’re not actually being Christlike. We’re not wheat. We are being tares, and we have to work to weed those tendencies out of ourselves.

As we extend ourselves to being truly Christlike, we become wheat. As we practice truly seeing others and loving them in our heart, we purify ourselves and become holy.

The Lord placed us in an environment that has plenty of tares. And though He placed us in an unholy environment, He asks us to stand in holy places. There are many ways to stand in holy places, but one of the best ways is to take holiness with us. We take holiness with us by weeding out the parts of ourselves that are not truly Christlike even if it mimics Christlike behavior.

I testify that as we shed those parts of ourselves that look like love but are not based in love, we will become a blessing to others and to ourselves. I’m an introvert. Being around people is often tiring for me. There have been plenty of times that I’ve been a tare, and I’ve just endured people until I could get some peace. However, as I truly engage and connect with others, I have found that those encounters are worth it even if I’m tired after. I’ve learned that the Lord is extremely willing to help us shed those tendencies. I testify that He stands ready to help purify us so that we can experience life as He does.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 85-87 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Steadying the Arkby Autumn Dickson

There is a reference to an Old Testament story found in the sections for this week. Let’s talk about the background and then read the verse.

In 2 Samuel, the Israelites are bringing the ark of the covenant back into Israel after an enemy nation had captured and released it. An oxen shook the ark of the covenant while they were crossing a river, and Uzzah touched it and tried to steady it even though no one was allowed to touch the ark. He was struck dead immediately next to the ark of the covenant.

Here is the verse in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Doctrine and Covenants 85:8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

Around the time this verse was given, Edward Partridge and Joseph were disagreeing. Partridge thought the quality of land in Missouri was poor and didn’t want to buy it, and it took a while for him to reconcile with Joseph over the matter. This warning would have been to Partridge had he not repented. In 1834, Oliver Cowdery recorded that Joseph clarified that this verse didn’t apply to any individual. It was a warning to anyone.

So what is the warning?

Just like with any scripture story, there are a few different lessons. Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught that trying to direct God’s work without authority can bring spiritual death. We learn that good intentions aren’t sufficient to protect us. It teaches us that approaching God with a lack of immense reverence is dangerous. The ark of the covenant was a representation of God, and only the high priest (as a type of Christ) could approach that ark and only after a series of cleansing rituals.

This can be a tender spot for some who are struggling in the church. Our belief in a prophet who is led by God can create a sense of all or nothing when attempting to follow the church. And while I desperately hope for everyone to continue working out their salvation within the church, this is a legitimate warning. When we try to change things without authority or try to steady the ark when we think it’s out of balance, it really can bring spiritual death.

I have a friend who has left the church over the past few years. As I’ve had conversations with him about it, I have repeatedly heard the phrase, “I just don’t think God would do something like that.” This sentiment was repeated over and over. I often found myself internally asking, “Well, have you asked Him if He would do something like that?”

With the way the church is set up, it really boils down to whether it’s true or not. It’s hard to find a way around that sticking point. Either the prophet is led by God or he isn’t. Sure, we all receive personal revelation and the Lord can guide us about specific principles and policies in our lives. But, we also believe that the Lord only gives revelation to the prophet if He is trying to direct His church. Just like in the New Testament, the Lord didn’t teach every individual that the Law of Moses was completed and done away. He sent that revelation to Peter, the head of the church, and then people got to decide whether they would follow.

Just like with most people in the church, I have found myself struggling with doctrine, policy, and history. While I was growing up, I would often choose to ignore it and just keep going. As I got older, I decided I didn’t really want to do that anymore. If I couldn’t face these doubts head on and work it out with God, then I didn’t want to be a part of this. If these issues couldn’t stand up in the light, then why am I working so hard to follow the church?

When we are trying to figure out whether the prophet and church are led by God, we have to be ready to follow. That is one of the major keys here. If you want Him to answer you about the truthfulness, you have to be ready to lay aside your own thoughts and opinions in favor of His greater knowledge and wisdom. You have to be prepared to say, “I don’t understand, but I will trust that God does and I will follow Him until I do.” You have to be prepared to follow regardless of whether He tells you why He is working in a specific manner.

And so I often approach my struggles in this manner.

I work it out in my head first. When I run across something that I struggle with, I try to approach it head on. I try not to hide from that discomfort. I try to write everything I understand about God and eternal realities. I try to place what I don’t understand into the context of those eternal realities. Sometimes that has been enough to soothe the disquiet. Other times, I just feel more and more troubled.

This is when it’s time to go directly to the Lord.

I lay it all out for the Lord. I tell Him everything. I tell Him why I think it’s wrong or skewed or incorrect or faulty. I try to get to the root issue of what I’m really struggling with, and I take it all to Him.

And then I tell the Lord that I don’t know as much as He does. I tell Him that even if I don’t understand, I tell Him that I will choose to follow Him in faith and rejoicing. Sometimes He will help me understand, and sometimes He just tells me to keep following. Either way, I know that He’s got this. Maybe the time has not come for Him to change things. Maybe He will never change things because there are aspects that I do not understand with my limited knowledge. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

But there are two aspects that are not a “maybe.” God knows all, and He loves His children. I feel this in my bones. So if He says that I’m on the right track and if He tells me that this is where I need to be, I feel safe enough to do so. I have gotten to know God, and though I don’t understand all of His decisions, I understand His love and omnipotence and I am not afraid. I am excited for Him to show me all that He sees when He deems that it’s the right timing.

So when I feel that the ark is off balance, I have learned to steady myself rather than the ark. I have learned to let the Lord do His own work, and I’ve learned that the ark will be just fine. If I follow, I’ll make it across the river and home someday.

You don’t have to follow blindly. You don’t have to hide from scary doubts. You can work them out in your mind and do your best to understand them. But you can also get to know God. You can deeply internalize His love and omnipotence, and then you can go to Him. You can tell Him that you’re willing to follow where He leads because you have come to trust Him deeply. You can be willing to let go of what you don’t understand because you trust that He understands.

Everyone is going to have to work this out in their own lives. You have to receive that answer for yourself. Is the prophet truly being led by God? This can feel like a difficult answer when it seems like it conflicts with some deep part of you, but the conflict only exists because we do not see all that He sees. I can testify of His God’s love and omnipotence. I can testify that He isn’t betraying you or setting you aside. I can testify that He sacrificed everything so that no hurt would go unhealed. I also testify that He leads His prophet and church today.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 85-87 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The priesthood & its quorums (D&C sections 84, 107; Official Declaration 2)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Ronald K. Esplin and Sharon E. Nielsen, “The Record of the Twelve, 1835: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ Call and the 1835 Mission,” BYU Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 4–52. This document, made available through the Joseph Smith Papers Project, is the earliest extant record of the activities of the modern Quorum of the Twelve.
Elder L. Aldin Porter, “A History of the Latter-day Seventy,” Ensign, August 2000, 15–20. Elder Porter reviews the organization and growth of the modern office of the Seventy.
“Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays. This scholarly article on the Church’s website explores the origins of the ban on ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood.
Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 4–78. Edward L. Kimball discusses the chain of events that led his father, President Spencer W. Kimball, to seek revelation regarding changing the Church’s ban on ordaining black men to the priesthood. The article describes how President Kimball went about obtaining the revelation, how the revelation was spiritually confirmed to other leaders, and members’ reactions when the change was announced.
Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8, no. 1 (Spring 1973): 11–68. This seminal article—which appeared before the 1978 revelation that reversed the Church’s ban on ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood—examines when the policy began and developed, and what scriptures were employed to explain it.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, 18 August 1978. Elder McConkie’s address came just two months after the 1978 revelation that extended the priesthood to men of African descent.
The Priesthood Restored: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is a six-part miniseries that explores the events and circumstances that played a role in the restoration of the priesthood. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – D&C sections 84, 107; Official Declaration 2 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

FAIR has a service where questions can be submitted and they are answered by volunteers. If you have a question, you can submit it at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact. We will occasionally publish answers here for questions that are commonly asked, or are on topics that are receiving a lot of attention.

QUESTION:

My dear friend shared with me some information suggesting Joseph Smith’s involvement in plural marriage was doctored in after the fact by Brigham Young and his associates, especially William Clayton. To support this, they refer to public speeches by Joseph and Hyrum Smith, denying participation in plural marriage. So much of what we know depends on what is in the William Clayton diaries, which they say is possibly “revised history.” I also noted that it was announced that the William Clayton Diaries would be made available a few years back, but haven’t been yet. Do you know of any further information on that?

ANSWER FROM FAIR EMPLOYEE SARAH ALLEN:

Was evidence altered to suggest Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Brigham Young and William Clayton colluded to “doctor” official records to implicate Joseph in plural marriage, or that Clayton’s journals were revised after their initial recording. Joseph Smith instituted plural marriage, and no serious, credentialed historian agrees with the claims that he didn’t. There is a wealth of evidence, from journal entries, letters, affidavits, and sworn witness testimony, all backing that up. There are recorded minutes of Hyrum introducing a revelation that sounds remarkably like D&C 132 before the Nauvoo High Council a few months before his death. The Nauvoo Expositor summarized and quoted excerpts from it, showing that it was known by at least some people outside of Joseph’s inner circle in June 1844. Many of his wives and friends signed affidavits and gave deposition testimony under oath. Etc.

William Clayton did what Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, and others of the time did: he took notes which he then copied into his journal and into Joseph’s. He wouldn’t always copy his notes word for word, but sometimes rephrased them or incorporated memories he may have left out of his notes.

Sometimes, he copied them a few days or weeks later, as he was a busy man. However, these were not entries he copied years after the fact. By any historical method, they were contemporaneous entries. This practice has been labeled by some non-historians who aren’t educated in historical standards and practices as non-contemporaneous, but that’s only because they don’t know what the professional standards are. No credible historian would ever claim journal entries recorded so shortly after the events were non-contemporaneous.

William Clayton’s Nauvoo Journals

Excerpts from Clayton’s Nauvoo journals have been published in a book called An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith. The full journals will be published by some of the Joseph Smith Papers editors early next year, in 2026. I believe they’ll be published through Yale University Press, if I’m not mistaken. Yale is a respected academic press which reviews its books thoroughly before publication to ensure they meet professional scholarly standards. The volume should include introductions and other historical explanations similar to those in the Joseph Smith Papers volumes. The journals are not “revised history,” they have been professionally maintained and edited, the editing process and book’s content were put through professional review, and the book containing the journals is being published by a well-respected academic press. None of the claims made by those denying Joseph’s practice of plural marriage have undergone the same scrutiny.

Polygamy Denials

As far as denials by Hyrum and Joseph Smith go, it’s important to note that they, and those in the Anointed Quorum with Joseph, very carefully differentiated between celestial plural marriage, polygamy, adultery, and “spiritual wifery.” In their minds, they were four separate things. The eternal order of marriage was when endowed, married Saints were sealed to one another by one with authority. Polygamy was what Muslims and other foreigners practiced, a copy of divine plural marriage without the command to practice it or priesthood authority to seal the union. Adultery was, obviously, having marital relations with someone other than one’s spouse. And “spiritual wifery” was the system that John C. Bennett concocted, wherein he convinced women to commit adultery with him and some of his friends by claiming it came from God, was approved by Joseph, and that it wasn’t wrong if nobody told anyone else. The denials given by Joseph and Hyrum referred explicitly to polygamy, adultery, or spiritual wifery. They never denied practicing celestial plural marriage.

To learn more about plural marriage in general, this booklet by FAIR volunteer Greg Smith gives a fantastic overview, including the history, theology, and denials: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smith-Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf

The post FAIR Questions: Are William Clayton’s journals and other evidences suggesting Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage just “revised history”? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Much is Requiredby Autumn Dickson

Rather than talking about a specific verse from this week, I want to talk a bit more about context so that the verses we read are more powerful. Hearing the Lord speak about gospel principles is wonderful, but sometimes understanding the stories behind the principles He chooses to talk about make a big difference because it makes it more relatable. So let’s talk a bit about what’s happening in the lives of the people who the Lord is speaking to.

It is no secret that Emma and Joseph suffered much in their personal lives during the restoration of the Lord’s church. They buried several children, many of whom did not live past babyhood. For a moment, I want you to think about this timeline that is shared in the Institute Manual.

March 15 – Section 81 was given.

March 24 – Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were taken by a mob and tarred and feathered.

March 29 – One of the adopted twins of Joseph and Emma died from measles.

April 1-24 – Joseph and other leaders travel to Missouri.

April 26 – Section 82 was given.

April 30 – Section 83 was given.

Joseph is tarred and feathered. Five days later his son dies. Two days later he leaves to go to Missouri. Emma is left behind after a traumatic couple of days.

The fact that Joseph preached to the Saints the day after being tarred and feathered, and the fact that he still followed the Lord’s command to go to Missouri after all of this is a sermon in itself. The fact that Emma stuck around is a sermon as well.

This is a strange analogy, but it’s the only way to explain what I’m picturing.

I picture this earth life as some kind of virtual reality game that we’re trying to conquer. We put on our helmets, and we’re put into this very intense training arena where we actually have very little control. Everyone can choose their own path. You are given a team, but some teams are effective and other teams are not. You receive little missions to accomplish, but there are so many obstacles. Sometimes those missions feel worthwhile, and sometimes you look back and think, “What was the point of all that effort?” The arena can be dangerous, disheartening, discouraging, devastating.

It feels so real, and that was the point; the Lord wanted to train you. It was meant to be real because anything less than a completely immersive experience would hinder your progression.

And this immersive experience is rough. You are actually quite limited in how missions go, and you are also quite limited in saving your team. Sometimes it feels like you’re pushing against this giant unmoving wall. Sometimes it feels like you’re losing more ground and more people than you’re gaining.

But in the end, it really is only a virtual reality game. Though it doesn’t feel like it, you are actually completely safe. Someday, when it’s time to take off the helmet, you’re going to look around and see that you were never truly in danger. You’re going to laugh at yourself for some of the things you’re stressed over. You’re going to rejoice that some of the things that were drowning you weren’t “real.” This was all just an intensive training experience that the Lord paid for. The Lord isn’t cruel. He didn’t look the other way when it seemed like the missions He gave were impossible. He didn’t send you on wild goose chases for nothing. He wasn’t permanently taking away things that uplifted you. He wasn’t just manipulating everyone like game pieces for His own glory or fun.

He was manipulating everything, but He was manipulating everything in order to try and train His children to become as powerful as possible.

Without the Savior’s atonement, this virtual reality experience would have trapped us and the stakes would have been impossible. You may have learned, but it would have all come to naught. It is the Savior’s atonement that enabled Him to make this training experience mean something, and our success literally boils down to whether we love Him and are trying. You can’t lose if you lean in and garner the experience He meant for you to have.

The devastation that Joseph and Emma experienced was real. What you’re feeling in your life is real. I’m not trying to make light of difficult situations or minimize what you’re going through. What I’m trying to do is place your pain in the context of eternity so that it doesn’t drown you. You can grieve and experience hope at the same time. You can lean into the immersive experience and trust the Lord’s plan, resources, and abilities. You can recognize that you didn’t step into this virtual reality to actually complete anything or save anyone. You didn’t step into this arena to feel safe or have the Lord take care of you. You don’t need the Lord to take care of everything in order to prove His love. Rather, the real and difficult immersive experience and readily available happy ending is the proof of His love.

You came because you wanted that growth that the Lord wanted you to have, and He is delivering it. Lean into the growth and accept the price you have to pay in order to gain that growth. Simultaneously recognize that the price you pay for that growth is paid back by the atonement of Jesus Christ. You lose nothing and gain everything because of a Savior whose purpose is rooted in love.

In the beginning before I described my analogy, I said that sometimes the Lord waits to ask us to do something when we’re drowning. Joseph could have very easily been drowning. He could have resented the Lord for what was asked of him in his deepest grief. And yet, the Lord didn’t ask it of Joseph because He’s cruel. It’s because when we’re drowning, it pushes us to more readily lean into Him where we find true safety. Sometimes we get to the point where we have no choice but to trust in Him. If we can remain in a state where we’re looking to Him and leaning on Him, this virtual reality experience will be at its most effective. It won’t wear us down or destroy us. We will know that everything that happens is a sign of His love as He coaches us through specific experiences to garner the characteristics we need to live like Him.

We have a Savior who loves us. Everything He and the Father arranged in this plan are signs of that love.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 81–83 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A Recycled Revelationby Autumn Dickson

This week I’m talking a lot about context rather than any specific verses which is not usually my norm. However, I think that delving into the context of these sections is really important and can make the scriptures feel more rich. Just as we learn from the stories in our other books of scripture, we can learn more about the revelations from the Lord by studying when they were given. So here is some context for what we read this week.

Section 81 was originally given to a man named Jesse Gause who was called to serve as Joseph Smith’s counselor in the forerunner of what would eventually evolve into the First Presidency. When Gause was excommunicated, he was replaced by Frederick G. Williams. Gause’s name was also replaced by Williams’ name in the revelation that was given.

I wonder if it slightly bothered Frederick G. Williams when he didn’t get his own revelation upon being called. Please note that I’m not saying it should bother him; I just wonder if it did.

Imagine being in a ward where the bishop gets called and then moves six months later. A new bishop comes in, and the stake president is just like, “Here. We recorded the blessing for the last bishop. We’ll set you apart, but this blessing is just going to be yours now.”

Imagine going in to receive your patriarchal blessing and the patriarch recycles an old blessing he gave and inserts your name in it. Would you feel a little shafted? These are supposed to be individualized, right?

Now, I’m not sure that it bothered Williams at all. Maybe he didn’t think twice about it, but it can’t hurt to explore the concept and dig deeper.

Joseph Smith was receiving a lot of revelation during this time period. He probably could have easily received something just for Williams, but he didn’t. Have you ever felt skipped over at church? Have you ever felt like everyone else was receiving something special but you weren’t? Maybe it was a calling or a special experience. It could have been anything.

I have. I used to feel that way all the time. I remember having experiences where parents told me about how special the patriarchal blessings of their kids were. They talked about how it felt so powerful and singular, and I remember feeling very un-special.

I’m going to tell you a little secret that changed my life. When we seek to be set apart from others, to be singular, to receive something that no one else has received, we usually end up having the opposite experience. Trying to be more than others is an insatiable desire; you can temporarily please it but you can’t quench it. Maybe we don’t think we’re trying to be more; I certainly didn’t recognize it at the time, but I was. There was a comparison, and you can’t win with comparisons. No matter how things play out, you lose.

In my own life, those deep and unrelenting desires to be special were coming from a place of insecurity about my Heavenly Father’s love for me. Unfortunately, I wasn’t just trying to feel loved. I wanted to be more loved, probably in some mistaken belief that it would drive away the insecurity.

Luckily, the Lord is smarter than giving me what I want sometimes.

He could have given me something special. He could have given me some experience that no one else got to have to make sure that I knew that He knew me and that I was important to Him. He could have looked at me and worried about the insecurities and worried about the fact that I didn’t have a testimony of His love.

But He didn’t want to do that for a couple of good reasons. He didn’t communicate that I was more special because I’m not more special. It would be silly to tell me an untruth. He also didn’t give some overt, flamboyant sign of His love because it would have actually just fed the insecurity. You would think that I’d be able to take these huge signs of love and accept them. But in my experience, it simply doesn’t work. Think about it from a mortal perspective. You can make huge overtures of your love to someone, but until they’re ready to believe it, the signs you choose to give don’t change their insecurity.

Rather, He continued to feed me a healthy, quiet kind of love and left me to accept it. He never caved when I felt unloved, insecure, and assumed He was so angry with me. He just kept feeding me that unrelenting, reverent love and waited for me to finally accept it.

Drawing this back to Frederick G. Williams, I would have felt distraught over getting a recycled blessing that had originally been given to someone else. At the time that I was still seeking that unhealthy form of love, I would have let that circumstance speak to me, and it would have said, “You don’t really matter. You don’t even get your own blessing.”

I’ve learned a few things since my angsty teen years. The Lord does love me. I’m so important to Him even if that’s illogical. Nowadays, if I were to receive a recycled blessing, I would be able to quietly read it in gratitude. That gratitude would have enabled me to see the quiet, personalized messages He was sending. The recycled blessing would have been as personalized as I allowed. The help of the Spirit, love from our Heavenly Father, and my own belief in that love would have given me what I was seeking – a reassurance of His love for me.

The most interesting part about this experience is the fact that once I let go of comparison, once I let go of desperately seeking some inarguable sign that I was valuable, I was able to start seeing the small tokens of His love. If I had received a “recycled” blessing and chosen to let go of any whispers of insecurity, the experience of receiving this revelation would have been a sacred and treasured experience. Letting go of the need to have my own, I would have been able to read this blessing in a state of mind where the Spirit could whisper the personalized messages I needed to do my work to serve others.

Isn’t that ironic? Once I let go of trying to receive some ostentatious sign that I was special, I was able to see and receive those smaller, special messages that were meant for me at a specific time period in my life. And once I began appreciating and accepting those small, special messages, I have become convinced that I’m special to my Heavenly Father.

I testify that the Lord loves you. He recycles the same values, words, and lessons that He teaches everybody because He loves all of us. You’re not going to receive anything “new,” but I promise that you can receive something better, something that fills you up more.The need for something singular can be sinister. It can prevent you from receiving the healthy kind of love that sticks with you and fills in all of the cracks. I testify that the Savior loves you with a deep and abiding love and that His love is enough to fill you up, even if it’s not more than the love He gives to others.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 81–83 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The office of high priest; the United Firm (D&C sections 78, 80–83, 85, 92, 104)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Max H. Parkin, “Joseph Smith and the United Firm: The Growth and Decline of the Church’s First Master Plan of Business and Finance, Ohio and Missouri, 1832–1834,” BYU Studies 46, no. 3 (2007): 5–66. Parkin sheds light on how the United Firm was organized and operated and the role it played in early Church history.
David J. Whittaker, “Substituted Names in the Published Revelations of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 23, no. 1 (Winter 1983): 103–12. Whittaker explains Joseph Smith’s use of code names when he published the revelations related to the United Firm.
D. Michael Quinn, “Jesse Gause: Joseph Smith’s Little-Known Counselor,” BYU Studies 23, no. 4 (Fall 1983): 487–93.
Joseph Smith’s 27 November 1832 letter to William W. Phelps, an extract of which was canonized in 1876 as section 85.
Bill Shepard, “‘To Set in Order the House of God’: The Search for the Elusive ‘One Mighty and Strong’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 18–45. Shepard traces the various interpretations of and claimants to the “one mighty and strong” mentioned in D&C 85:7.
First Presidency statement on the “One Mighty and Strong,” Improvement Era 10, no. 12 (October 1907): 929–43. This statement—written and signed by Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund—suggests two possible interpretations of D&C 85:7.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 78, 80–83, 85, 92, 104 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Vision of the three degrees of glory (D&C section 76)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Philo Dibble, “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Juvenile Instructor 27, no. 10 (15 May 1892): 303–04. Dibble recalled his firsthand experience being in the room when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon experienced the Vision now canonized as section 76.
Joseph Smith, “A Vision,” Times and Seasons 4, no. 6 (1 February 1843): 81–85. William W. Phelps wrote a letter in poetic verse to the Prophet Joseph about the celestial kingdom, and Joseph responded with a poetic form of section 76.
Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Perfection Pending,” General Conference, October 1995. Then-Elder Nelson offered a suggestion on the meaning of the word telestial.
Kevin Barney, “The Etymology of ‘Telestial’,” By Common Consent, 27 January 2010. Barney takes a scholarly approach to the origin of the word telestial.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 76 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Equal in Earthly Thingsby Autumn Dickson

In Doctrine and Covenants 78, the Lord is establishing a practical system to help the Saints live the Law of Consecration. Here is some of what the Lord said regarding the Law of Consecration.

Doctrine and Covenants 78:4-6

4 For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;

5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

The Institute Manual explains what it means to be “equal in earthly things;” being equal is not about having the same. It’s about having “equal claim on resources” according to what they need. The Lord explains that the Law of Consecration advances the cause of the salvation of man.

When you originally study the Law of Consecration, it is easy to see how it would benefit the poor and further the cause of salvation. It’s really hard to study the gospel when you don’t have the necessities of life. It’s hard to feel peace when you’re worried about feeding your kids or where you’re going to sleep. Having your needs met at a basic level allows you to step out of that state of anxiety and into a place where you can more readily accept heavenly things.

When we continue studying the Law of Consecration, it also becomes easy to see how this law isn’t just about the poor. It’s also about bringing salvation to those who are doing the giving.

The Lord has no ego. He wants to lift each of us up to where He is. He is driven by love for us. He isn’t worried about remaining over us and controlling us. He isn’t constantly plagued by the desire to have more. He isn’t trying to separate Himself from others by having more.

If we want to enjoy the kingdom He has created, we have to be like Him.

Doctrine and Covenants 78:7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.

I’m going to repeat what I said right before this verse. If we want to enjoy the kingdom He has created, we have to be like Him. We have to prepare, or in other words, we have to become like Him. And according to verse 7, we prepare ourselves by doing what He commands.

Let’s make this a little more concrete in regard to the Law of Consecration.

One of the aspects of heaven many of us are desperately seeking is a feeling of safety. We want to know that everything will be okay tomorrow. We want to know that we will have everything we need. We want to know that we are safe in the hands of the Lord.

Interestingly enough, we don’t have to wait until heaven to receive that feeling of safety. The Lord has already made promises about taking care of us here. He has already promised that we will have what we truly need. The true problem lies in the fact that we do not yet fully trust Him. I speak from personal experience.

We are taught that we will continue to be the same people on the other side. So what does that look like in the context of what we’re talking about?

It looks like the fact that I am holding myself back from enjoying the blessings that have already been offered to me here on earth. Is it possible that I may continue to hold myself back from enjoying the blessings offered to me on the other side? Will I continue to worry? The Lord has already promised me safety; He has already promised to take care of me. If I cannot trust that promise here, what makes me believe that I will suddenly be able to enjoy that promise on the other side? I interfere with my ability to enjoy the Celestial Kingdom and all of its blessings when I do not change to trust the Lord.

This also goes for any ego that arises as a result of having many things on earth. Always being worried about having more, being worried about whether people notice that you have more, garnering your joy from the idea that you have more than the next guy will hold you back from the enjoyment that the Lord wants to offer. There is innate beauty and happiness found in serving others who need help, in recognizing that the stuff we have here is for everyone, and there is innate beauty and happiness in being free from that ego.

The Law of Consecration (as well as our covenants in the temple) were given to us to further the cause of salvation; it was given so that we could be more prepared to enjoy the blessings of the Lord.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 77–80 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Hear Himby Autumn Dickson

In Section 76, we receive an immense amount of information that had been lost over time. If you grew up with the Plan of Salvation, it may not feel that way but this was all very new. Though it was hard for some Saints to accept it at the time, we rejoice in this doctrine that the Lord restored. I am so grateful to know it.

And though we received this immense amount of information from the Lord, we also read this at the end of the vision.

Doctrine and Covenants 76

115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for man to utter;

116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;

117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;

118 That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory.

We did not receive everything that Joseph and Sidney received in this vision. It reminds me of 2 Nephi 32:7. The Spirit stops Nephi from saying more.

The Lord wants to give more. He has more to give. Our eventual goal is to be reunited with Him, and that goal doesn’t have to wait until the next life. There are a myriad of quotes and scriptures that seemingly plead with us to actively seek Him so that He can give more than we’ve received. The scriptures can only give so much. There are things we have to receive directly from the Lord through the Spirit, and the Lord wants us to receive it as soon as we are able.

When I was younger, I remember very distinctly praying for a vision. I did it periodically as I was growing up. I wanted the Lord to just give me a dream or something. Some of my intentions were pure. I did want to be with the Lord again, but there was also some pride involved. Regardless of my intentions and spiritual readiness, I would pray very sincerely for this type of revelation. I figured if the Lord wanted to give more, I wanted to receive it. Luckily, He is wise enough to do what’s best for us and not just give us everything we ask for.

I have stopped asking for visions because I have learned that the Lord doesn’t often work that way. Doctrine and Covenants 76 holds a record of one of the most significant restorations of truth in the early church, possibly in the whole history of the latter-day church. It is significant to consciously recognize how Joseph and Sidney received this vision.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:15, 18-19

15 For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John…

18 Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit.

19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.

Joseph and Sidney did not ask for a vision. They just asked for clarification regarding scripture. This is truly significant because it gives us a path to follow. The Lord has so much to give you, but it has to be built. You have to be prepared. He doesn’t just hand it out as soon as you recognize the fact that He has more and wants to give it to you. It requires seeking and study and learning His voice and character. It requires work. Otherwise, we get to remain in the dark.

These verses that we just read, specifically 18-19, can give us a clue about how to start building and preparing for what the Lord wishes to give. The verse in John caused them to marvel because it was given to them by the Spirit. I recognize this pattern now. When I’m seeking what the Lord wants me to share in my weekly messages, the Spirit “gives” me something. I’m reading and a phrase jumps out to me. The feeling is extremely subtle, but if I pause and start to write about it, it expands and expands and expands and I receive so much more than I would have otherwise.

I have noticed that it has expanded beyond just the scriptures. I can be having a conversation or walking by some people and overhear a phrase, and that subtle feeling comes over me again. It’s as if the Lord stamps it softly into my head and if I take the time to pause, or if I hold onto it until I have time to think about it, the Lord often gives more.

President Nelson has asked us to learn how to “Hear Him.” I echo President Nelson’s request. Learn to hear Him. Seek Him. He has more to give. It does not start out with visions, and receiving everything He wants to give starts with preparation. So prepare. It’s worth it.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 76 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A Glorious Godby Autumn Dickson

For those of us who grew up with the concept of the Plan of Salvation and its many kingdoms, the vision recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 76 is nothing new. Because of our familiarity with it, I think it can be easy to miss the majesty and goodness that is God. One of the things I love about the doctrine we received in this section is that it upholds the idea that God is good and perfect and just. As Latter-day Saints, we don’t just claim that God is a perfect judge. He actually is a Perfect Judge.

The traditional beliefs surrounding what is recorded in the bible about heaven and hell make no sense upon closer examination. I have had friends who have believed I was going to hell. They very specifically iterated that Conner and I were good people, but they still retained their beliefs that God would throw us into an eternally burning pit. I pondered this for a very long time.

There are many interpretations of heaven and hell and judgment, but the most common I’ve come across is the idea that if you believe in Christ (the right Christ because apparently we don’t believe in the right one), you will be saved. If you don’t believe in the right Christ, you will be thrust into an eternal fire. For many, it doesn’t matter how evil you lived your life. If you believe in Christ, you’re good to go.

I want you to imagine, for a moment, that you were saved on Judgment Day. In fact, God even asked you to come and help carry out His judgment because your belief was sufficient. One day, He sends over a man for you to toss out of heaven. This man was a good man who loved his family, freely gave to all of his neighbors around him, and deeply sacrificed on behalf of his belief in God. But he was not Christian. It is now your job to toss this uplifting man into a literal fire pit, and that man gets to stay there forever.

Would you do it? How would you feel about God afterwards? Would you look at Him and call Him perfect because He calls Himself perfect?

As Latter-day Saints, we believe in heaven and hell but have different interpretations of it. There are many different kingdoms in heaven so as to make room for all the children of God to fit perfectly and comfortably. The bible declares that God is good and perfect and just, and I believe that. If I had never heard of God and someone came and taught me the truths found in Doctrine and Covenants 76, I would not need someone to declare to me that God was good and perfect and just. His plan declares it for Him.

There are so many ways that this doctrine plays out in individual lives, but I suppose that’s the point. This doctrine allows Christ to judge perfectly rather than trying to fit the whole spectrum of humanity into something as stark as heaven and hell. Let’s observe how this might play out in one circumstance so that we can better understand how beautiful this truth is.

Let’s say that you don’t believe in God and don’t want to worship Him. Even if you got to the spirit world on the other side and people tried to preach to you, let’s say that you still refused to worship God. Heavenly Father would send you somewhere safe and warm because you are still His child. He would send you to a place that has everything you need, and you would be surrounded by people who feel similar to you. As a mother, this kind of judgment makes perfect sense to me.

But there is still judgment, and though you would be “saved” in a place where you’re safe and warm, you would still experience some level of hell because you refused to worship God. The aspect of hell that you would experience is opportunity cost. I believe in a God who is worth worshipping. I picture an adult child who reflects on their life and sees all of the opportunities given to them by a loving mother. I picture an adult child who can see the heartache and sacrifice experienced by this loving mother, and I picture that adult child feeling such a deep attitude of awe and gratitude that it’s akin to worship.

I have a relationship with my Heavenly Father. I have seen the sacrifices He, and His Beloved Son, have made on my behalf. I have personally felt how the Lord is turned completely towards my eternal joy, and I worship Him for that. I experience heaven when I experience that awe and gratitude. Being around Someone who loves me like He does is an incomparable feeling that I have only glimpsed. You would experience hell to the extent that you miss out on experiencing the greatness that is God.

We believe that God is a perfect judge (not just because He says so but because He really is perfect). We believe that He loves His children and will place them where they will have all they need and will experience as much happiness as their choices allow.

And so with Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon and so many, many other Saints, I declare these words as well.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:1-3

1 Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth, and rejoice ye inhabitants thereof, for the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior.

2 Great is his wisdom, marvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out.

3 His purposes fail not, neither are there any who can stay his hand.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 76 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Purpose Drives Revelationby Autumn Dickson

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon paused work on the translation of the bible and were called to go and preach the gospel in order to dispel some of the hatred and persecution being heaped up against the church. After a conference held with the elders, Joseph and Sidney were called once again to work on the translation of the bible.

Doctrine and Covenants 73:3 Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again;

Here is a quote in the institute manual that can give us insight into how this verse can apply in our own lives.

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible had ‘a significant influence on the Church in the way it shaped the content of the Doctrine and Covenants. More than half of the current Doctrine and Covenants consists of revelations received during the three-year period in which Joseph Smith labored over the Bible translation. Many revelations were received as direct answers to questions Joseph was inspired to ask as his understanding of the gospel expanded during the effort to restore plain and precious parts of the Bible.

Joseph was commanded to work through the bible, and as he did, he was able to receive revelation because of his intentional study. We see an example of this directly after in Section 74 where Joseph receives revelation regarding 1 Corinthians 7. He received a variety of revelations, not just the portions that were corrected and expanded upon in the bible. This is actually really interesting to me because we have never fully canonized the Joseph Smith translation. We believe it is divinely guided and it’s been included in our scriptures as a study aid, but it’s not canonized.

Joseph spent a lot of time on this translation for it to never be canonized. We receive a lot of insight from the Joseph Smith Translation, and yet, maybe one of the major purposes of this translation wasn’t about the translation. It was about how the translation prompted intentional study, heartfelt pleading, and specific questions. It changed Joseph, and it shaped much of our understanding of the restored gospel because of the revelations Joseph received while working on it.

I noted similar experiences as a missionary. Every day, we would have dedicated time to study the gospel. As I chose to study on behalf of those I had been called to teach, my understanding of the gospel would improve and I would also receive revelation for my personal life. We had been called to do a specific work in the gospel and as we worked on that, revelation flooded in regarding many things – not just the specific work. I know other missionaries had very similar experiences.

As life moved on, I felt very called to work on a blog. Once again, the revelation started coming, but the revelation expanded beyond just the work I felt called to do. There were days when I would start writing a message I felt prompted to share, and I would end up in my journal writing and writing and writing about experiences in my family and things that the Lord wanted me to know and do in my personal life. I would get to the end of the time I could dedicate to studying and though I hadn’t made any progress on a post, I had received very special communications on behalf of my family. I really don’t think I would have received even a small portion of what I’ve received if it had not been for the fact that I was trying to prepare weekly messages.

And that’s why we receive callings and responsibilities in the church. Having a calling hones our focus and draws our mind in the direction of the Lord so that we’re prepared to receive. It also pushes us in a direction where we deeply need the Lord because we feel inadequate. This is not just about official callings! Being part of a family, being a friend, or even working to better mankind in your professional life can teach you about the gospel if you include the Lord. I watch my husband receive revelation on a daily basis as he works to create things as an engineer. And though it may not seem “churchy,” he is still learning about his Heavenly Father who is also an engineer.

What purpose has the Lord given you in order to more fully teach you His gospel? What responsibilities have you been given in which you can include the Lord to expand the amount of revelation you can receive for your life and family?

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 71–75 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Joseph Smith’s “new translation” of the Bible (D&C sections 71, 73–75, 77, 86, 91, 113)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Kent P. Jackson. “Was Joseph Smith Influenced by Outside Sources in his Translation of the Bible?” 2022 FAIR Conference. This presentation demonstrates that recent claims of plagiarizing from Adam Clarke’s Commentary are wrong.
Kent P. Jackson. “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.” Religious Educator 6, no. 3 (2005): 149–60.
Kent P. Jackson and Peter M. Jasinski. “The Process of Inspired Translation: Two Passages Translated Twice in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.” BYU Studies 42, no. 2 (2003): 35–64. This article demonstrates how Joseph Smith translated the same passage from the New Testament twice, and got different results each time. (This is evidence that the Joseph Smith Translation is not a restoration of a lost, ancient original text, at least in all of its parts.)
David Tayman. “The Joseph Smith Translation: Inspired Targum and Pseudepigrapha For Latter-day Saints.” ImprovementEra.com (via Archive.org), 24 March 2010. Tayman explains why he believes the JST is best understood as a modern, revealed expansion of the Bible, rather than a restoration of an ancient text.
Kent P. Jackson. “Joseph Smith’s Cooperstown Bible: The Historical Context of the Bible Used in the Joseph Smith Translation.” BYU Studies 40, no. 1 (2001): 41–70.
Nicholas J. Frederick. “Section 77 and Book of Revelation Scholarship.” Religious Educator 22, no. 2 (2021): 46–71. Section 77 contains Joseph Smith’s inspired answers to questions posed to him about the symbols in the book of Revelation. Frederick compares Joseph’s interpretations to those in commentaries on the book of Revelation published between 1817 and 2014.
Some Latter-day Saints have interpreted D&C 77:6 to mean that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The scriptures, however, “do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken no official stand on this question.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 2:431) See also Morris S. Petersen, “I Have a Question: Do we know how the earth’s history as indicated from fossils fits with the earth’s history as the scriptures present it?,” Ensign, September 1987, 28–29.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 71, 73–75, 77, 86, 91, 113 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Bishops and Consecrationby Autumn Dickson

Hello friends! Just a quick PSA. My normal format up to this point has been to post one message a week. The Lord has pointed me in a different direction, and I will now be sharing two shorter messages posted throughout the week. Thanks for sticking with me as I work to figure out my new posting schedule!

In Section 72, the Lord is calling a bishop (Newel K. Whitney) to serve in Ohio because the other bishop (Edward Partridge) is in Missouri. At that time, the Saints were living the law of consecration in which they offered up their land to the church; they also offered up their excess when they had it. One of the roles of the bishop was to handle the logistics of the law of consecration. The bishop would determine what was needed by a family, and then he would deed that property back over to that family. The idea was that the church would be able to organize what everyone needed and make sure life necessities were being taken care of, but the land would still belong to the individual families. In essence, they could do what they wanted with it, and they were responsible for doing all they could to take care of it. Here is part of what the Lord says about it.

Doctrine and Covenants 72:2-3

2 For verily thus saith the Lord, it is expedient in me for a bishop to be appointed unto you, or of you, unto the church in this part of the Lord’s vineyard.

3 And verily in this thing ye have done wisely, for it is required of the Lord, at the hand of every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity.

The Lord wanted a bishop called so that the people had an opportunity to show responsibility for what the Lord had given them. These men, Newel K. Whitney and Edward Partridge, were called to be representatives of the Lord, and we can learn about our Savior from the roles that they were given. These bishops would meet with the Saints and essentially ask two questions, “What do you need?” and, “What can you give?” Both questions are important, and both questions are posed to us by the Savior.

At this time, we do not deed our property over to the church and receive what we need in return. However, we do covenant to live the law of consecration in the temple. In essence, we are covenanting to dedicate all that we have and are to the Savior and His kingdom on the earth. What do you need? What can you give?

The law of consecration doesn’t necessarily mean giving everything away. Sometimes it also means working to build what you have so that it is sufficient. When we’re trying to answer these two questions, two internalizations can help. One: everything we have belongs to the Lord and He can help us know the best way to utilize what we have and two, the Lord doesn’t just ask what we can give. He also asks what we need. And unlike Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney, who were often drawing on empty wells to try and take care of the Saints, our Savior can easily give us what we truly need in order to do what He wants us to do. He is wise in what He chooses to give.

And like Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney, the Savior lives the law of consecration with us. He loves us so much that few other things occupy His mind. He devotes all of His time, energy, and resources to us. And I suppose that’s the point. We’re trying to become like Him. There is power in devoting all that you have and all that you are to others. There is power in loving others that much. There is power in letting go of “owning” things. There is power and security in a community that truly gives and leans on each other.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 71–75 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A Testimony of the Revelationsby Autumn Dickson

Joseph Smith and various elders gathered this week to decide whether they would publish the revelations that Joseph had thus far received. Many of the elders were prepared to write their testimonies to be published right alongside the revelations, but others were hesitant. Joseph was not always eloquent, and he was not incredibly educated. Several of the elders did not yet believe that the revelations had come from the Lord.

In Section 67, the Lord issues a challenge. He tells the men to select the “least” of the revelations and then to take their wisest man and have him try to write a revelation like it. William McLellin, a school teacher, took up the challenge. According to the institute manual, this is how things played out.

Joseph Smith described the outcome of William’s attempt to write a revelation: ‘[William] E. McLellin … endeavored to write a [revelation] like unto one of the least of the Lord’s, but failed; it was an awful responsibility to write in the name of the Lord. The elders, and all present, that witnessed this vain attempt of a man to imitate the language of Jesus Christ, renewed their faith in the fulness of the gospel and in the truth of the commandments and revelations which the Lord had given to the church through my instrumentality; and the elders signified a willingness to bear testimony of their truth to all the world

Since we’re talking about how the Lord’s words are more powerful than man’s (even when it is filtered through a man), let’s look directly at some of His words. I want to talk about three different principles found throughout the chapter.

To gain a testimony

Here is how the Lord starts out the revelation in response to this situation we’ve been discussing.

Doctrine and Covenants 67:1 Behold and hearken, O ye elders of my church, who have assembled yourselves together, whose prayers I have heard, and whose hearts I know, and whose desires have come up before me.

Does the Lord sound angry with these elders because of their unbelief? I don’t think so. He’s literally telling them, “I’ve heard your prayers, and I know your hearts and desires.” The hearts of these elders are apparently soft enough that they don’t need rebuking. Rather, the Lord, in His infinite wisdom and perfect knowledge of us, knew that these elders simply lacked the testimony they needed as of yet.

It could have been easy for Joseph to get offended that these men felt his words were insufficient, but this wasn’t coming from Joseph. It was coming from the Lord, and the Lord knew His children enough to know that they simply needed more opportunities to practice faith and see Him in this work.

And so He set them up to gain a testimony of the revelations received by Joseph Smith.

The Lord does rebuke His children sometimes, but that is usually the result of hard hearts. If the Lord is calling someone out and forcefully calling for repentance, it is usually because a softer approach will be ineffective. For this particular chapter, I picture the Lord being very matter-of-fact about it.

So what do we learn from the Lord’s relaxed tone?

We learn that we don’t necessarily have to be afraid or ashamed if we have doubts. We don’t have to worry or put immense pressure on ourselves to “already know” or “just have faith already.” Rather, we can work to make (or keep) our hearts soft and give the Lord an opportunity to lead us along and show us. He knows our hearts, and He knows if you’re sincerely trying to find Him. He can work with that. It reminds me of the father in the New Testament who asked the Lord to “help Thou mine unbelief.” The Lord can give us eyes to see reality, and He can give us reasons to trust Him. We merely need to seek Him out and be willing to experiment upon His words, just like these men experimented.

Missing out

Here is another tidbit from the Lord.

Doctrine and Covenants 67:5 Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might express beyond his language; this you also know.

There is at least one general principle here that we can pull out and apply it many different ways. It is this: when we hyperfocus on the mistakes and supposed flaws of others, we miss out on so much goodness. When we scoff or mock, we’re voluntarily skipping over blessings.

This actually makes me think of Christ’s mortal ministry. Christ’s words and actions were obviously perfect, but I’m not sure they were perfect in the sense of how we sometimes picture the meaning of that word. He was a traveler. He was likely dirty from walking everywhere. He didn’t wear priestly robes or hold any worldly authority or education except in carpentry. Think of what the Pharisees and Sadducees missed out on because they couldn’t see past what they perceived as beneath them.

Think of what these elders might have missed out on had they continued on that path where they perceived the revelations of God as beneath them.

What are we perceiving as beneath us? What are we missing out on? The list could be endless: sacrament talks, good people, wisdom from parents.

Set aside our fears

In verse 3, the Lord tells His elders that they tried hard to believe that they would receive a blessing, but fear prevented them from actually receiving it. He also said this.

Doctrine and Covenants 67:10 And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.

There are a lot of things that we could talk about in this verse. How might jealousy have played into the elders not being able to recognize the revelations for what they were? There are so many phrases we could pull out and talk about, but I want to talk about stripping yourself of fear instead.

One of the steps for preparing to “see” the Lord is to remove fear.

I always try to put the Lord into the context of parenting because that is when I best understand Him. In this instance, it reminds me of when my son comes down and tells me that he’s too scared to go to bed. There are times when it’s appropriate for me to go up and comfort him, but usually he just gets scared again the second I leave the room. I have often found myself saying, “There is no way that I can make you any safer than you are now.” I assure him of all the reasons he is safe. We’re downstairs, dad has adequate means of self-defense, and we’ve got a dog that has protected my family before. Unfortunately, sometimes my son doesn’t believe in that safety. It’s a process to learn that kind of trust, but as we actively engage in choosing that trust, we’re going to find enough peace to rest.

The Lord is even more capable of protecting us than I am of protecting my son.

After over four years of trying to settle out on the east coast, things have finally lined up and we’re moving forward on a house. We did a lot of research in order to decide if this is what we wanted. We put in a lot of time to make sure this was a good move for our family. We prayed about it, and we felt good about the house, or at the very least, we didn’t feel bad about the house. When we were moving through this process, I felt like this is where we had been led after four years of searching.

But it’s easy to backslide and get scared again. I was so scared that we had chosen wrong or that the Lord had washed His hands of us and left us to fail. Logically, I know that the Lord doesn’t work that way, but that’s what my fear was saying. My husband is an entrepreneur which means that things can go really well, but they can also go really wrong. The risks of life suddenly seemed tremendously overwhelming. What if I had missed His warnings? What if we expected more than the Lord was willing to give at this time?

I’ve prayed for reassurances so many times, and the Lord has often answered. But even after the Lord answered, the fear remained or came back again. I was scared that I misunderstood Him or that I was seeing revelation where it wasn’t.

The Lord isn’t going to force me to lay down my fears. He is not going to constantly whisper in my ear that we’re going to be fine because that’s not what is best for me. He wants me to choose to trust Him. If I want to feel better and find rest, I have to choose to believe that the Lord is making my family as safe as we need to be.

The Lord promises His elders that if they can strip themselves of fear (alongside a few other things), the veil will be rent and they shall see Him.

As I hush my fears, as I remind myself of all the times He’s never abandoned me, I start to “see” Him again. This past week, the fears did come up and try to overwhelm me and there were moments when those fears were successful. But as I consciously remembered my experiences with the Lord and who I’ve come to know Him as, it was as if I put on spiritual glasses. Not only was I able to remember old experiences, but I started to have new ones. He started to whisper insights that helped me believe I was on the right track. I could “see” Him again.

I testify of a Lord who is willing to help us have the experiences we need to build trust in Him. If we keep our hearts soft and seek to trust Him and His prophets, He will give us what we need to know that we’re on the right track. If we push back against our fears, we will be able to see Him in our lives.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 67–70 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Greater Sinby Autumn Dickson

The Lord talks a little bit about forgiveness this week. Section 64 was given at a time when tempers were running hot and Zion felt far away. What did the Lord have to say about forgiveness?

Doctrine and Covenants 64:9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

I remember being young and thinking that didn’t make sense. I didn’t understand how the Lord could condemn a victim for holding on to their anger against someone who hurt them. As I’ve learned more and more about the gospel, I’ve received a different perspective. That’s not what the Lord is doing at all. It was merely me misunderstanding the Lord. Let’s talk about it.

Different kinds of sin

My definition and understanding of sin has evolved. It’s probably important to highlight that this is how I define the concept of sin personally. I likely don’t have it all correct, but we’re working towards perfect knowledge still, right?

Sin is sin. It is bad. We should try to avoid it as much as possible. Let it be known; I absolutely believe that the Lord cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance. It would thwart the Plan of Salvation, His perfection, and it would stunt our growth dramatically.

But I used to take the concept of sin and tag on extra implications that weren’t necessarily true. I used to connect sin with an inherent badness on the part of the sinner. When there was condemnation, it was the Lord doling out punishments because we had been bad.

After becoming a parent, I have learned that it’s not necessarily that black and white. Making mistakes does not mean you’re bad, and the Savior is coaching us towards exaltation. Sometimes He utilizes consequences but not because He’s looking to make us suffer. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Consequences teach us so we don’t have to suffer any longer.

And then sometimes He doesn’t dole out consequences at all. Sometimes our choices come with inherent repercussions. He seeks to pull us out of those choices, but another form of condemnation is when we refuse Him and stay right where we’re at. I repeat. Another form of condemnation is when we refuse to accept His healing and grace. We condemn ourselves.

In my mind, sin has expanded beyond just a definition of “badness” to “anything that takes us farther away from the Lord.” This expanded understanding has many implications that have shifted how I look at the gospel.

One of the implications applies to the verse we just read. There are times when the Lord condemns; we see that most especially when someone is hard-hearted. When you read the New Testament, the Lord would condemn the Pharisees because softer forms of teaching were ineffective.

But sometimes condemnation isn’t coming directly from Him. When you read that verse more carefully, it doesn’t say that the Lord condemned the person who refused to forgive. It says that they stand condemned before the Lord. Sometimes, we stand before the Lord condemning ourselves because we refuse the salvation He is offering.

My personal interpretation of this verse is that the person refuses peace (and therefore, salvation) by refusing to forgive those who hurt them.

Putting it into context

I’m going to use a real-world example, and then I’m going to expand upon it.

I read a book about trauma a couple of years ago, and there is a story that has stuck with me. It spoke about a girl who had been locked in the closet from the time she was very little. When I studied the effects of abuse, I was surprised to learn that neglect from a very young age leaves deeper scars than actual abuse. This little girl was essentially feral when she was finally found and taken out of the custody of the parents. She was placed somewhere safe and spent far more time in a wholesome environment than she did locked inside that closet.

Unfortunately, the first three years of our lives often make the biggest impressions because our brains are developing so rapidly. When neglect and abuse happen in the first three years, it gets built into the brain as a blueprint for how someone looks at life. It can be changed, but because the growth of our brains slows down significantly, it takes far more time to undo the damage than it did to make the damage.

This girl grew up, became an adult, and went on to abuse another child. From a person who grew up healthy, it would be easy to wonder, “You know what it’s like to be hurt! Why would you do that to someone else?” But when you study the brain, you recognize a perfect storm. This adult girl was essentially unable to grow up. Her body matured, but her brain did not. She didn’t have the inhibitions of an adult. She didn’t develop empathy (because that develops in your second or third year). And when she wanted to be romantically involved, she was completely unable to relate to adults. She could only relate to a child.

She never really had a chance. And even as I speak about her struggles, we don’t allow cycles of abuse to continue. We work to protect potential victims. We do the logical thing and stop her from hurting others. However, it’s possible to protect victims, stop the abuse, and have compassion for the girl who suffered in ways that most of us don’t understand.

Here is the part where I expand upon this story with hypotheticals. The Lord is the perfect judge so we’ll ultimately leave this up to Him, but I’m going to postulate so that we can explore the forgiveness principle we were talking about before.

Fast forward to the next life. This girl has been healed by the Savior. She is no longer constrained to a brain that is broken and undeveloped because of what happened to her. Her spirit is free to be good and wholesome, and let’s say that’s exactly who she is.

How would you judge her? If she were your child and you loved her, would you banish her away from you? I hope not.

Now let’s look at the child who was abused by this broken woman. Let’s say this child grows up and passes away. He gets to the other side and sees her enjoying the presence of the Lord and being welcomed by good people around her. Let’s say this child is enraged by this.

How would you judge him? I would hope you wouldn’t judge him harshly. He has also been through some horrific things. But would you throw her out because he demanded it? I would also hope not.

I hope that we would be pleading with this young man to trust that the Lord knows everything perfectly, and she is safe to be around. I would hope that we would be pleading with him to come and join us and be healed and enjoy everything that the Lord meant for us to enjoy.

If he refuses to forgive and join in on the “heaven,” then yes, he is standing condemned before the Lord. He is condemning (or, in other words, consigning) himself to hell by clinging to pain and anger. He refuses to accept the healing and the celestial possibilities. He refuses the happiness that’s standing in front of him. He holds the “greater” sin because he is refusing to let go of hell. He is separating himself from the Savior and those in His company, and that’s the definition of hell.

We have to change how we interpret sin and condemnation and damnation. Sometimes the Lord does step in and mete out judgment as needed. Sometimes it’s just us condemning ourselves by refusing the path of healing, peace, and goodness.

For those struggling to forgive

I want to take a moment to talk about forgiveness and what it looks like. Forgiveness is a process that occurs in the heart. Because it’s an internal process, the outward manifestation can look different. Sometimes forgiveness looks like welcoming someone back into your life, and sometimes forgiveness looks like stepping away from someone for the rest of your life. Look at Nephi. He was commanded by the Lord to leave his brothers behind, and they did not reconnect in this life. Forgiveness does not always look the same on the outside, and it doesn’t mean that you have to invite a dangerous person back into your life.

But let’s examine forgiveness in the heart for a moment.

Doctrine and Covenants 64:11 And ye ought to say in your hearts–let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

God will judge, and He will judge perfectly.

Forgiving doesn’t mean the other person gets off easily. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re enabling them to go on hurting others. That’s not what forgiveness is about. God sees all, and He will judge accordingly. He’s not going to let someone come into heaven and destroy it with manipulation or harm. I think sometimes we’re afraid to forgive because we’re afraid of getting hurt. Fortunately, we have a loving Heavenly Father who separates people according to the goodness they offer those around them. If He has forgiven someone, it’s because they’re prepared to be different.

Going back to our previous example, I’m going to postulate again. In this specific imaginary scenario, I believe that the girl (the one who Heavenly Father judged was safe and worthy) will be so grateful for her healed mind. I believe that despite what she went through, she will also feel horrified by how her actions harmed another person. I believe that so much of what we experience in the next life is coming to terms with what happened to us and what we did to others in our mortal life.

You can let go and trust God to handle it perfectly. You can trust that you’re safe and will be healed. That is a process, and you don’t need to harangue yourself if it takes a while, but working towards it will free you. Forgiveness has everything to do with you and finding peace again. If you want to heal from damage caused by another person, you have to dig down deep and find love for that person. You have to sincerely want them to heal and make better choices and stop harming others. That is where you’re going to find the freedom and peace the Lord means for you to have.

I testify of a loving Savior who will protect and heal the innocent. I testify of a Father in Heaven who is a perfect judge. I testify that He teaches us principles that are meant to bless us, and I testify that forgiveness is one of those principles.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 64–66 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Church in Ohio, August–November 1831 (D&C sections 63–69)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” address to Seminary and Institute personnel at BYU, 7 July 1954.
Kirtland, City of Revelation: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is an eight-part documentary miniseries that explores the way men and women flocked to Kirtland in the 1830s to hear the voice of God through the prophet Joseph Smith. The episodes consider Kirtland as a site of abundant revelation and the place where church leaders organized much of the church. The episodes also illuminate how Joseph Smith was intent on teaching church members in Kirtland how to hear the voice of God themselves. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 63–69 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Faith and Signsby Autumn Dickson

Ezra Booth was a Methodist preacher who joined the church after witnessing Joseph Smith heal Alice Johnson’s arm. He later left the church and published material that was particularly antagonistic. Despite witnessing a miracle, Ezra didn’t hold on to his faith.

We see this time and time and time again throughout the scriptures. Signs are insufficient conversion tools. I’ve spoken about signs before, but I want to talk about it on a more individual level today. Let’s cover the basics and then bring it into our personal lives. Here is some of what the Lord has to say about seeking signs.

Doctrine and Covenants 63:7, 9

7 And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation.

9 But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe.

Let’s break these down just a bit.

Verse 7. He that looks for signs will receive them, but it won’t bring salvation. In my mind, the Lord is saying, “The signs are already there, and I’ll send you signs, but it won’t do you any good because you don’t believe.” The same people will look at the complexity of the earth and see completely different origins. There are signs, but they’re not going to change you or bring you the full extent of happiness if you don’t believe there is a Creator behind it.

Verse 9. You don’t receive faith from signs. You see the signs when you have faith. Faith is a conscious choice that you make of your own accord, and then you start to see. Here is a quote from one of my all-time favorite BYU speeches given by Lawrence E. Corbridge.

“I don’t know if pigs will ever sprout wings and fly, but if they do, flying pigs will never be nearly as amazing as the ordinary pig in the first place.”

If you have faith, the pig is the miracle. Everything the Lord has already given us is a miracle and a “sign.”

Faith comes first.

Now, many of us have already made the conscious choice to believe in the restored gospel. We go to church every week and we attend the temple and pray and follow the commandments. We profess that we believe, so what do these verses mean for us? Let’s look at a few different ways that they could apply to someone who already believes in God.

Revelation

Interestingly enough, there’s another verse from this week that can get tied into the message I’m trying to cover today.

A revelation was given on the banks of the Missouri river. The Lord said a few things in this revelation, but one of the things that He taught these elders was that they could choose to travel how they wanted.

Doctrine and Covenants 62:8 These things remain with you to do according to judgment and the directions of the Spirit.

Revelation can feel tricky, but it’s an enormously powerful tool that is life-changing. I had the fortunate experience of being raised in a home where I was taught to seek revelation, but unfortunately, I occasionally took it to the extreme. I had such a hard time moving forward unless the Lord had told me to do so. I did seek signs for everything, and you can imagine that might cause problems.

Sometimes I would “find” signs that I believed He had sent when it was actually in my own mind. I had a hard time accepting the idea that He was choosing to be silent so that I could make decisions for myself. Other times, I would come to the conclusion that He was mad at me or that I wasn’t being good enough to receive revelation. Other times, I would just panic and stay confused rather than making a decision that sounded good to me.

I often found signs, but they were not unto salvation.

The Lord wants you to make decisions because you’re training to be like Him. He’s not trying to keep you from making mistakes; He is trying to help you gain the wisdom you’ll need to do what He does. There is no other way to do that except for making your own decisions sometimes.

Sometimes we’re worried about jumping in. We’re either scared that we’ll make a mistake, take a route He doesn’t want us to follow, or we’ll somehow shoot ourselves in the foot. In reality, the Lord wants us to have faith. He wants us to trust Him to speak as necessary, course-correct when it matters, and rescue us when we paint ourselves into a corner.

As we move forward with faith in His ability to save, the signs follow! If we take the time to look back prayerfully, we’ll find that He was leading us along the whole time.

Maybe we’re not asking for signs before we’re willing to believe in God, but I do believe that sometimes we ask for signs before we’re willing to believe in Him enough that we can move forward with rejoicing. If we choose to have faith, the signs will follow after.

Feeling love or forgiveness

Here is another potential example of seeking signs because we don’t quite believe in the Savior enough.

I know far too many people who don’t quite feel the love of their Savior. Logically, they can kinda get behind it because it comes along with having a testimony of the restoration. Unfortunately, despite this general testimony of the gospel, it’s still hard for them to dive in and bask in that love and acceptance towards their own person.

This extends to other feelings such as forgiveness. When we’ve made a mistake or when we’re falling prey to a particular flaw, it can be difficult to accept that the Lord has moved on. We want a sign that we really are forgiven. We want some indisputable evidence that we’re okay, and He’s not mad anymore.

Interestingly enough, even when He does give little signs of His forgiveness, we often don’t accept the signs and we cling to those mistakes and flaws.

Trusting that the Savior loves you and forgives you is a conscious act of faith, and the faith comes first! When you have truly chosen that faith, then you have finally reached the point where you’re able to accept the signs.

This circumstance doesn’t translate perfectly, but I want to utilize it anyway because I feel like it makes it more concrete.

Conner and I have been married for eight years. That’s not long, relatively speaking, but I have learned a few lessons along the way. One of those lessons is to trust Conner and his love for me. When we argue, I have learned to find peace in the fact that I know things are going to be just fine. Arguing doesn’t mean we’re going to get divorced. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be stuck in an unhappy marriage forever. Conner has showed up for me time and time again, and it has taught me that we’re going to come back from whatever we’ve fallen into. I don’t spiral anymore when things aren’t perfect in our marriage.

Conner’s love for me was there anyway. There are plenty of ways that he shows up for me and gives me signs of his love. However, I don’t find peace and “salvation” in that love if I don’t have faith and consequently find all the signs of his love.

Like I said, it doesn’t translate perfectly, but you get the idea. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ love you even more than Conner loves me. The love is there. All the signs are there, but you can’t see them (or in the very least, you can’t trust them) without faith. Faith has to come first. You have to choose to look at your situation and believe that He loves you. You have to believe that He loves you enough to send challenges but also a Savior to pull you through it. As you choose to look at each situation as a manifestation of His love, I promise that the signs follow. You’ll see them everywhere once you start to choose faith in His love and willingness to forgive.

I testify of a Savior who loves. I testify that He is constantly showing His love. I testify that He is constantly reaching out with that love, but you have to turn on your end of the receiver. Believe and the signs will follow. That extends towards revelation as well. As you trust in Him, you’ll be able to move forward and make decisions. As you keep moving forward, you’ll be able to look back and see the signs that He’s been guiding you all along.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 60–63 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

From Passive Observers to Active Participants in God’s Prophetic Work

Have you ever assumed that the Restoration was something that happened once—and now we’re just meant to follow along?

In his deeply doctrinal message, “The Times of Restitution of All Things,” Elder David A. Bednar challenges that assumption. Quoting Acts 3:21, he draws our attention not just to what God has restored, but what He continues to restitute—through us. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formally organized in 1830, yes—but that event was part of a prophesied restitution of all things foretold by prophets throughout time. And we are not merely witnesses to it—we are meant to be agents in it.

Elder Bednar’s invitation is clear: learn the message, prove it for yourself, and act on it. The Restoration isn’t only about what God did through Joseph Smith—it’s about what He is now doing through each of us. So the question is: Are we content to be acted upon? Or will we choose to act in faith as disciples in the final dispensation?

Apologetic Issues: Restoration and ApostasyMisconception: Many members believe the Restoration was a one-time historical event completed through Joseph Smith. Others concede the idea of an “ongoing restoration” but assume that only Church leaders receive revelation and direction, leaving ordinary members to simply follow.

Response: Elder Bednar reframes this entirely: the Restoration was only the beginning of the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21). This restitution includes not only restored priesthood, ordinances, and doctrine—but also our individual participation in fulfilling prophecy. Elder Bednar teaches that each of us is to “learn about and prove this message,” actively preparing the world for the Second Coming.

Common Fallacy: False Dichotomy – Presenting only two options when more exist.
Correction: Elder Bednar adds a third, crucial truth: The Restoration inaugurated a restitution that requires each of us to engage—studying, praying, acting, and helping to fulfill God’s promises.

Criticism: Critics often argue that there was no “Great Apostasy,” and that the early Christian Church has continued uninterrupted through history. In their eyes, the Apostasy is an LDS invention justifying the need for a new Church.

Response: Elder Bednar (quoting the Restoration Proclamation) affirms that after the death of Christ’s original Apostles, “Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth.” The Restoration was not about dismissing past faith, but about restoring priesthood authority, covenants, and organization through a divinely appointed prophet. This directly fulfills the biblical promise of a future restitution.

Common Fallacy: Straw Man – Misrepresenting a position to make it easier to attack.
Correction: The Church does not claim that all truth disappeared—only that authority and fullness had to be restored by divine means.

Apologetic Application: The Apostasy, Restoration and RestitutionCore Doctrine: The Great Apostasy refers to the loss of priesthood authority and gospel fullness. What began with Joseph Smith is part of a broader restitution (Acts 3:21)—one that invites us to actively participate in preparing the world for Christ’s return.

This doctrine helps clarify why the Restoration was not just about correcting teachings or starting a new church—it was about divinely reestablishing Christ’s original authority, ordinances, and covenants. It affirms that the Church today stands not only as a restored institution but as the prophesied means of gathering Israel, sealing families, and preparing for the Second Coming. Recognizing that we live in the era of restitution reframes our role as disciples—not as observers of sacred history, but as active partners in the fulfillment of God’s work on earth.

Defending Core Beliefs

1⃣ The Apostasy and Restoration were prophesied. The Apostasy was prophesied (2 Thessalonians 2:3; Amos 8:11–12), and the Restoration was needed to return authority and ordinances to the earth. Prophets and apostles foresaw a falling away from truth and priesthood power, which made a divine intervention necessary. The Restoration through Joseph Smith wasn’t just a revival—it was a re-establishment of the Church with the same authority and covenants Christ originally gave.

2⃣ Restitution is participatory.
It includes each of us gaining a testimony and acting in faith to help fulfill God’s promises. Rather than being spectators to prophecy, we are agents commissioned to act. Through missionary work, temple service, personal revelation, and teaching others, we take part in the fulfillment of Acts 3:21 as co-laborers in the Lord’s ongoing work.

Practical Apologetic Use: Rather than viewing the Restoration as a completed chapter in Church history, Elder Bednar urges us to see it as the opening act in an ongoing divine process. The year 1830 marked the official organization of the Church, but it was just the beginning of a sweeping restitution that continues to unfold. Understanding this helps us reframe our role—not as bystanders in a finished work, but as engaged participants in the prophesied gathering, teaching, and temple work that defines this dispensation.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsIn Acts 3:21, Peter foretells a future time when God would orchestrate the “restitution of all things.” Elder Bednar links this to modern revelation:

The Savior’s restored Church is being established throughout the world and is the instrument by which God will ‘gather together in one all things in Christ.’

Come, Follow Me Connection:This week’s study includes Doctrine and Covenants 58:26–29, a passage that beautifully complements Elder Bednar’s message. The Lord teaches that He does not intend to “command in all things”—instead, He calls us as disciples to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause” and to act “of their own free will.” Elder Bednar’s invitation to “learn about and prove this message” reflects that same divine expectation. We were never intended to experience the Restoration as a passive spectator; each of us is meant to be an active participant through initiative, faith, and agency.

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This Today We are not passive recipients of restored truth—we are participants in the restitution of all things.

Principle in Practice: We need to be engaged in the restitution of all things1⃣ Explain That Priesthood Authority Had to Be Restored:

Many Christians believe that the Church merely needed reformation, not restoration. But Elder Bednar testifies that priesthood authority and saving ordinances were lost and had to be restored by heavenly messengers—not simply rediscovered through scholarship. When someone questions why a Restoration was necessary, explain that authority from God can’t be self-appointed or inherited through tradition; it had to be divinely conferred once again.

2⃣ Emphasize Personal Revelation as a Covenant Expectation:

While we often associate revelation with prophets, Elder Bednar reminds us that each disciple is invited to receive answers and direction from God. Revelation isn’t reserved for leadership—it’s foundational to our covenant relationship with Him. You might say: “One of the greatest truths of the Restoration is that each of us can ask, seek, and receive.”

Top Apologetic Facts 1. The Church Was Organized After Key Restorations – The formal organization of the Church on April 6, 1830, occurred after priesthood authority had been restored by John the Baptist and the Apostles, and the Book of Mormon had been translated and published. This sequence emphasizes that the Church is built upon divinely conferred authority—not human ambition or historical tradition.
2. Restitution Means Ongoing Fulfillment – Restitution, as used in Acts 3:21 and by Elder Bednar, means more than restoring what was lost—it means bringing to pass everything prophesied, promised, and covenanted in all previous dispensations. It includes temple covenants, family sealing, gathering Israel, and preparing for the Second Coming.
3. Testimony Is Gained Through Action – Elder Bednar promises that those who “learn about and prove this message” will be blessed with their own divine witness. This underscores that faith is not passive; it is a process of seeking, acting, and receiving. Living the gospel is how we come to know it is true.

ConclusionThe Restoration of the gospel was not the end of a story—it was the beginning of a divine unfolding. Elder David A. Bednar reminds us that we are not merely inheritors of restored truth, but agents in a continuing restitution—a prophetic work that gathers, heals, and prepares the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

We are invited to learn, to prove, and to act. The Lord trusts us to move forward without needing to be “compelled in all things” (D&C 58:26), and He has placed power within us to participate in fulfilling prophecy, not just observe it.

So let’s ask ourselves: Am I waiting to be acted upon—or am I fully engaged in the restitution of all things?

The Savior’s restored Church is being established throughout the world and is the instrument by which God will ‘gather together in one all things in Christ.’

The Consider Conference series by FAIR offers an in-depth look at recent General Conference talks to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints navigate common questions, misunderstandings, and criticisms. Each post provides doctrinal insights, historical context, and practical ways to apply gospel principles in everyday conversations. Through this series, we hope to equip readers with faith-promoting resources that encourage thoughtful reflection, respectful dialogue, and a stronger foundation in gospel truths, fostering both personal conviction and meaningful discussions with others.

The post The Times of Restitution Are Now appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Align With Himby Autumn Dickson

Trials. There is always something more to say about trials, and that’s what I want to talk about this week. I specifically want to talk about one aspect of trials and how we can sometimes make things harder on ourselves.

Some of the Saints have made it to Missouri this week, and they are disappointed about what they arrived to find. They were looking for Zion and were surprised to find that it had not been built yet. They had just travelled hundreds of miles away from their comfortable homes in New York. Their original destination had been changed when they were kicked off of what was supposed to be their home. As they arrived in Missouri, they didn’t find homes. They found that their journey was just beginning.

The Lord gave Section 58 as a response, and here is one of the things the Lord says.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:3 Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation.

As the Saints originally looked around at the undeveloped land, they were probably met with some aches and pains as they remembered what they had back in New York. All they likely saw was a bunch of work they had yet to do. I imagine them receiving these words from the Lord, and I imagine them trying to look at the land with new eyes. They probably tried picturing an industrious, protective community where they could raise their families and build the church. Though they missed their homes, they likely found great comfort in the hope that the Lord had significant plans.

Interestingly enough, they would not live to see the end result of the Lord’s plans for Missouri. We have not yet lived to His plans for Missouri, and so this might seem a bit confusing. They went to build Zion, but it kinda seems like Zion never happened for them. Let’s explore that idea and then apply it to our own lives.

What was the Lord talking about?

I want to bring your attention to the first verse of Section 58 so we can get a better feel for what the Lord is truly talking about.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:1 Hearken, O ye elders of my church, and give ear to my word, and learn of me what I will concerning you, and also concerning this land unto which I have sent you.

The people had the land sitting in front of them, and that was in the forefront of their minds. They had just travelled and travelled and travelled in order to arrive at this specific land, so that’s what they were listening for. They were asking themselves, “What would the Lord have us do with the land?” However, look at what the Lord said first. He said, “Listen to what I want concerning YOU, and then we can talk about the land I sent you to.”

Zion is so much more than some land in Missouri. While the Saints were preoccupied with the land, the Lord was preoccupied with His people. It’s always about His people. The Lord designated the physical place of Zion to be in Missouri but acquiring a “Zion people” is the much harder and far more important work of the Lord. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Missouri if you can’t be kind and compassionate and loving to your neighbor. If you are not a Zion-like person, Zion will never exist even if you’re in the right location.

Yes, the Lord speaks about the physical land of Missouri, but try to look at the section with new eyes. Read the section from the Lord’s perspective of trying to build Zion within His people first rather than trying to build cabins, farms, and shops. Utilize this perspective as we look at this next verse in which the Lord describes His purpose for sending His Saints to Missouri specifically.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:7 And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand;

There is a lot we can talk about, but I want to draw attention to one particular phrase, “…that you might be honored in laying the foundation…”

He sent them to Missouri so that they could be honored in laying the foundation of Zion. Maybe they weren’t able to lay the foundation of the temple while they were in Missouri, but they laid a much greater foundation for the rest of us; they did some of the hardest groundwork to prepare for Zion. I don’t think any of us can fully comprehend just how blessed we are to build upon the moral and social foundations that were set down by those who came before us. They did start to build Zion, and they did it in a much more important way than tilling the land and building cabins and infrastructure.

Building you

So how does that translate to us?

My first thought is that we can learn about the differences between the Lord’s focus and what human minds tend to gravitate towards. I suppose I could be wrong, but I would imagine that when the Saints received this revelation, they were gung-ho about physically building up Independence, Missouri. In actuality, the Lord was looking to build His people. And when I say build, I mean that He was going to let them go through really hard things.

We all have to go through trials. They were an absolutely necessary, completely irreplaceable portion of the Plan of Salvation. But interestingly enough, we make those trials much harder when our goals are different from the Lord’s goals.

When you have it in your mind that the Lord wants you to build a cabin, you’re going to get very confused, disheartened, and disillusioned when the cabin doesn’t turn out (or turn up) at all. The Lord doesn’t care about the cabin; He wants to build you. The Lord can rearrange the elements, soften hearts, and add zeros to a bank account. What He refuses to do is take away your agency. Because of this personally imposed stipulation, it is much more difficult for Him to build you. And if He just lets you build the cabin with no obstacles, then it becomes impossible for your character to get built.

So when you run into issues and trials, He isn’t trying to impede your service. He hasn’t abandoned you. He isn’t hiding or uninvolved. It’s not a sign that this isn’t His work or that you’re destined to be a failure. He is doing exactly what He set out to do; He is building you. When you realize that you are His priority, the seeming obstacles pushing back against your goals become stepping stones towards your exaltation.

Because of the trials

Recap thus far. The Lord wanted to build Zion. The people thought He meant that they needed to build infrastructure in Independence, Missouri. That is an eventual goal of His, but more importantly, He wanted to build a Zion-people. You can’t actually build Zion when the people aren’t ready. Any disappointment on the part of the Saints likely stemmed from their inaccurate assumptions about the Lord’s purposes.

As I was reading through this, I thought of my husband. And since he doesn’t read or listen to my stuff, I’m going to talk about him.

My husband is an entrepreneur. Being an entrepreneur can come with a lot of awesome perks, but there are also plenty of downsides. He has met plenty of people who have told him that he couldn’t do what he wanted to do. He has gotten plenty of negative reviews on what he’s trying to accomplish. He has hit obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.

And after a while, those things add up and start to affect him. He has expressed the sentiment that he feels like a failure, and he has expressed it hundreds of times.

We’ve always had what we needed even when things got rocky, but the combined weight of negative opinions tends to pull his focus away from the ways he’s been absolutely successful.

When he says, “I’m a failure,” it’s because he is looking in the mirror and saying, “I haven’t reached the goals I had for this point in my life. I’m not providing the kind of life that I wanted for my family, etc., etc.”

When I look at our life together, I’ve seen anything but failure. However, let’s imagine for a second that he has failed as an entrepreneur. It sucks. It’s not fun. It hurts when you have goals that don’t come together in the way that you want them to, and that disappointment can come back to bite you frequently.

Do you know what helps that specific kind of trial? Realigning your goals with the goals of the Lord. He’s not specifically looking for successful businessmen, perfect homemakers, or anything else you could possibly have a goal about. He’s looking to build you into someone who can build heaven.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:3 Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation.

All of those obstacles that my husband has faced combined with all of the times that he has stood back up counts for something. And it counts for something incredibly important. Even if we were to lose everything, the effort he has put into his goals aren’t wasted. Rather, if he can switch his mindset to align with the Lord’s, my husband will find plenty of successful moments.

And interestingly enough, if Conner had never met some of those business “failures” he would have never been able to find those spiritual successes.

I testify that you can’t lose when you’re aligned with the Lord. Every mistake, failure, flaw, and obstacle can transform into the desperately needed stepping stones towards exaltation when you take advantage of the atonement of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t mean there won’t be disappointment, but even disappointment turns into glory when you stay close to the Lord. I testify that we do not yet have eyes to see everything that the Lord wants to create within us, but I do know that it’s better than we can imagine.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 58–59 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Joseph Smith’s first visit to Missouri; Zion & the temple (D&C sections 57–62)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Aaron L. West, “Questions and Answers about the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri,” Church History, 14 March 2019. West answers common questions about the temple lot dedicated by Joseph Smith, including who the present owners are of various portions of that parcel of land.
Examine the two City of Zion plats prepared by early Church leaders on the Joseph Smith Papers website:
- Plat of the City of Zion (June 1833). The first plat, drawn by Frederick G. Williams (with north pointing to the left) has marginal notes surrounding the diagram on all four sides.
- Revised Plat of the City of Zion (August 1833). The second plat, also by Williams, contains no marginal notes, but an attached letter from Oliver Cowdery explained the plat and the plans for the temples to be built at the center of the city of Zion. Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 57–62 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

It’s About Youby Autumn Dickson

I have found an interesting parenting dilemma lately. And though this is a personal situation, I believe it teaches an important principle that we find in the scriptures for this week.

Evelyn and Warner (my two oldest children) could not be more different. Evelyn has literally described herself as an “inside girl” on more than one occasion, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t see Warner all summer as he lived outside. Evelyn will read and draw and organize her room for fun. It has taken all the patience I currently possess to teach Warner how to keep his room in working order. Evelyn is intense and detail-oriented. Warner goes with the flow, and I’m not sure he knows what a detail is.

It comes as no surprise that they play differently. Evelyn wants to draw and color with her friends. Even when she plays pretend, she creates labels and tapes them to my walls so that everyone knows what each location is for. Warner just wants to wrestle and fight bad guys.

Now when Warner is with his little buddy who lives a couple houses down, he will “pick a fight” and they’ll roll all over the ground, and that’s their definition of fun. When Warner’s little buddy is not available to play, Warner will often try to play with Evelyn. You can imagine the consequences when Warner tries to pick a fight with Evelyn. It doesn’t often result in rolling around on the ground; it usually just results in screaming.

It’s hard to know how to balance this sometimes because I know that Warner needs to learn to read a room and not push boundaries, but I also know that he’s little and he’s not trying to hurt anyone. He’s trying to play. I don’t want him to think he’s bad or that he needs to change what he likes to do. So I talk to Warner about how things are only playing if everyone is having fun and how he needs to stop when someone is unhappy. I think that’s an important lesson for him to learn so that he can be a functional, well-adjusted adult.

But I also usually talk to Evelyn too even though she’s not “in trouble” for not wanting to play a certain way. I try to take the opportunity to teach her how to be happy.

Namely, I try to teach her how to judge the situation for what it truly is and how to make a wise decision that can make her happy despite what’s occurring around her. I explain to her that she doesn’t have to participate in that kind of play if she doesn’t want to, but I also explain to her that Warner isn’t trying to bug her. He is simply trying to have fun, and that’s how he does it with his friends.

She hates it when I talk to her after they fight in these particular situations. She feels like she’s being punished when Warner is the antagonist. She wants me to come in and fix everything and then leave her be. Logically, this makes sense at first glance. She wasn’t going after Warner or breaking his carefully crafted pillow forts; Warner was the one causing the “problem.” I definitely don’t want her to feel like she’s in trouble.

But I do want her to be as happy as humanly possible. Which means I’m going to give her the opportunity to rise above a “Law of Moses” attitude. It may take years to grasp this because she’s so young, but we’re going to start teaching it now anyway.

Now let’s look at the Saints this week before bringing it back.

Disappointment and heartache of the Saints

The Saints ran into a difficult situation this week. Leman Copely was a convert to the church. He had a huge farm and offered to allow other Saints to move onto his land as they left New York to move to Ohio. These Saints made a HUGE sacrifice in leaving their prosperous farms to follow the prophet to Ohio. When they arrive, Leman Copely changes his mind and kicks them all out.

When Joseph inquires of the Lord about the situation, he receives this counsel.

Doctrine and Covenants 54:8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.

So the Saints travelled over 250 miles to get to Ohio only to find out there wasn’t anything there for them. They were then asked to travel an additional 800 miles to get to Missouri. I don’t know the exact mileage for either relocation because I looked up the driving miles on Google maps, but you get the basic idea.

There are a lot of lessons that can be pulled from this story. The Saints could have easily wondered whether Joseph was truly a prophet for an all-knowing God and why he couldn’t have seen this coming. Why weren’t they counseled to move to Missouri in the first place? If this is really what the Lord wanted them to do, why wasn’t He facilitating it? Had the Lord been wrong? Was Joseph mistaken? Was Joseph actually a prophet?

There are a lot of good answers for that question, and I could spend an entire post just on the answer to those questions. However, I actually want to take this in a different direction. We are going to operate off the assumption that the Lord knew what He was doing, and that He had been guiding Joseph and His Saints all along despite the hiccups and reroutes.

So why? What gives? Why would the Lord choose this path over circumventing the entire issue and sending them to Missouri in the first place?

I’m sure there are a lot of reasons. Perhaps Ohio was easier to swallow than Missouri, and it got some of His reluctant children out the door to head west. Perhaps the Lord needed to give Leman a chance to choose for himself; you can’t truly choose when you were never really given an option.

But one of His reasons, and arguably one of the most important reasons, was because the Lord loved His Saints. Let’s talk about His decision to deal with the Saints after this manner is PROOF of His love, rather than a disregard for their well-being or a penchant for unfairness.

The trial of betrayal

We could talk about this from the perspective of trials in general, but I want to talk about it specifically within the context of being betrayed and then still “getting the short end of the stick.”

Leman betrayed the Saints, but the Lord still loves Leman. The Lord worked with (and is likely still working with) Leman to push him the direction where he is going to be happiest.

And though it doesn’t necessarily look like it, I believe the Lord is doing the same with His Saints. He is pushing them in the direction that provides ample opportunity for them to learn to be as joyful as possible.

It would be easy for the Saints to ask, “Why Lord? We didn’t do anything wrong. Why do we have to move? Leman is the one who should get punished.” And honestly, maybe they’re not totally wrong. But this isn’t about Leman. The Lord is looking at them completely separately from Leman and asking Himself, “What is going to be best for them?”

Can I just pull out the poignant detail that the Lord asked His Saints to move to Zion? Very shortly after this verse, we read about how the Lord revealed the location of Zion to be in Missouri.

What is Zion? It’s a place of unity, love, and good will towards each other. It’s a place where everyone takes care of each other and all things are common. I picture the Lord saying, “I need you to rise above this situation and find love and forgiveness and good will. I need you to learn from this situation about how it feels to have someone turn their back on you when you’re in need.”

What’s more? The Lord wasn’t asking them to find forgiveness and good will for Leman’s sake. I said it once, and I’ll say it again. This isn’t about Leman. This is about the Saints. Finding forgiveness and good will and compassion and love are all things that are going to contribute to the happiness of the Saints.

And even more than finding joy and peace in the midst of what had occurred, it’s also going to prepare them for their futures living with (and like) their Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father gets betrayed millions of times every day; you don’t see it ruining His eternity. If we want to live like Him and enjoy what He enjoys, we have to be like Him. We have to be prepared to act like Him until we become like Him. Part of the process includes being filled with so much love and compassion that having someone turn their back on you doesn’t affect you the same way. You’re so focused on others and what they need, the betrayals don’t land the same way. That’s not to say it doesn’t hurt. I believe that the Lord does hurt when we betray Him, but more importantly, He just chooses to live His life on a whole other level.

And He gives us opportunities to choose to do the same.

When the Lord asks you to forgive someone who has betrayed you, it has nothing to do with the betrayer and everything to do with His love for you. When He asks you to “go to Zion” and find that love and compassion and forgiveness, it’s because He wants more for you than you can currently imagine. He wants you to live as He does because He knows how great it is to live life in that manner.

Let’s bring it back to Evelyn for just a moment. Warner is the antagonist in this example, and I will handle Warner with love and I will handle Warner in the way that he needs. I will also choose to try and get Evelyn to rise above, be compassionate, and free herself from that kind of disappointment and pain. I don’t do it so that Warner can get a free pass. I do it because I love Evelyn.

So yes, the Lord could have prevented the whole problem with Leman, but He would have robbed His Saints of the opportunity to be happier. Isn’t that ironic and beautiful? Opposition truly is necessary to joy.

I testify of a Lord who is going to make His decisions completely based on the individual He is working with. Every decision He makes that affects your life is FOR you, not in spite of you. Even when the Lord chooses to bring trials or even just allows trials, He doesn’t necessarily see punishment. It is completely derived from His desire to give you an opportunity to rise above and find deeper joy.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 51–57 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Recognizing Prophetic Fulfillment and Rejecting False Traditions

Have you ever paused to consider what spiritual miracles are unfolding right before our eyes—and whether we might be missing them?

In his General Conference message, Right Before Our Eyes, Elder Ronald A. Rasband invites us to recognize the majesty of this moment in the Restoration. The growth of the Church in temples, missionaries, and faithful disciples isn’t just impressive—it’s the literal fulfillment of prophecy. Yet alongside that divine acceleration, Elder Rasband warns of ongoing opposition, distractions, and “naysayers” who seek to obscure or diminish the Lord’s work.

As we study Doctrine and Covenants 49–50, we see a parallel challenge: early Saints struggled to let go of inherited false traditions and distinguish the light of true revelation from counterfeit spiritual excitement. In both the 1830s and today, the Savior lovingly calls us to grow in grace, embrace light, and let go of ideas that are not of God.

Elder Rasband’s message becomes a powerful modern companion to these revelations — testifying that the Restoration is not just something we believe in. It’s something we are watching unfold in real time.

Apologetic Issues: Fulfillment of Prophecy and Letting Go of False IdeasCriticism: Church growth is just coincidental—it doesn’t prove divine origin. The Church’s global expansion is simply the result of organizational strategies or cultural momentum.Response:Elder Rasband powerfully counters this claim by showing how specific prophecies—like Joseph Smith’s declaration that the Church would “fill the world”—are being fulfilled right before our eyes. The unprecedented growth of temples, missionary work, and education was foretold in scripture (see D&C 88:73) and is now observable in tangible ways.
This isn’t random expansion; it is evidence of divine orchestration.

Common Fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc This Latin phrase means “after this, therefore because of this.” Critics wrongly assume that because Church growth follows logistical efforts (e.g., creating new missions), that those efforts are the only cause.

Correction: A faith-based lens recognizes both divine and human participation—God inspires the leaders and the members who carry out His work. Fulfillment of prophecy doesn’t exclude planning; it includes it as part of God’s hand.

Apologetic Application: Fulfillment of Prophecy in a Living ChurchCore Doctrine: God continues to fulfill prophecy through living prophets and the ongoing Restoration of the gospel.The doctrine of continuing revelation teaches that God has not ceased to speak. The Restoration was not a one-time event—it is an unfolding process. The Lord’s hand is evident in the Church’s worldwide growth. Elder Rasband reaffirms that we are witnessing “the majesty of this moment” as temples rise, missions expand, and millions respond to the Savior’s invitation.

Defending Core Beliefs1⃣Prophecies in the Restoration are not symbolic platitudes—they are specific and testable. Joseph Smith declared in 1834 that the Church would fill the Americas and the world. At the time, this seemed implausible. But today, with over 367 temples and a presence in nearly every nation, we can see the literal fulfillment. Prophecy in this context offers verifiable evidence of divine involvement.

2⃣ The Church’s growth is not just smart logistics and marketing. While organizational efforts matter, divine foresight and prophetic vision give the Church its spiritual momentum. Elder Rasband’s talk illustrates that growth is happening in harmony with prophecy—not just strategy. When we view numbers, temples, and conversions through the lens of prophecy, we see not just human effort, but God’s plan unfolding in real time.

Clarifying Misunderstandings & Strengthening FaithWhen critics dismiss the Restoration as emotion-driven or human-engineered, this doctrine provides a faith-anchoring response:
Fulfilled prophecy = divine fingerprints. Ongoing growth = evidence that the Church is guided by more than men. Prophetic vision = reassurance that God is not silent.

Practical Apologetic Use: When someone questions whether the Restoration is credible, point to specific fulfilled prophecies. For example, Joseph Smith’s 1834 claim about worldwide expansion wasn’t aspirational—it was prophetic. Encourage seekers to consider what kind of 24-year-old farm boy could predict global outcomes—unless he was guided by God.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsIn the early 1830s, converts to the restored Church in Ohio came with sincere hearts—but also with false spiritual ideas and traditions inherited from their diverse religious backgrounds. This influx of spiritual enthusiasm, described in Doctrine and Covenants 50 and historical records like the experience of Levi Hancock, led to confusion and counterfeit manifestations of the Spirit.

Joseph Smith was commanded to “set in order” the Church by receiving divine revelation that would distinguish true light from false spirits. Just as the Lord gave the Saints in Kirtland tools to discern truth in the midst of chaos, He continues to guide us today through living prophets.

Doctrine and Covenants Connection:

In both the early Restoration and today’s worldwide Church growth, the Lord invites us to let go of traditions that are not of Him and embrace the increasing light that comes through covenant living, temple worship, and prophetic guidance.

By drawing attention to the fulfilled prophecy of Church expansion, Elder Rasband builds on the same principles taught in D&C 49–50:

Let go of false or incomplete traditions (like the Shakers did in D&C 49)
Discern truth by its fruits and light (D&C 50:23–25)
Follow the Good Shepherd, who patiently leads us from confusion into clarity (D&C 50:40–46)

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This Today How can we help others recognize the fulfillment of prophecy and let go of spiritual confusion or outdated traditions?

1⃣ Connect Church growth to prophecy in casual conversations.

If someone comments on how many missionaries or temples there are today, respond with: “It’s actually a prophecy being fulfilled. Joseph Smith said the Church would fill the world—and now it is. Pretty incredible, right?”Simple, natural comments can plant powerful apologetic seeds.

2⃣ Gently challenge false traditions with scriptural clarity.

When someone expresses confusion about modern revelation or resists change in Church practices, refer to D&C 50:24:
“That which is of God is light”—if a teaching brings peace, clarity, and Christlike focus, it’s from Him. False traditions might sound familiar, but they don’t always bring light.

Top Apologetic Facts Historical Context: In 1834, Joseph Smith prophesied in a 14×14 foot schoolhouse that the Church would fill the Americas and the world. That prophecy is unfolding today.

Doctrinal Insight: Doctrine and Covenants 50 was given to help early Saints distinguish true spiritual manifestations from false ones—a lesson still needed today in an age of confusion and counterfeits.

Practical Application: With 367 temples announced, under construction, or operating, Church members can see tangible evidence of a global, living Restoration.

Conclusion: Witnessing the Restoration in Real TimeElder Rasband’s powerful testimony invites us to see the Restoration not as a past event, but as an active, unfolding reality—one we are meant to participate in. As we give the Lord “equal time,” we gain the spiritual clarity to discern what is true, what is light, and what is real.

We are not passive observers—we are eyewitnesses of prophecy. The question is: Are we paying attention?

As we study D&C 49–50, may we let go of outdated traditions and embrace the true doctrine that brings light. Like the early Saints in Kirtland and the missionaries in Lima, we too can shout “Hurrah for Israel!” and take our place in this majestic moment of the Restoration.

“We are hastening our holiness as we live temple worthy, as we worship in the house of the Lord, and as we make covenants with God.” —Elder Ronald A. Rasband

The post Right Before Our Eyes appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Avoiding Confusionby Autumn Dickson

Leman Copely was a convert to the church who wanted the gospel preached to his former congregants – the Shakers. The Shakers held some beliefs that were different from our’s. Here is some of what the Lord said regarding that:

Doctrine and Covenants 49:1-4

1 Hearken unto my word, my servants Sidney, and Parley, and Leman; for behold, verily I say unto you, that I give unto you a commandment that you shall go and preach my gospel which ye have received, even as ye have received it, unto the Shakers.

2 Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent.

3 Wherefore, I send you, my servants Sidney and Parley, to preach the gospel unto them.

4 And my servant Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you my servants; and by so doing I will bless him, otherwise he shall not prosper.

The Lord calls Sidney, Parley, and Leman to go preach the gospel as they have received it. The Shakers want the truth in part, but they don’t want the whole truth. Sidney and Parley have been called, and so has Leman. However, it’s important to note that Leman has been called to teach the Shakers according to what he has received from the restored gospel and not what he has received from the Shakers.

I’m not 100% sure what the Lord was saying when He told Leman to teach the Shakers from the perspective of a believer of the restored gospel, but it definitely stuck out to me. When I write these posts, sometimes I get immensely wrapped up in defending the gospel to those who have left. Those are the people that I’m thinking of, and I try to approach the gospel by looking through their lens. I think there is merit to this. It’s definitely helped me to examine my beliefs more closely, but I believe that there are some topics that simply can’t operate from that direction. Some topics have to be taught unapologetically and while it may not reach the audience that I believe needs it most, there is no other way to truly teach it. Sometimes, you have to teach the truth and people are simply going to have to choose whether they believe it.

Part of the truth

From my perspective this week, this is one of those topics. The Shakers only wanted part of the truth. There are two perspectives I want to cover specifically about this idea of “part of the truth.”

First perspective. I once came across a post on social media. It was either posted right before General Conference or right after. The lady recommended listening to conference and taking the parts that spoke to you. If there was something that hurt you or caused problems in your mind, she recommended leaving those parts and simply holding to the parts you could connect to.

As you can imagine, there were wildly different reactions to this post. Some were thanking her profusely for making them feel heard. Others were condemning her and quoting General Authorities about not cherry-picking the gospel.

I found myself somewhere in the middle. I believe in the entirety of the gospel. The more I study it, the more I find myself saying, “Dang…God knew what He was doing. This is so perfect, and I’m so grateful that He continues to work with us. All of this makes so much sense.” I believe that eventually, we will have to accept the entirety of the gospel in order to receive the entirety of happiness that is available.

On the same note, I rather have people accept as much of the truth (since from my perspective, this IS the truth) as possible. Perhaps they can’t bring themselves to hold to everything taught over the pulpit. Though I believe that accepting the entirety of the gospel is eventually going to be required of all of us in order to be prepared for exaltation, I also believe that it’s better to listen to conference and take as much as you can in comparison to not listening at all.

So that’s my first perspective. The gospel is true. The Savior leads this church and eventually, all of His choices are going to make sense. In order for us to find our way and become the kind of people He wants us to become, we will eventually need to accept every portion of the gospel.

But in the meantime, I rather you accept at least part of the truth if you’re not ready to accept all of it.

Accepting all of the gospel

But here’s my unapologetic part and the second perspective I want to teach today.

When Christ declares that these people only wanted part of the truth, I don’t picture Him condemning them. I don’t believe the Lord was trying to tell the Saints that the Shakers were bad people. I believe that the Lord was trying to tell them that accepting only part of the truth brings only part of the blessings.

When we’re operating on false beliefs, we’re going to make more mistakes, get hurt, or miss out.

This is an absolutely ridiculous example, but it teaches the gist of what I’m trying to say.

If you are super convinced that gravity isn’t real, then you might make some poor choices. You’re not a morally bad person for not believing in gravity, and having a good heart and righteous intent can go a long way. But you can still get hurt if you decide to try and live your life as if there is no gravity.

Let’s look at it from a religious perspective.

The Shakers believed in celibacy over marriage. I believe that marriage, intimacy, and having children have brought me closer to God than anything else. I have learned more about the character of God. I have learned more about joy. I have experienced small glimpses of heaven as I sit in bed with my five kids and hold an extremely chaotic Come Follow Me lesson before church on Sundays.

The Shakers were missing out. In fact, I believe they were missing out on some of the most beautiful parts of life. I’m sure they were very good people, but operating as if there is no gravity can cause problems. It can prevent you from receiving blessings that might otherwise be yours.

Modern-day equivalents

I think there are a couple of different ways that this can manifest in our day, and I want to talk about two.

This wasn’t the modern-day equivalent I was thinking of when I first began this post, but the Spirit had other ideas. The modern-day equivalent that I feel led to talk about is when we try to downplay eternal truths in the name of sensitivity.

I originally shied away from using the particular belief of marriage and celibacy as an example because I know there are a lot of members who ache for what I have. I have family and friends who have yearned for happy marriages and children and so hearing that they’re missing out on these blessings can be painful. I don’t believe it’s immoral to step back for a minute and focus on other parts of the gospel when the disappointment of unfulfilled blessings feels too great. I believe there are times when the rest of us can be more sensitive; there are ways that we can make sure that we’re that everyone feels included even if they’re not married.

But I also believe that we wouldn’t be doing anyone any favors by ignoring or downplaying this powerful, eternal truth. Marriage and parenthood are incredible blessings, and everyone who is righteous will receive that crowning blessing eventually. It may feel painful sometimes to hear about it too much, but it would be even more painful to reject those beliefs because you have yet to see their fulfillment. It would bring even more pain and sorrow to not teach this eternal truth: marriage and parenthood are divine. The Shakers were missing out.

Embrace your God-given desires for companionship and children, and simultaneously embrace the promises of the Savior to fulfill those desires. There is so much goodness coming.

The second modern-day equivalent actually seems like the opposite of what I just taught, but it’s actually just an extension of what I just taught.

If you’re watching Come Follow Me videos, chances are, you believe in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. So how does this apply to you?

What truths are you not accepting? What partial truths or traditions are you clinging to? This can manifest in a million different ways.

Sometimes we’re taught the truth but still cling to our original interpretations of the truth. For example, I used to cling desperately to the idea that God was mad at me whenever I made a mistake. I’m not sure if this was self-sabotage or a weird motivational factor I tried to cling to, but either way, it was holding me back from some of the most incredible blessings I’ve ever experienced, namely the grace of Jesus Christ.

What partial truths do you refuse to give up and what do these partial truths take away from you?

I testify of a Savior who disperses truth as many places as He can. If you’re not ready to accept Him as a Savior, He is going to try and teach you about the character of God as much as possible. If you’re not ready to accept the reality of God, He is going to try and teach you Christlike principles about loving your neighbor and choosing gratitude as much as you allow Him. I testify of a Savior who is actively pushing truth in any form that we are willing to accept because He wants us to experience as much heaven as is available in our day. I also testify that clinging to and operating on partial truths, whether inside the church or out, can lead to more pain than is necessary and less happiness than is available.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 49–50 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Welcoming the Spirit, Discerning the Gifts, and Embracing Every SeekerHave you ever wondered what truly draws people to the restored Church of Jesus Christ—not just doctrinally, but spiritually?

In his Christ-centered address, By This All Will Know That You Are My Disciples, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf reminds us that the most powerful witness we offer the world is how we treat each other. As he shares a personal story of a nonmember friend discerning the Spirit in a humble sacrament meeting, he bears testimony that spiritual gifts are real, that discernment matters, and that the Lord’s Church must be a place of belonging for all who seek Him.

In a time when critics question the sincerity of spiritual experience or the openness of our worship, Elder Uchtdorf invites us to see through the eyes of faith—to recognize God’s hand in simple gatherings, imperfect people, and heartfelt love. How can we become better at discerning the true gifts of the Spirit? And how can we ensure that all of God’s children feel at home among His disciples?

Apologetic Issues: Spiritual Gifts and the Boundaries of BelongingMisconception: People should be fully prepared—doctrinally and culturally—before they attend or participate in our worship.Response:The Lord’s standard is clear: all sincere seekers are welcome. In Doctrine and Covenants 46:5–6, He commands the Saints not to cast out anyone earnestly seeking the kingdom, even if they are not yet members. Elder Uchtdorf reinforces this doctrine, stating:

If you love God, if you want to know Him better by following His Son, then you belong here.

While many congregations do a beautiful job of welcoming visitors and converts, challenges can still arise—especially when someone’s background, race, lifestyle, or unfamiliarity with “Church culture” sets them apart. Some members may quietly question whether that person is “ready” for Church participation or fitting in “appropriately.” But such assumptions risk imposing our comfort in place of God’s invitation.

The Lord sees differently. He looks not on outward appearance or cultural alignment, but on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Creating spiritual belonging is not about people earning a place—it’s about disciples creating space.

Common Fallacy: Gatekeeping FallacyThis concern reflects the Gatekeeping Fallacy, where individuals wrongly assume authority to decide who truly belongs in a space meant to be open. It often confuses readiness for ordinances (which do have standards) with worthiness to worship, which the Lord extends to all who seek Him.

Solution: While ordinances are sacred and require preparation, worship is an open door. When we build walls where the Lord has commanded a welcome, we unintentionally resist His will. Inclusion is not an indulgence—it is obedience.

Misconception: Are ‘spiritual gifts’ just emotional experiences?Response:Spiritual gifts are not vague feelings; they are scripturally grounded manifestations of the Holy Ghost. Elder Uchtdorf illustrates this in recounting how a visiting friend discerned divine love in a humble branch meeting—not through performance, but through the Spirit.

Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–26 identifies specific gifts, including wisdom, knowledge, discernment, faith, healing, and the ability to recognize truth. The Lord also warns against deception (vv. 7–8), underscoring the need to seek the Spirit in humility and avoid counterfeit emotionalism.

Common Fallacy: ReductionismThis concern reflects the Reductionist Fallacy, which oversimplifies spiritual experiences as mere emotion. In doing so, it dismisses the divine dimension of the gifts of the Spirit.

Solution: Not all emotions are spiritual—but spiritual experiences often involve the heart. The Lord teaches that He communicates through both the mind and the heart (D&C 8:2). Discipleship invites us to engage intellectually and spiritually, discerning true gifts from passing sentiment.

Apologetic Application: Spiritual Gifts and the Power of Divine Discernment Core Doctrine: spiritual gifts are real, divinely given, and meant to benefit all sincere seekersElder Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s talk, By This All Will Know That You Are My Disciples, puts that principle into action. Rather than listing gifts, he shows how they function: through quiet spiritual discernment, sincere love, and the unifying power of the Spirit.

Defending Core Beliefs1⃣ Spiritual Gifts Are Recognized Through the Spirit, Not PerformanceD&C 46:13–14 teaches that to some it is given to know Christ is the Son of God, and to others, to believe on their words. It goes on to describe the gift of discernment (v. 23)—the capacity to spiritually perceive truth even when it’s not outwardly obvious.

Elder Uchtdorf recounts taking a nonmember friend to a sacrament meeting that was, in his words, awkward and imperfect. Yet she said afterward:

“That was beautiful… I’m so impressed with how people treat each other in your church. … This is what I imagine Christ wanted His Church to be like.”

Though unfamiliar with our doctrines, she discerned the Spirit. This affirms the truth of D&C 46:9: “They are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do.” Her seeking was enough to receive a spiritual witness.

2⃣ Disciples Are Commanded to Seek and Discern Gifts—and to Make Room for Them in OthersD&C 46:7–8 warns that not all spiritual manifestations are from God—and teaches us to “seek ye earnestly the best gifts” and remember why they are given. Elder Uchtdorf models this discernment when he recognizes that his own judgment was clouded by superficial expectations—and his friend’s clarity came through spiritual insight.

“I had wanted picture-perfect meetings… But what the members of this branch had achieved was a heart-perfect spirit of love.”

This teaches that spiritual gifts may appear in humble, even unexpected, settings—and that belonging and discernment are themselves gifts that must be both recognized and cultivated.

Clarifying Misunderstandings & Strengthening Faith Spiritual gifts are not reserved for seasoned Saints—they are available to all who seek the Savior, even visitors and newcomers. * Discernment does not require dramatic revelation; it often manifests as quiet spiritual perception, as Elder Uchtdorf’s friend experienced. * Inclusivity is doctrinal.* The Lord commands us in D&C 46:5–6 not to cast out any who are “earnestly seeking the kingdom”—regardless of background, race, doctrinal fluency, or cultural fit.

Historical and Doctrinal Connections Contextual Background:In early 1831, just months after the Saints had begun gathering in Kirtland, spiritual confusion was growing. Newly baptized converts—many from revivalist backgrounds—were introducing chaotic practices into worship meetings. Some claimed dramatic visions, speaking in tongues, or ecstatic trances. Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord, and Doctrine and Covenants 46 was the answer.

Rather than forbidding spiritual experience, the Lord affirmed the reality of spiritual gifts, while teaching the Saints how to discern what was of God and what was not. Importantly, He also gave a bold command: do not cast out sincere seekers from your meetings. This directive pushed against social instincts to exclude or control and instead emphasized trust in divine guidance and spiritual openness.

Elder Uchtdorf’s talk echoes this moment perfectly. In a modern setting, he demonstrates how even humble worship, guided by love and sincerity, is a place where spiritual gifts are manifest and seekers are welcomed.

Doctrinal Connections: Doctrine and Covenants 46:5–6: “Ye shall not cast any out of your sacrament meetings who are earnestly seeking the kingdom…”* Elder Uchtdorf reinforces this scriptural command with Christlike warmth:

“If you love God, if you want to know Him better by following His Son, then you belong here.” * Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–26: This list of spiritual gifts includes wisdom, knowledge, discernment, healing, and faith—all meant “that all may be profited thereby.” Elder Uchtdorf’s friend, though not a member, exemplified the gift of discernment by recognizing divine love and belonging in an imperfect congregation. * Doctrine and Covenants 46:8: “Seek ye earnestly the best gifts…” Elder Uchtdorf challenges modern disciples to recognize that the real miracle is love in action—a spiritual gift too often overlooked because it isn’t dramatic.

Through these connections, we see prophetic continuity: just as the Lord guided early Saints to balance spiritual openness with discernment, He continues to do so through His apostles today.

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This TodayHow can we help others see that spiritual gifts are real and that everyone—regardless of background—belongs in the Savior’s Church?

1⃣ Affirm the reality of spiritual gifts—even when they look ordinary.

Elder Uchtdorf shows that a sincere visitor discerned the Spirit not through flawless music or eloquent talks, but through the gift of love in action.
Real-life application: When someone questions whether they’ve “felt the Spirit,” invite them to describe moments of clarity, peace, or connection—they may already be experiencing spiritual gifts without labeling them as such.

2⃣ Help others see that belonging doesn’t require perfection—or sameness.

D&C 46:5–6 and Elder Uchtdorf both insist: those earnestly seeking the kingdom should never be turned away.
Real-life application: In gospel discussions or missionary efforts, gently correct the idea that people need to fit into an arbitrary ‘mold’ before attending Church or worshiping with the saints. Share your own story of growing while belonging.

Top Apologetic Facts Historical Insight: D&C 46 was revealed to address confusion over spiritual manifestations in early Kirtland. It confirmed the legitimacy of spiritual gifts while setting doctrinal boundaries for their use.

Doctrinal Insight: Spiritual gifts like discernment, faith, love, and belief are just as real and vital as more dramatic manifestations—and are given to profit all (D&C 46:9, 26).

Practical Application: True inclusion means removing cultural gatekeeping, not just tolerating difference. Belonging is a spiritual principle, not a social achievement.

Conclusion: Welcoming the Spirit, Welcoming Each OtherElder Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s message is a gentle yet bold reminder that belonging is not a side effect of discipleship—it’s part of the invitation. As we study Doctrine and Covenants 46–48, we learn that spiritual gifts are given to all who seek Christ, and that one of the most powerful among them is the ability to help others feel seen, safe, and spiritually at home.

When we focus less on “guarding the gate” and more on “setting a place at the table,” we begin to reflect the Savior’s love more clearly. The sacrament meeting Elder Uchtdorf described wasn’t perfect—but it was Spirit-filled because it was filled with people who loved God and loved each other.

Who in your life might be waiting for a place to belong—and how might you help them feel the Spirit through you?

Our love for God and His children is a powerful testimony to the world that this is truly the Savior’s Church.

The post By This All Will Know That You Are My Disciples appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Spiritual gifts; corrections to Shaker beliefs (D&C sections 46, 49–50, 52–56)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, “Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism,” Journal of Mormon History 37, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 1–85. Stapley and Wright examine the history of anointing and laying on of hands of the sick by early Latter-day Saint women.

On the sanctity of animal life:

On 26 May 1834, Joseph Smith taught about the sanctity of animal life during the Zion’s Camp march: “[After] we crossed the Embarros River…in pitching my tent we found three Massasaugers or Prairie Rattle Snakes which the brethren were about to kill, but I said [‘]let them alone, don’t hurt them, how will the serpent ever lose its venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon them[;] men must become harmless before the brute creation, and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child play with the serpent with safety.[’] … I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or any animal of any kind, during our journey unless it— were necessary to preserve ourselves from hunger.“ (Manuscript History, vol. A‑1, 8 [addenda].)
President Joseph F. Smith, “The Destruction of Animal Life,” Juvenile Instructor 48, no. 5 (May 1913): 308–09. President Smith warned the Saints against being “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” simply for sport or pleasure.
President Spencer W. Kimball repeated Joseph F. Smith’s counsel in his October 1978 General Conference address, “Fundamental Principles To Ponder And Live.” He expressed his view that “it is not only wicked to destroy [innocent birds and wildlife], it is a shame.” Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 46, 49–50, 52–56 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Our Advocateby Autumn Dickson

I feel like there are many ways to illustrate the atonement of Jesus Christ in order to add layers to our understanding. I don’t think one verse, one way of explaining it, one parable can do it justice. It’s so universal and so individual at the same time. Applying it and having it change us can be so nuanced. Studying layer upon layer can give us a more full picture of the Savior’s powerful sacrifice.

This section holds one of my favorite verses, and it teaches us another layer about His atonement. I’ve actually shared this verse before in a different Easter message in a different year, but I taught it from a completely different angle so I’m going to use it again.

A sacred learning experience

I just want to note that this is the gospel according to Autumn. I don’t know that my description is how things are going to go, but I do believe there are principles here that are most definitely true. My description is merely meant to teach those principles, not to try and preach exactly what Judgment Day looks like.

I want you to picture that it’s your turn to go in and be judged by your Heavenly Father and Savior. You’re nervous. You don’t really feel like reliving some of the worst decisions of your life, but there’s no turning back now. You did what you did, and now you get to watch it.

As you enter the room, you’re blown away by the warmth there. You take your seat waiting for the video montage to start so that They can start weighing your good deeds against your sins, your opportunities against your disadvantages.

You watch your video-montage-life, and then the Savior stands to be your advocate. You are blown away when the Savior doesn’t actually say much about what your life looked like. Instead, He says this…

Doctrine and Covenants 45:4-5

4 …Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

The Savior was speaking to His church in this verse. He literally tells His Saints, “Listen to me, your Advocate before the Father. This is what I’m going to tell your Heavenly Father. I’m going to ask Him to look at My perfection and My sacrifice so that you can be saved.” I believe that we are all going to be judged on who we’ve become, truly I do. I also think we are going to experience something very powerful on Judgment Day.

The Lord loves to teach us and because progression will still exist on the other side, I believe that Judgment Day is going to double as a learning opportunity. I believe that we’re going to feel humbled as we listen to the Savior asking the Father to spare us because of what the Savior did for us, not because we worked really hard to keep the commandments and change. In that day, we are going to learn that we truly are saved by grace.

I imagine us walking out in tears, completely surprised that Judgment Day wasn’t painful. It will be beautiful and sacred and humbling to realize that our choices and personal change do matter, but that they would be rendered useless had our older Brother chosen against sacrificing Himself on our behalf. I imagine being filled with a reverent, deep-seated awe that renders us speechless.

Souls not saved

That is not the only thing the Savior teaches in this section though. Right before He describes His role as the advocate, He also teaches this particular principle:

Doctrine and Covenants 45:2 And again I say, hearken unto my voice, lest death shall overtake you; in an hour when ye think not the summer shall be past, and the harvest ended, and your souls not saved.

The Savior pleads with us to listen to His voice in case Judgment Day comes at an unexpected time, and we find our souls not saved. This begs the question, “What does it mean to be saved?”

In my personal interpretation of the gospel, we are experiencing varying levels of salvation and damnation at any given time in our lives. We are inviting heaven or hell. We are feeling close to the Savior, full of love for others, free from the constraints of men, and safety in vulnerability before the Lord. Or, we are feeling far away from our loving Brother, clinging to a selfish focus and desperate need to make ourselves happy, carrying the weight of the fickleness of mankind, and fearing that the floor is going to fall out from beneath us.

Being saved is gradually inviting more and more heaven into your life by taking advantage of tools given to us by the Savior. For example, being saved is not about taking the sacrament and dying before you have an opportunity to sin again. Being saved is about taking the sacrament and allowing yourself a moment of peace to remember the Savior and His great love in sacrificing Himself for you. Continually reflecting on that love and building a relationship and confidence in Him invites salvation because loving Him is salvation. It also pushes you to look outward and love others, another aspect of salvation.

That’s why we’re taught that you can’t just repent right before you die. We’re taught that you’ll be the same person on the other side that you are on this side. Salvation doesn’t just come when you say sorry. Salvation is something you grow into.

The Savior also reminded His people about the parable of the ten virgins in Section 45. You can’t borrow oil, and oil doesn’t magically appear when you need it. The “oil” is something you have to gather ahead of time so that you’re ready to be a part of the Celestial Kingdom when the Savior utilizes His atonement to bring you there for good.

In short…

In short, we gradually become more like our Savior, experiencing life as He does, experiencing “salvation” as He does. The atonement of Jesus Christ is there, all throughout our life. It is a power that helps us change and grow. The love behind the sacrifice inspires us to want to do better. It gives us the hope we need to keep trying. And then, when it’s our time to be judged, the Savior’s atonement facilitates us walking into the Celestial Kingdom where we can enjoy that salvation forever. The Savior’s atonement means that our change and effort matter.

If the Savior had been unsuccessful in His sacrifice, I wonder if there would have still been some merit in following the laws of Christ. I think it’s worth reflecting on because it can help us understand what we would have faced without His triumph, and I believe that can bring a lot of gratitude. Would forgiveness still help a person to rise above pain? Would turning outwards towards others still bring happiness? Would gratitude, humility, and seeking knowledge still bring some level of worth? The Savior enjoys salvation because He follows these laws perfectly so even if the Savior had failed, I wonder if following them (to whatever extent we’re capable of) would still bring some portion of happiness.

I don’t know how things would have turned out if the Savior had failed. I don’t know how much happiness would have still been available to us or if we would have all eventually given up and dissolved into dissolution and despair. We wouldn’t get our bodies back which, according to the scriptures, is described as a sort of prison. I don’t remember how it feels to be a spirit, but I believe that there was a legitimate reason we were excited to get a body and a legitimate reason that the Savior went through what He did in order to guarantee a resurrection.

We wouldn’t get to return to Them. Anyone who has missed anyone can understand this to a degree. Someday, that veil won’t be over our eyes anymore. We will remember where we came from and Who sent us, and the ache of never returning to Them will stick with us.

People may never heal from the mistakes we’ve made. We may never heal from the wrongs committed against us.

We would be relegated to a place that’s probably a lot like earth. It’s filled with some good, but it’s also filled with people who turn against each other. There are always people who want to hurt each other and hate each other. When things on earth feel heavy, I cling to the idea that the Savior is going to make up for it all. How would I change without that hope?

I don’t know exactly how the world would look without the triumph of the Savior over sin and death. I do know what the Spirit feels like, and I know that the feelings of the Spirit are meant to give us a tiny glimpse into what it feels like on the other side. I know that forgiveness has freed me. I know that one day, misunderstandings will clear, minds and hearts will heal, and we will be placed in an existence that is full of everything we could possibly ask for. I know that because of the Savior, we will have the opportunity to enjoy that existence in its fullness; I am grateful that the Savior chose to perform the atonement so that we could return to Him.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 45 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Finding Safety and Strength Through Christ’s Atonement, Prophetic Order, and Consecrated ServiceHave you ever felt caught in a storm—not just in the weather, but in life itself? Trials, grief, injustice, confusion, or even the weight of others’ harmful choices can leave us stranded, unsure where to turn.

In his powerful General Conference address, The Atonement of Jesus Christ Provides the Ultimate Rescue, Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles testifies that Jesus Christ stands ready to rescue each of us through His infinite Atonement. But Elder Cook’s message doesn’t stop there. Drawing on the moving history of the Willie and Martin handcart companies, he reminds us that prophetic leadership and covenant discipleship are vital parts of the Lord’s rescue plan.

As we study Doctrine and Covenants 41–44 this week, we see these same principles in action:

The order of revelation through a living prophet protects and unifies the Saints (D&C 43:1–7).
The law of consecration invites us to participate in Christ’s rescuing work—not through compulsion, but through love and covenant commitment (D&C 42:30–42).

In a world that often questions the need for prophetic authority or dismisses commandments as restrictive, Elder Cook’s testimony offers a bold counterpoint: these divine patterns are not control—they are the very means by which Christ’s rescue reaches us.

So how can we better understand the Atonement’s power, recognize the blessing of order in revelation, and willingly join Christ’s mission to lift and rescue others?

Let’s explore.

Apologetic Issues: The Atonement, Prophetic Leadership, and Covenant RescueQuestion: “Why does the Church claim that only the President of the Church can receive revelation for the whole Church? Shouldn’t everyone be free to receive revelation for the group, just as they do for their own lives?”

Response: The doctrine of prophetic authority protects against confusion and division within Christ’s Church. The Lord revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 43:1–7 that only the designated prophet receives revelation for the entire body of Saints, ensuring unity, order, and clarity. Elder Quentin L. Cook’s recounting of the Willie and Martin handcart rescue illustrates this principle in action: it was Brigham Young’s prophetic leadership and timely call to action that saved hundreds of lives.

This divine pattern mirrors biblical precedent (e.g., Moses leading Israel, Peter guiding the early Christian church). It is not about silencing personal revelation but about recognizing different stewardship roles: personal revelation for individual lives and families, prophetic revelation for the Church at large.

Common Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion (Emotional Reasoning)

This argument often appeals to feelings of fairness or personal offense (“Why can’t I receive revelation for the Church too?”), but emotional discomfort is not evidence against true principles. Feelings alone cannot substitute for the divine order established by Christ. Correct reasoning recognizes that unity requires clear channels of authority, which in this case are established by revelation, not human preference.

Solution: Prophetic leadership is not about limiting revelation—it is about providing order to revelation. It ensures that the Church can act decisively and in unity, especially when lives (physical or spiritual) are at stake.

Question: “Doesn’t the law of consecration mean the Church controls people’s money and resources? Isn’t this just religious socialism?”

Response: The law of consecration is not about control—it is about voluntary covenant partnership in the Lord’s work. As taught in Doctrine and Covenants 42:30–42, consecration allows members to willingly dedicate their resources to help care for the poor and advance the Lord’s purposes.

Elder Cook’s talk highlights how the rescue of the handcart companies required the Saints to give freely of their resources—mule teams, wagons, flour, time, and labor. This was not imposed by force but invited by prophetic call and met with love and generosity. Likewise, consecration today is about choosing to be part of the Savior’s mission to rescue, lift, and bless others.

Common Fallacy: Straw Man

This criticism misrepresents the law of consecration as coercive socialism (the Straw Man Fallacy) by ignoring its voluntary, covenantal nature. The truth is that consecration respects agency and emphasizes willing sacrifice out of love, not forced redistribution. Correct understanding restores the principle’s beauty and sacred intent.

Solution: Rather than exploitation, consecration reflects Christlike love and stewardship. It offers an antidote to selfishness and inequality, creating opportunities for collective care and shared spiritual growth.

Apologetic Application: The Atonement of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration—Rescue Rooted in Covenant LoveElder Quentin L. Cook’s talk powerfully teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the ultimate rescue—but the Lord’s rescue plan also calls on us to participate through covenant living.

Core Doctrine: The Atonement of Jesus Christ empowers both personal salvation and covenant community rescue. Through the Atonement, Christ rescues us not only from sin and death (see Mosiah 15:8–9; Alma 34:16) but also invites us into His work of healing and lifting others (see Doctrine and Covenants 42:30–42). The law of consecration is a covenantal expression of this doctrine—it aligns our hearts with the Savior’s mission to “remember the poor” and to be His hands in the rescue.

Defending Core Beliefs:1⃣ Misconception: The Church uses commandments like consecration to control its members. Clarification: The law of consecration is not coercion—it is an invitation to Christlike partnership. As Elder Cook describes the handcart rescue, no one was forced to give wagons, food, or labor. The Saints responded to prophetic counsel willingly because they understood that participating in rescue is part of discipleship. Likewise, the Atonement calls each of us to act, not merely to receive.

2⃣ Misconception: Revelation doesn’t need to be centralized in one leader. Clarification: Without order, the rescue would fail. The Willie and Martin rescue succeeded because the Saints responded to the prophetic call of Brigham Young, following the divinely appointed process revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 43:1–7. This pattern mirrors the Atonement itself—Christ is the one authorized Mediator between God and man (see 1 Timothy 2:5). Likewise, prophetic leadership ensures unity and direction in the collective work of salvation.

Application for Clarifying Misunderstandings:This doctrine helps correct the narrative that commandments and prophetic guidance are about control. Instead, they are how Christ organizes His rescue mission—they empower us to act in harmony, with purpose, and in love. Rather than limiting agency, covenant commitments like consecration amplify our ability to serve meaningfully, making us partners in Christ’s redemptive work.

Practical Apologetic Use:When questions arise about prophetic authority or commandments being “too controlling,” this doctrine offers a simple, powerful reply:

The Lord’s rescue is both personal and collective. Commandments like consecration and the pattern of prophetic leadership are not control—they are how Christ extends His Atonement into the lives of others through us.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsThroughout scripture and the history of the Restoration, the Lord’s rescue of His people has followed a consistent pattern: divine authority, covenant commitment, and collective action under prophetic leadership. Elder Quentin L. Cook’s message in “The Atonement of Jesus Christ Provides the Ultimate Rescue” echoes these sacred patterns, reminding us that the Savior’s Atonement empowers both personal deliverance and community rescue—and that such rescue is always organized by divine law.

Contextual Background:In 1856, the Willie and Martin handcart companies found themselves stranded on the plains, facing starvation and death. Their survival depended on timely rescue, inspired by prophetic direction. Brigham Young’s leadership, calling on the Saints to consecrate their resources and act immediately, reflected the same divine order the Lord established in ancient Israel under Moses, and later in Christ’s early Church under Peter.

Elder Cook emphasizes that the pattern of prophetic leadership and willing discipleship is not a relic of the past—it is the way the Lord continues to govern and care for His people today.

Doctrinal Connections:This week’s Come, Follow Me lesson in Doctrine and Covenants 41–44 reinforces the same principles Elder Cook highlights:

The Lord declares that “he that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple” (D&C 41:5).
Revelation for the Church is to come through one appointed—to prevent confusion and maintain unity (D&C 43:1–7).
The law of consecration, taught in D&C 42:30–42, calls each Saint to willingly dedicate time, talents, and means to lift the poor and carry forward the Lord’s work.

These doctrines affirm that the Atonement is not only about being rescued—it is about being called to participate in the rescue.

By aligning ourselves with prophetic counsel and covenant living, we become instruments in Christ’s hands, part of His loving and ordered plan to redeem, heal, and save.

Living Apologetics: Becoming Part of the Rescue Principle: How can we help others understand that commandments, consecration, and prophetic leadership are not about control—but about participating in Christ’s rescue mission?

Key Principle:Elder Quentin L. Cook teaches that the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the ultimate rescue—and we are invited to assist in that rescue through willing sacrifice, covenant commitment, and heeding prophetic guidance.

Practical Application1⃣ Reframe Criticism as a Question of Purpose, Not Power: When someone asks, “Why does the prophet have to make the decisions?” respond with:

“In any rescue operation, success depends on clear leadership and willing hearts. Prophetic leadership is how the Lord ensures that the rescue happens—on time and in order.”Draw on Elder Cook’s example of the Willie and Martin handcart rescue where Brigham Young’s call was essential.

2⃣ Clarify the Covenant Nature of Consecration: When faced with, “Isn’t consecration just a religious form of socialism?” explain:

“Consecration is about love, not control. It’s not about being forced—it’s about choosing to join Christ in blessing and rescuing others.”Use the handcart rescuers as a real-life analogy of consecration in action.

Faith in Action: Share the Message 1. Family Conversation: Talk with your family about what it means to “join the rescue.” Discuss how commandments like consecration and prophetic guidance are invitations to partner with Christ—not restrictions.

2. Teaching Moment: When teaching Come, Follow Me or giving a talk, use the handcart rescue as a parallel to D&C 42–44. Emphasize the importance of order, revelation, and covenant service in both personal and collective salvation.

3. Personal Testimony in Conversations: When questions arise about Church leadership or commandments, share your own experience of finding peace, purpose, and joy through following prophetic counsel and participating in consecrated service.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and Facts The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the ultimate rescue—commandments and covenants are how we participate in that rescue. Commandments like consecration are not control—they are Christ’s invitation to join Him in lifting others. (D&C 42:30–42)

Prophetic leadership ensures unity and effective action in the Lord’s work. Revelation for the Church comes through one appointed (the prophet), providing clarity and order in Christ’s rescue mission. (D&C 43:1–7)

Willing consecration reflects covenant love, not coercion. The handcart rescue demonstrates how prophetic direction and freely given sacrifice work together to save lives—physically and spiritually. Elder Cook’s message ties this historical example to modern discipleship.

Conclusion: The Rescue Is Real—And You Are Called to Be Part of ItElder Quentin L. Cook’s testimony in “The Atonement of Jesus Christ Provides the Ultimate Rescue” offers more than reassurance—it offers an invitation. The Savior’s Atonement is not distant history or abstract doctrine. It is the living, active power that rescues, redeems, and restores.

But Elder Cook reminds us that this rescue is not meant to be a solo mission. The Lord calls us—through prophetic leadership and covenant commandments like consecration—to participate in the rescue of others. Whether offering spiritual strength, emotional support, or physical aid, we are invited to reflect Christ’s love through action.

As we study Doctrine and Covenants 41–44 this week, we see how the Lord governs His Church with order, unity, and purpose—so that His work of healing can move forward without confusion. Prophetic guidance and covenant discipleship are not restrictions—they are the structure through which Christ’s rescue reaches hearts, homes, and the whole world.

So the question remains: How is the Lord asking you to join His rescue mission today? Whom might He be calling you to lift, to love, to remember?

“The Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the ultimate rescue from the trials we face in this life.” (Elder Quentin L. Cook, April 2025 General Conference)

The post The Ultimate Rescue: How the Atonement, Prophetic Leadership, and Covenant Living Work Together to Save appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C sections 29, 43, 45, 116, 133)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave some important cautions on interpreting prophecies of future events; see “Evidences and Reconciliations XXXII: To What Extent May Prophecy Be Interpreted?,” Improvement Era 43, no. 12 (December 1940): 737, 765, 767.
In his October 1992 General Conference address, “To Be Learned Is Good If…,” Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve warned against those within the Church who preach of an impending gathering of the saints due to some catastrophe. Such people persist in the Church today, and many recent, popular books continue to teach these types of false messages.

(Skip to the 13:30 mark in Elder Packer’s talk.)

Elder Packer taught:

“There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world—something of the ‘sky is falling, chicken licken’ of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults.

“Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true. The Brethren, by virtue of traveling constantly everywhere on earth, certainly know what is going on, and by virtue of prophetic insight are able to read the signs of the times.

“Do not be deceived by them—those deceivers. If there is to be any gathering, it will be announced by those who have been regularly ordained and who are known to the Church to have authority.”

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 29, 43, 45, 116, 133 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The law of consecration; the office of bishop (D&C sections 41–42, 44, 48, 51, 70, 72, 79)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

In October 1962 General Conference, then-Elder Spencer W. Kimball spoke out against marital infidelity, using portions of section 42 to explain the importance of “total allegiance and total fidelity” that husbands and wives should have for each other. Read his remarks in Conference Report (October 1962): 55–60.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 41–42, 44, 48, 51, 70, 72, 79 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Recently, a brand-new database called Relative Finder was released by the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation in partnership with FamilySearch.

This new feature, available at wilfordwoodruffpapers.org, enables users to locate and read firsthand accounts of their relatives mentioned by Wilford Woodruff in his journals, letters, discourses, and correspondence.

Jordan Woodruff Clements, Board Chair of the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation, explains how this new feature is creating family ties. “People using Relative Finder are finding hundreds, even thousands, of relatives they didn’t know they had,” he says. “Relative Finder connects people to their relatives and presents them with direct links into the journal entries or other documents within the Wilford Woodruff Papers where they are mentioned or that they personally wrote. These detailed, handwritten documents are now available to anyone searching for family history information.”

The Wilford Woodruff Papers include over 18,000 different people that Wilford Woodruff interacted with over the course of more than sixty-five years. Ed Evans, Chief Technology Officer at the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation, says, “Our new database is connected to FamilySearch with 14,000 people currently identified and verified in the Wilford Woodruff Papers database. That means these records are now available to millions of potential descendants.”

Using data from FamilySearch, the Relative Finder feature combs through the 14,000 individuals identified in the Wilford Woodruff Papers to bring an interactive list of relatives to website users.

“The experiences documented are President Woodruff’s original writings, including a variety of information such as location, the day’s events, other people on the scene, and spiritual insights. Experiences with people, correspondence, mission calls, and other detailed information are personal, new, and uplifting to the people using Relative Finder,” Evans says.

According to Evans, this new tool enhances temple, missionary, and family history work through the personal documents now transcribed and published in the Wilford Woodruff Papers.

The Relative Finder feature is an important milestone in the partnership between the Wilford Woodruff Papers and FamilySearch, which started two years ago with the launch of FamilySearch’s Journey of Faith experience driven by data from Wilford Woodruff’s documents and eight other collections.

“Our partnership with FamilySearch continues to focus on providing more information, combined with features that simplify and accelerate family history work. Our young adult staff, interns, and volunteers will continue to verify the four thousand unidentified people and make their information available to users from FamilySearch and connected to the Wilford Woodruff Papers database,” Evans says.

The Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation’s mission is to digitally preserve and publish Wilford Woodruff’s eyewitness account of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and make his records universally accessible in order to inspire all people, especially the rising generation, to study and to increase their faith in Jesus Christ. For more information, please explore wilfordwoodruffpapers.org.

The post Brand-New Family History Database Now Available appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Kamryn Maughan

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Have you ever had a question about a topic in Church history? Because we were not there, some Church history events and topics can be hard for us to understand. For example, plural marriage, also known as polygamy, is a difficult topic for many members of the Church. So how do we approach questions about topics like plural marriage? Here are three ideas:

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Find Answers to Tough Topics in Church History? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2024 April General Conference, Sunday Morning Session

Covenants and Responsibilities

Elder Dallin H. Oaks
First Counselor in the First Presidency

Summary

The Church of Jesus Christ is known as a church that emphasizes making covenants with God.
In his talk “Covenants and Responsibilities,” President Dallin H. Oaks emphasizes the foundational role of covenants in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their significance in both personal and societal commitments. He explains that covenants, formal commitments to fulfill specific responsibilities, are essential for personal regulation and societal functioning. Highlighting examples from various professions and religious traditions, he underscores the importance of covenants in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly through ordinances like baptism and temple ceremonies. Temples and the associated covenants are central to the Church’s mission, providing unique blessings and binding members to Christ, ultimately guiding them toward eternal life.

Gospel Doctrine & Principles taught

The Plan of Salvation, The Restoration, Ordinances and Covenants, The Covenant Path

Scriptures

Genesis 17:2–9; Exodus 6:2–4; 19:5–6; Leviticus 26:42; see also 2 Nephi 9:1; 1 Nephi 13:23, 1 Nephi 15:18; 17:40; 22:9; 2 Nephi 29:14, 1 Nephi 14:14; 2 Nephi 6:13; 9:1, 2 Nephi 1:5; 3:4; 31:7, 13, 14; Mosiah 5:5–8; 6:1; Alma 7:15; 46:21–22, Joseph Smith—History 1:33–34, 39, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 12:24. Doctrine and Covenants 76:69, Doctrine and Covenants 115:4, Doctrine and Covenants 20:37; see also Mosiah 18:10–13, Doctrine and Covenants 20:75, 77; Doctrine and Covenants 1:15, Doctrine and Covenants 1:22, 2 Nephi 4:32; 33:9, Doctrine and Covenants 76:59, 62, Doctrine and Covenants 14:7

Other Sources

Church History Topics, “Nauvoo Temple”

Related talks:

Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Is at the Helm”
Russell M. Nelson, “As We Go Forward Together”
Russell M. Nelson, “The Everlasting Covenant”

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- I testify of Jesus Christ, who is the head of that Church, and invoke His blessings on all who seek to keep their sacred covenants.
Description of His Atonement.
- Jesus (is) the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.
Description of His relationship with us.
- The Abrahamic covenant is fundamental to several great religious traditions. It introduces the holy idea of God’s covenant promises with His children.
- People who enter into covenants with God are called “the covenant people of the Lord.”
- The Mediator of the New Covenant
Words of Christ.
- Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
- And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
- But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established;
- And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

Inspiring Words & Phrases

…We know from millennia of experience that persons give up some individual freedoms to gain the advantages of living in organized communities. Such relinquishments of individual freedoms are principally based on commitments or covenants, expressed or implied.
The Abrahamic covenant is fundamental to several great religious traditions. It introduces the holy idea of God’s covenant promises with His children.
We do not know the full content of the angel Moroni’s early instructions to this maturing young prophet. We do know he told Joseph that “God had a work for [him] to do” and that “the fulness of the everlasting Gospel” must be brought forth, including “the promises made to the fathers.” We also know that the scriptures young Joseph read most intensively—even before he was directed to organize a church—were the many teachings about covenants he was translating in the Book of Mormon. That book is the Restoration’s major source for the fullness of the gospel, including God’s plan for His children, and the Book of Mormon is filled with references to covenants.
Covenants were foundational in the Restoration of the gospel.
The central role of covenants in the newly restored Church was reaffirmed in the preface the Lord gave for the first publication of His revelations.
President Gordon B. Hinckley gave this summary of the effect of our baptism and our weekly partaking of the sacrament: “Every member of this church who has entered the waters of baptism has become a party to a sacred covenant. Each time we partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, we renew that covenant.”
President Russell M. Nelson often refers to the plan of salvation as the “covenant path” that “leads us back to [God]” and “is all about our relationship with God.” He teaches about the significance of covenants in our temple ceremonies and urges us to see the end from the beginning and to “think celestial.”
Now I speak more of temple covenants…There (in the temple) persons who were endowed were to be taught God’s plan of salvation and invited to make sacred covenants. Those who lived faithful to those covenants were promised eternal life, wherein “all things are theirs” and they “shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.”
persons who wear their garments faithfully and keep their temple covenants continually affirm their role as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is constructing temples all over the world. Their purpose is to bless the covenant children of God with temple worship and with the sacred responsibilities and powers and unique blessings of being bound to Christ they receive by covenant.
Covenants are inherent in each of the ordinances of salvation and exaltation this restored Church administers.
The ordinance of baptism and its associated covenants are requirements for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The ordinances and associated covenants of the temple are requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom, which is eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God.” That is the focus of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Lists

Here are some examples of covenant responsibilities in our society:

Judges
Military
Medical personnel
Firefighters
LDS full time missionaries

All of those involved in these familiar occupations make a commitment—often formalized by oath or covenant—to perform their assigned duties.

Those under such covenant can be identified by distinctive clothing, name tags, and wedding rings which are intended to:

Signify that the wearer is under covenant
Signify that the wearer has a duty to teach and serve
Signify that the wearer should be supported in their service
To remind the wearers of their covenant responsibilities.

There is no magic in their distinctive clothing or symbols, only a needed reminder of the special responsibilities the wearers have assumed.

Covenants are:

a foundation for the regulation of individual lives
a commitment to fulfill certain responsibilities
the foundation and history of many religious affiliations

The practice of covenanting with God or religious leaders is recorded:

In the Old Testament (the Abrahamic covenant)
In the Book of Mormon writings about Nephi
In the Book of Mormon writings about Joseph in Egypt
In the Book of Mormon writings about King Benjamin
In the Book of Mormon writings about Alma
In the Book of Mormon writings about Captain Moroni

The Book of Mormon is:

The Restoration’s major source for the fullness of the gospel
The major source for information about God’s plan for His children
Filled with references to covenants

Some covenants in the restoration are:

Baptism
Partaking of the Sacrament
The endowment

About the temple garment:

Persons who have been endowed in a temple are responsible to wear a temple garment
The garment is an article of clothing not visible because it is worn beneath outer clothing.
The garment reminds endowed members of the sacred covenants they have made in the holy temple
The garment reminds endowed members of the blessings they have been promised in the holy temple.
We are instructed to wear temple garments continuously (with obviously necessary exceptions)
To remove one’s garments can be understood as a disclaimer of the covenant responsibilities and blessings to which they relate
persons who wear their garments faithfully and keep their temple covenants continually affirm their role as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Definitions

covenant = a commitment to fulfill certain responsibilities
The New Testament = The New Covenant

Warnings

Personal commitments are essential to the regulation of our individual lives and to the functioning of society. This idea is currently being challenged. A vocal minority oppose institutional authority and insist that persons should be free from any restrictions that limit their individual freedom.
Because covenants do not “take a day off,” to remove one’s garments can be understood as a disclaimer of the covenant responsibilities and blessings to which they relate.

Blessings/Promises

Persons who wear their garments faithfully and keep their temple covenants continually affirm their role as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I testify of Jesus Christ, who is the head of that Church, and invoke His blessings on all who seek to keep their sacred covenants.

Stories:

When I was born in Utah in 1932, our Church membership was only about 700,000, clustered mostly in Utah and nearby states. At that time, we had only 7 temples. Today the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints numbers more than 17 million in about 170 nations. As of this April 1, we have 189 dedicated temples in many nations and 146 more in planning and construction.
The endowment ceremonies in the Nauvoo Temple provided early pioneers with spiritual strength and power, which they testified helped them endure their difficult journey and successfully establish themselves in the West.

Application Ideas

President Oaks mentions several examples of covenant responsibilities in our society. Take the time to examine the covenants these professionals enter into: The Air Force Oath of Enlistment, The U.S. Army Oath of Enlistment, the Oaths of justices and judges, the Firefighter Code of Ethics, and the Oath of Modern Hippocrates. What do these oaths (covenants) have in common?
Examine the list above: “About the Temple Garment.” As you ponder this list, consider the different oaths of military, firefighters, doctors and judges. What difference does it make that these professionals wear clothing that identifies them? Do any of those reasons apply to the wearing of the temple garment?
Consider watching or listening to “We Need an Endowment,” by Anthony Sweat.
As he concludes his talk, President Oaks invokes God’s blessings on “all who seek to keep their sacred covenants.” Make it a matter of prayer to know how to keep your covenants in a way that pleases God. Write any impressions you have in your journal.

The post Consider Conference: “Covenants and Responsibilities” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[English]

Diese Liste von verfügbaren Ressourcen wurde erstellt, um die Fehlinformationen in der kürzlich veröffentlichten Abhandlung von Francois Radzik mit dem Titel „13 Thesen: Die Irreführung durch die Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, die Mormonen“ besser einordnen und klarstellen zu können. Leser, die mit den von der Kirche bereits veröffentlichten korrekten Informationen sowie mit den üblichen Taktiken der Fehlinformation vertraut sind, werden die Verzerrungen in dieser Abhandlung erkennen. Wie bei den meisten Angriffen auf die Kirche heutzutage ist das einzig Neue die Verpackung.

Nützliche Informationsquellenvon Keith Erekson

1) Wissen über Gott wird Zeile um Zeile offenbart

Vorträge über Theologie („Vorlesungen über den Glauben“) (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
King-Follett-Rede (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Wie Gott werden (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Veränderung ist in Ordnung (siehe 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Lehre und Bündnisse 61:20; 9. Glaubensartikel)

2) Vollmacht und Führung

Wiederherstellung des Aaronischen Priestertums (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Wiederherstellung des Melchisedekischen Priestertums (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nachfolge in der Führung der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Heilige, Band 3: Unerschrocken, erhaben und unbeirrbar (Salt Lake City: Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, 2022), 214-217 (Kapitel 12). [Beschreibt die Lehren von Brigham Young]

3) Visionen von Jesus Christus und anderen Boten

Berichte über die erste Vision (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Joseph Smith, Journal, April 3, 1836 [Jesus, Mose, Elias, und Elija im Kirtland Tempel] (nur auf Englisch abrufbar)
Alexander L. Baugh, „Parting the Veil: The Visions of Joseph Smith“, BYU Studies 38, Nr. 1 (1999): 23–69 (nur auf Englisch abrufbar).

4) Die frühe Geschichte von Joseph Smith

Siehe Joseph Smith-Lebensgeschichte 1:55-56
Schatzsuchen (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Sehersteine (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Berichte über die erste Vision (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Joseph Smith, Geschichte, 1832 [frühester schriftlicher Bericht über die Erste Vision]
Die Übersetzung des Buches Mormon (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Engel Moroni (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

5) Mehrehe

Die Mehrehe in Kirtland und in Nauvoo (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Fanny Alger (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
„Mercy Thompson und die Offenbarung über die Ehe“, in Offenbarungen im Zusammenhang

6) Veränderung im Laufe der Zeit

Kollegium der Zwölf Apostel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Rassenzugehörigkeit und Priestertum (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Das Manifest und das Ende der Mehrehe (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Veränderung ist in Ordnung (siehe 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Lehre und Bündnisse 61:20; 9. Glaubensartikel)

7) Zion

Zion/Neues Jerusalem (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Das Buch Mormon und die DNS-Forschung (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)

8) Geschichte der Kirche in Missouri

Zion/Neues Jerusalem (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Gewalt im Kreis Jackson (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Die Kirtland Safety Society (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Daniten (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Krieg mit den Mormonen in Missouri 1838 (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Ausrottungsbefehl (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Gefängnis zu Liberty (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Prophezeiungen von Joseph Smith (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

9) Frühe Tempel und Verordnungen

Kirtland-Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nauvoo-Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Endowment im Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Freimaurerei (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Anpassungen bei der Tempelarbeit (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Tempelbau (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

10) Auszug aus Nauvoo

Nauvoo (Commerce), Illinois (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Freimaurerei (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Rat der Fünfzig (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Versuchte Auslieferung nach Missouri (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nachfolge in der Führung der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Treck der Pioniere (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

11) Brigham Young

Brigham Young (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Tod von Joseph und Hyrum Smith (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Utah (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Daniten (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Massaker von Mountain Meadows (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Frieden und Gewalt unter den Heiligen der Letzten Tage im 19. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)

12) Studium und Glauben

Nach Antworten auf Ihre Fragen suchen (Themen und Fragen)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, „Kommen Sie zu uns!”, Generalkonferenz, Oktober 2013
Russell M. Nelson, „Christus ist auferstanden; Glaube an ihn versetzt Berge“, Generalkonferenz, April 2021
„Auskünfte aus zuverlässigen Quellen“, Allgemeines Handbuch: Wie man in der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage dient, 38.8.41
Dallin H. Oaks, „Criticism“, Ensign, Februar 1987 (nur auf Englisch abrufbar)

13) Zehnter

Zehnter (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Finanzen der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

Übliche Taktiken in antagonistischen Materialien

Anbieten von neuer Freiheit und fortschrittlichem Denken
Mitteilen von ausgewählten Fakten, die aus ihrem größeren Zusammenhang gerissen sind
Darstellen von Fehlern, als ob sie richtig wären, wobei Fakten und Fehler oft miteinander vermischt werden
Behaupten von geheimnisvollen Verschwörungen und dunklen Motiven

Siehe auch „How Can We Find Truth in a Sea of Information?“ (Liahona, April 2023 – nur auf Englisch abrufbar)

Keith Erekson is an author, teacher, and public historian who has published on topics including politics, hoaxes, Abraham Lincoln, Elvis Presley, and Church history. He grew up in Baltimore, served a mission in Brazil, and earned advanced degrees in history and business. He works for the Church History Department in efforts to encourage outreach and historical engagement. His 2021 FAIR Conference presentation, “Real Vs. Rumor,” can be seen here.

The post Aufgewärmte Fragen, bereitstehende Antworten: Sich mit Radzik und seinen 13 Thesen auseinandersetzen appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Keith Erekson

[This document was prepared in response to a paper recently published in German by Francois Radzik called “13 Theses: The deception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons.” As with most attacks on the Church today, the only thing new is the packaging.]

1) Knowledge of God Revealed Line Upon Line

Lecture on Theology (‚Lectures on Faith‘) (Church History Topics)
King Follett Discourse (Church History Topics)
Becoming Like God (Gospel Topic Essays)
Change is okay (see 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Doctrine and Covenants 61:20; Article of Faith 9)

2) Authority and Governance

Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (Church History Topics)
Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Church History Topics)
Succession of Church Leadership (Church History Topics)
Saints, Volume 3: Boldly, Nobly, and Independent (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2022), 181-184 (chapter 12). [Describes Brigham Young’s teachings]

3) Visions of Jesus Christ and Other Messengers

First Vision Accounts (Gospel Topics Essays)
Joseph Smith, Journal, April 3, 1836 [Jesus, Moses, Elias, and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple]
Alexander L. Baugh, “Parting the Veil: The Visions of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 38, no. 1 (1999): 23–69.

4) Joseph Smith’s Early History

See Joseph Smith-History 1:55-56
Treasure Seeking (Church History Topics)
Seer Stones (Church History Topics)
First Vision Accounts (Gospel Topics Essays)
Joseph Smith, History, 1832 [earliest written account of the First Vision]
Book of Mormon Translation (Gospel Topics Essays)
Angel Moroni (Church History Topics)

5) Plural Marriage

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (Gospel Topics Essay)
Fanny Alger (Church History Topics)
“Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage,” in Revelations in Context

6) Change over Time

Quorum of the Twelve (Church History Topics)
Race and Priesthood (Gospel Topics Essays)
The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage (Gospel Topics Essays)
Change is okay (see 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Doctrine and Covenants 61:20; Article of Faith 9)

7) Zion

Zion/New Jerusalem (Church History Topics)
Book of Mormon and DNA Studies (Gospel Topics Essays)

8) Church History in Missouri

Zion/New Jerusalem (Church History Topics)
Jackson County Violence (Church History Topics)
Kirtland Safety Society (Church History Topics)
Danites (Church History Topics)
Mormon-Missouri War of 1838 (Church History Topics)
Extermination Order (Church History Topics)
Liberty Jail (Church History Topics)
Prophecies of Joseph Smith (Church History Topics)

9) Early Temples and Ordinances

Kirtland Temple (Church History Topics)
Nauvoo Temple (Church History Topics)
Temple Endowment (Church History Topics)
Masonry (Church History Topics)
Adjustments to Temple Work (Church History Topics)
Temple Building (Church History Topics)

10) Departure from Nauvoo

Nauvoo (Commerce), Illinois (Church History Topics)
Masonry (Church History Topics)
Council of Fifty (Church History Topics)
Missouri Extradition Attempts (Church History Topics)
Succession of Church Leadership (Church History Topics)
Pioneer Trek (Church History Topics)

11) Brigham Young

Brigham Young (Church History Topics)
Deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith (Church History Topics)
Utah (Church History Topics)
Danites (Church History Topics)
Mountain Meadows Massacre (Church History Topics)
Peace and Violence among 19th Century Latter-day Saints (Gospel Topics Essays)

12) Seeking and Learning

Seeking Answers to Questions (Topics and Questions)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” General Conference, October 2013
Russell M. Nelson, “Christ Is Risen; Faith in Him Will Move Mountains,” General Conference, April 2021
Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, February 1987

13) Tithing

Tithing (Church History Topics)
Church Finances (Church History Topics)

Common Tactics in Antagonistic Materials

Offer new freedom and advanced thinking
Share selected facts that are taken out of their wider contexts
Present errors as if they are correct, often blurring facts and errors together
Allege secret conspiracies and dark motives

See alo “How Can We Find Truth in a Sea of Information?” (Liahona, April 2023)

The post Helpful Sources of Information appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Gerrit Dirkmaat was featured in episode 5. This is the full interview. Check out Dr. Dirkmaat’s podcast with Prof. Richard LeDuc: https://standardoftruth.com/

Gerrit Dirkmaat is an associate professor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. He received his PhD from the University of Colorado in 2010, where he studied nineteenth-century American expansionism and foreign relations. He worked as a historian and writer for the Church History Department from 2010 to 2014 with the Joseph Smith Papers Project. He is the coauthor, along with Michael Hubbard MacKay, of the award-winning book From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon, published by the BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book in 2015. In 2023, they published another book on the topic: Let’s Talk About the Translation of the Book of Mormon. In addition to books, Gerrit is also the author of dozens of academic articles. He currently serves as the editor of the academic journal Latter-day Saint Historical Studies published by the Ensign Peak Foundation. Since 2021 he has hosted and produced a weekly Church history podcast: Standard of Truth. It examines Church history questions and sources. He and his wife, Angela, have four children.

Sarah Allen is a senior researcher with FAIR, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 8 – Seer Stones w/ Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat (Full Interview) appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Allen Hansen was featured in episode 2. This is the full interview.

Check out Allen’s other work: https://independent.academia.edu/HansenAllen

Sarah Allen is a senior researcher with FAIR, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator of the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 7 – Seer Stones w/ Allen Hansen (Full Interview) appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Jennifer, Zach, and Sarah discuss why seer stones are no longer used today. Throughout this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute claims about the seer stones head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(1:35) Background
(13:39) Peace Child
(21:11) Conclusion

Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.

Zachary Wright was born in American Fork, UT. He served his mission speaking Spanish in North Carolina and the Dominican Republic. He currently attends BYU studying psychology, but loves writing, and studying LDS theology and history. His biggest desire is to help other people bring them closer to each other, and ultimately bring people closer to God.

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 6 – Seer Stones: Why Aren’t They Used Today? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Sarah, Jennifer, and Zach discuss mentions of the seer stones throughout history. Throughout this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute claims about the seer stones head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(5:44) Richard Bushman Statement
(6:11) Overview
(8:16) Gerrit Dirmaat Interview
(35:39) Mark Ashurst-McGee Interview
(01:12:34) Conclusion

Mark Ashurst-McGee is a senior historian in the Church History Department and the senior research and review editor for the Joseph Smith Papers, where he also serves as a specialist in document analysis and documentary editing methodology. He holds a PhD in history from Arizona State University and has trained at the Institute for the Editing of Historical Documents. He has coedited several volumes of The Joseph Smith Papers and is also coeditor of Foundational Texts of Mormonism: Examining Major Early Sources (Oxford University Press, 2018). He is also the author of several articles on Joseph Smith and early Latter-day Saint history published in scholarly journals and popular venues.

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 5 – Seer Stones: Did the Church Lie? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2024 April General Conference, Sunday Afternoon Session

Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys
President Russell M. Nelson
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Main Points

Priesthood keys govern how the priesthood of God may be used to bring about the Lord’s purposes and bless all who accept the restored gospel.
The Kirtland Temple has unusual significance in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Several events that took place there had been prophesied for millennia and were essential for the Lord’s restored Church to fulfill its latter-day mission.
The promise Christ gave of the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, applies to every dedicated temple today: “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”
The significance of the restoration of Priesthood keys to the earth cannot be overstated.
Joseph Smith’s dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple is a tutorial about how the temple spiritually empowers you and me to meet the challenges of life in these last days.
Understanding the spiritual privileges made possible in the temple is vital to each of us today.

Gospel Principles taught

Our Heavenly Family, Jesus Christ, Agency, The Priesthood, Priesthood Organization, The Lord’s Covenant People, Missionary Work, The Family can be Eternal, Eternal Marriage, Temple Work & Family History, Gathering of Israel

Gospel Doctrine taught

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys, Ordinances and Covenants, The Restoration, Marriage and Family, Agency, The Covenant Path

Scriptures

Doctrine and Covenants 110:3
Doctrine and Covenants 110:4
Doctrine and Covenants 110:7
Doctrine and Covenants 110:11
Doctrine and Covenants 110:12
Genesis 18:18
1 Nephi 15:18
Malachi 4:5–6
Doctrine and Covenants 110:13–16
Doctrine and Covenants 13
Doctrine and Covenants 27:7–8, 12
Doctrine and Covenants 20:1–4
Doctrine and Covenants 121:28
Doctrine and Covenants 95:8
Doctrine and Covenants 109:22
Doctrine and Covenants 132:45–46
2 Nephi 26:33
Doctrine and Covenants 109:8
Doctrine and Covenants 109:15
Doctrine and Covenants 109:22
Doctrine and Covenants 109:24–26
Doctrine and Covenants 110:12
Doctrine and Covenants 132:29–30

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- The Prophet recorded that the Savior’s “eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters.”
- My dear brothers and sisters, I testify that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He stands at its head. We are His disciples.
Christ’s own words.
- “I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.”
- “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”

Inspiring Words & Phrases

Jesus Christ…declared that He had accepted the temple as His house and made this stunning promise: “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.” This significant promise applies to every dedicated temple today.
Then Elijah the prophet appeared. His appearance fulfilled Malachi’s promise that before the Second Coming, the Lord would send Elijah to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.”10 Elijah conferred the keys of the sealing power upon Joseph Smith.
The significance of these keys being returned to the earth by three heavenly messengers under the direction of the Lord cannot be overstated.
The power of these priesthood keys is infinite and breathtaking.
Without priesthood keys, none of us would have access to essential ordinances and covenants that bind us to our loved ones eternally and allow us eventually to live with God.
Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.
Priesthood keys give us the authority to extend all of the blessings promised to Abraham to every covenant-keeping man and woman. Temple work makes these exquisite blessings available to all of God’s children, regardless of where or when they lived or now live. Let us rejoice that priesthood keys are once again on the earth!
The sealing power is supernal evidence of how much God loves all of His children everywhere and wants each of them to choose to return home to Him.
How much does it increase your confidence to know that, as an endowed woman or man armed with the power of God, you do not have to face life alone? What courage does it give you to know that angels really will help you?
The temple is the gateway to the greatest blessings God has in store for each of us, for the temple is the only place on earth where we may receive all of the blessings promised to Abraham.

Lists

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery experienced a series of remarkable visions in the Kirtland Temple on Easter Sunday, April 3, 1836:

Jesus Christ appeared. He affirmed His identity as the Savior and accepted the Kirtland Temple as His House.
Moses appeared. He conferred upon Joseph Smith the keys for the gathering of Israel and the return of the ten tribes.
Elias appeared. He committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham to Joseph.
Elijah the prophet appeared. Elijah conferred the keys of the sealing power upon Joseph Smith.

About priesthood keys:

Constitute the authority and power of presidency.
Govern how the priesthood of God may be used to bring about the Lord’s purposes.
Bless all who accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Gave Joseph Smith authority to organize the Church in 1830.

Different priesthood keys mentioned:

Keys of the Aaronic priesthood
Keys of the Melchizedek priesthood
Keys of the Gathering of Israel
Keys of the Gospel of Abraham
Keys of the Sealing Power

These keys are essential in order to authorize Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Lord’s Church

To gather Israel on both sides of the veil
To bless all covenant children with the blessings of Abraham
To place a ratifying seal on priesthood ordinances and covenants
To seal families eternally
make it possible for every covenant-keeping man and woman to enjoy incredible personal spiritual privileges.

Without these keys:

You could not be endowed with the power of God.
The Church could serve only as a significant teaching and humanitarian organization but not much more.
None of us would have access to essential ordinances and covenants that bind us to our loved ones eternally and allow us eventually to live with God.

I invite you to consider carefully the following three statements:

The gathering of Israel is evidence that God loves all of His children everywhere.
The gospel of Abraham is further evidence that God loves all of His children everywhere. He invites all to come unto Him—“black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”
The sealing power is supernal evidence of how much God loves all of His children everywhere and wants each of them to choose to return home to Him.

The Temple is:

a house of prayer
a house of fasting
a house of faith
a house of learning
a house of glory
a house of order
a house of God

This list of attributes is much more than a description of a temple. It is a promise about what will happen to those who serve and worship in the house of the Lord. They can expect to receive answers to prayer, personal revelation, greater faith, strength, comfort, increased knowledge, and increased power.

New Temples announced:

Uturoa, French Polynesia
Chihuahua, Mexico
Florianópolis, Brazil
Rosario, Argentina
Edinburgh, Scotland
Brisbane, Australia south area
Victoria, British Columbia
Yuma, Arizona
Houston, Texas south area
Des Moines, Iowa
Cincinnati, Ohio
Honolulu, Hawaii
West Jordan, Utah
Lehi, Utah
Maracaibo, Venezuela

Invitations/Challenges

I hope you will repeatedly study the messages of this conference throughout the coming months.
I invite you to ponder what the Lord’s promise (“I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”) means for you personally.
Consider how your life would be different if priesthood keys had not been restored to the earth.
I encourage you to study that prayer (the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple), recorded in Doctrine and Covenants section 109.
How much does it increase your confidence to know that, as an endowed woman or man armed with the power of God, you do not have to face life alone? What courage does it give you to know that angels really will help you?
Let us rejoice in the restoration of priesthood keys, which make it possible for you and me to enjoy every spiritual blessing we are willing and worthy to receive.

Blessings/Promises

This list of attributes (“a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God.”) is much more than a description of a temple. It is a promise about what will happen to those who serve and worship in the house of the Lord. They can expect to receive answers to prayer, personal revelation, greater faith, strength, comfort, increased knowledge, and increased power.
Time in the temple will help you to think celestial and to catch a vision of who you really are, who you can become, and the kind of life you can have forever.
Regular temple worship will enhance the way you see yourself and how you fit into God’s magnificent plan. I promise you that.
We are also promised that in the temple we may “receive a fullness of the Holy Ghost.” Imagine what that promise means in terms of having the heavens open for each earnest seeker of eternal truth.
all who worship in the temple will have the power of God and angels having “charge over them.”
“no combination of wickedness” will prevail over those who worship in the house of the Lord.
My dear brothers and sisters, here is my promise. Nothing will help you more to hold fast to the iron rod than worshiping in the temple as regularly as your circumstances permit. Nothing will protect you more as you encounter the world’s mists of darkness. Nothing will bolster your testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Atonement or help you understand God’s magnificent plan more. Nothing will soothe your spirit more during times of pain. Nothing will open the heavens more. Nothing!

Stories:

40 years ago to the day, on April 7, 1984, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Russell M. Nelson were sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
When Russell M. Nelson was born (Sept 9, 1924), there were only six functioning temples in the Church:St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake City, Utah; as well as in Cardston, Alberta, Canada; and Laie, Hawaii; as well as the Nauvoo and Kirtland temples, which the Saints had to leave when they moved west. The Nauvoo was destroyed by arson, and rebuilt and dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinkley. The Kirtland temple was first desecrated by enemies of the Church, then acquired by the Community of Christ, and now (along with several historic sites in Nauvoo) has been purchased by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Application Ideas

Make a plan of how you personally will follow the Prophet’s instruction to ‘repeatedly study the messages’ of the April 2024 General Conference throughout the coming months.
Accept the prophet’s challenge to ponder what the Lord’s promise to manifest himself to his people in mercy in His house means to you personally. Write your feelings and any impressions you have in your journal or study journal.
Read and ponder D&C 109.
Make an effort to visit a temple this week, even if it’s only the temple grounds. If you don’t live near a temple, you might consider a virtual tour of the Kirtland Temple, the Orem, Utah temple or the Saratoga Springs Temple.
Pray for an increased understanding and love of the temple.

The post Consider Conference: Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Zach, Sarah, and Jennifer discuss the mechanics and methods of the translation process. Throughout this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute claims about the seer stones head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(2:58) The Mechanics of Translation
(4:24) Curtains
(8:12) Methods of Translation
(13:59) Conclusion

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 4 – Seer Stones: How did Joseph use the Seer Stone? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Last week, the Church History Department published online the missionary journals from two of the very first single sister missionaries ever to be called. The two women, Eliza Chipman and Josephine Booth, served in Scotland as companions 125 years ago. Being able to contrast the two journals gives a fuller picture of the lives they led and the struggles they endured. It adds an interesting layer of insight into their service that we would not receive from two unconnected sisters.

Eliza’s journals are more practical and serious, at times giving brief statements, while at others giving an unusually detailed account of her mission that those interested in history will enjoy. At times, she recounts entire conversations with investigators, and it’s clear that the recent end of the plural marriage practice was a major topic of concern. Josephine, on the other hand, was more funny and emotional, telling us how their experiences made her feel. Both women are witty and insightful, and their support and affection for one another shine through in their writing.

Josephine Booth, Scottish Latter-day Saint Lizzie Nelson, Eliza ChipmanBecause they were among the very first few female missionaries, they were often lumped in with the “brethren” during conferences and meetings. In fact, on Eliza’s ministerial certificate, the mission leaders had to use a form for the elders and simply crossed out “brother” to handwrite “sister.” After some initial awkwardness while they adjusted to having “lady missionaries” around, however, the elders they served with became a strong support system for the sisters. They often teased the sisters and did their best to raise their spirits when they were feeling down. The journals have frequent mentions of gatherings at “#53,” where the elders lived, for meals and scripture study.

To juxtapose the writing styles of the two women, I selected a random day, October 9th, 1899.

Eliza ChipmanEliza’s entry is brief and to-the-point:

9th. Monday.— Another nice day. Went tracting. Gave out 70 [missionary tracts]. Attended street meeting in the evening.

Josephine, meanwhile, focuses mainly on a teasing note she sent the elders:

Monday 9. Recieved a funny letter from the boys and answered it as soon as I got up. Sister C. took it over. I wanted a letter from home but did not get one and am quite disappointed. The following is a copy of the letter.

Dear MEN:—

Your masterpiece arrived O.K. This morning and it has taken us so long to comprehend its hidden depths that at 10 oclock your Female Bretherns shoes are still empty but thanks to you their heads are full. This latter is a very radical change. In our application to stay longer we brought up as our argument—How much a dunce that has been sent to roam Excels a dunce that has been kept a home, and Bro Mc Murrin [James L. McMurrin] stated that we would not need to roam any more to make “perfect Dunces” of us so that an extension of girls time would be unnecessary, but he thought the boys would have to stay much longer than thier alloted time to. come to our standard of perfection?? In answer to your question How you are? Will state your eating abilities are excellent and as your hearts are in close connection with your stomachs (the way to a man’s heart being through his stomach, your hearts are alright too.) I do not know which part of the bible this last quotation is taken from perhaps you can find it by looking at your compendium. Your feet are alright but from a useful and ornamental stand point but your heads are not quite far enough away from them. When you are remodled [remodeled] please have them put up another foot. Your brains—pardon me if I make no reference to them as they are too vast for my understanding. I will not write any more at present Give my love to Mrs Office and the children I remain very “respectably” yours

Josephine BoothOne of the true born Sons of Zion according to the relief society.

I need not add that when the boys read this they were at first dismayed and then very much amused. It come almost upsetting “53” in general but all have recovered.

Monday afternoon went tracting and in the evening went out to street meeting.

There’s a wealth of supplemental material included with the journals, from biographies of many of the people mentioned to additional journals of other sister missionaries that aren’t yet on the Church Historian’s Press website. There’s a chronology of events, photographs, a brief history of the calling and service of sister missionaries, and some very cool interactive maps that show the difference between what the cities look like today compared to how they looked at the turn of the 20th Century. All of the information is fully searchable, and can be located at the Church Historian’s Press website: https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/early-sister-missionaries

Sarah Allen is a senior researcher with FAIR, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. She works at Scripture Central on their research team. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She is also the co-host of FAIR’s “Me, My Shelf, & I” podcast. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Mission Journals from Early “Lady Missionaries” Now Available from Church Historian’s Press appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Jennifer, Sarah, and Zach take us through the history of folk magic through post-biblical times. Throughout this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute claims about the seer stones head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Timestamps:

(00:00) Introduction
(03:40) The fall of Rome and why it changed culture
(06:12) The Beginning of the Dark Ages–A totally different world
(11:59) The Cunning Folk in Britain
(22:49) The Crusades
(26:47) The Inquisition
(29:14) The Renaissance
(24:05) WitchTrials
(39:59) Enlightenment 1637-1815 and 1st Great Awakening
(50:00) Joseph Smith’s time and culture
(59:32) Conclusion

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 3 – Seer Stones: Post-Biblical Folk Magic appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

On this episode, Brian Hales joins us to discuss the history and significance of the crowning ordinance of the temple.

Brian C. Hales is the author or co-author of several books dealing with Joseph Smith and plural marriage, and runs the website JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. He is also the author of several articles dealing with the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Jacob Crapo was born and now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. He served his mission in Upstate New York and was an ordinance worker in the Las Vegas Temple. One of Jacob’s dreams is to help build a temple. He is an electrician by trade but his real passion is helping others access the powers of heaven.

The post Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 6: Temple Sealings with Brian Hales appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By David W. Smith

On March 5, 2024, Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints jointly announced that, after years of discussion, Community of Christ had sold to the Church of Jesus Christ the iconic Kirtland Temple, several historic sites in Nauvoo, and many historical documents and artifacts.

This announcement was met with joy by many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Latter-day Saints) and with sorrow by many members of Community of Christ. As Latter-day Saints celebrate receiving ownership of these important historical assets, we can also “mourn with those that mourn” (Mosiah 18:9) in Community of Christ who are devastated at having to part with these cherished pieces of history.

History of the Assets

After years of toil and devoted effort, in 1836 the Church of the Latter-day Saints (as it was then called) completed the House of the Lord in Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith—the president of the Church—dedicated the building on March 27, 1836. Contemporary and reminiscent accounts by the Saints attest to a marvelous outpouring of the Holy Spirit during this dedicatory period, when there were miracles and visits by heavenly messengers.

Sadly, over the next year and a half, tensions between various groups of members escalated. Joseph Smith and those willing to follow him left Kirtland and moved to Missouri. From there they moved to Illinois in 1839 and established a city called Nauvoo. As Saints gathered from throughout North America and Britain, the city quickly became one of the largest cities in the state of Illinois.

Due to religious and political difficulties, mobs were formed in 1844 to harass the Saints, eventually leading to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. After his death, a majority of the Saints followed Brigham Young, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, past the western boundaries of the United States. They settled near the Great Salt Lake in what eventually became the state of Utah and continued The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A small group of Saints, including Emma Smith (Joseph Smith’s wife) and her children, remained in Nauvoo and the surrounding area. They received possession of many important buildings connected to Joseph Smith and cared for those buildings. They also retained important historical documents, including papers used by Joseph Smith in preparing his inspired revision of the Holy Bible. Eventually they established a church that was later named the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS). Through gifts and legal proceedings, this church eventually acquired title to several historic properties and assets in Kirtland, Ohio, and Nauvoo, Illinois, including the Kirtland Temple.

The RLDS church cared for these properties and assets carefully for over 150 years. When they changed their name to Community of Christ, they continued to care for these important pieces of their past. They made iconic places such as the Kirtland Temple and buildings in Nauvoo available for public tours and worked diligently to maintain these important pieces of history. They graciously shared access to important historical documents.

The Kirtland Temple was a foundational historic asset to Community of Christ, evidence to them of God’s spirit working in the lives of people on earth. It was a testament to their place as a “prophetic people” called to bring the shalom of Christ to all people on earth. And the properties in Nauvoo were ancestral homes of their church founders and leaders. From these buildings, RLDS church president Joseph Smith III, the son of the martyred Joseph Smith, began the process of building up that church from the scattered Saints in Illinois and the Midwest.

These properties are also important to Latter-day Saints. The Kirtland Temple was the place where Jesus Christ appeared and where ancient prophets came to give authority to Joseph Smith to build up God’s kingdom on earth. Nauvoo is an essential part of the Latter-day Saint story. In this place the Relief Society was established, the largest women’s organization in the world. Also in this place, sacred rituals called temple ordinances were given for the first time.

Both Community of Christ members and Latter-day Saints cherish Kirtland and Nauvoo and the important place these properties have in their shared history.

Financial Difficulties

Community of Christ has been facing financial difficulties for decades. Beginning the mid-1980s, expenses exceeded income, a trend that has mostly continued to today. Through various initiatives and efforts, Community of Christ has been able to maintain a majority of its personnel and programs, though occasionally having to make major reductions.

In a December 2019 financial update, Community of Christ noted that “contributions to Mission Tithes have been declining for more than 25 years” and that “the decline is based on the loss of contributors.” Causing further difficulties, “almost 80 percent of Worldwide Mission Tithes are given by those [age] 60 and older.”

The trend of losing contributors and donations was accelerated by COVID-19. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of worldwide mission tithe contributors younger than age 50 dropped by half. Also in 2023, 48 percent of worldwide mission tithe contributions came from members aged 75 and older.

Let those numbers sink in a bit. This means that almost half of worldwide mission tithes are coming from people who will likely die in the next 5 to 10 years. And the very large demographic group of people younger than 50 are not replacing them. In fact, that group has stopped contributing in droves. To lose half of contributing people younger than 50 in four years is staggering.

In 2020, Community of Christ was able to prepare a budget to sustain current programs and ministries through 2023 (later extended to 2024). But funding in 2025 and beyond was in peril. In their financial report to the church in December 2023, Community of Christ Presiding Bishopric warned:

We’re facing the possibility of significant budget reductions. These reductions would include staff reductions and would significantly impact our capacity to provide current services and ministries to the church at International Headquarters and throughout the field. Reductions in the last decade have resulted in inadequate staffing levels to support current and future needs. We are beyond the ability to trim back expenses. Entire groups of support services and ministries would have to be eliminated.

In an effort to compensate for decreased contributions, Community of Christ has been selling significant property and historical assets for over a decade. It sold large tracts of land in Missouri in 2012, the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon in 2017, and more land in Missouri in 2022. These sales allowed Community of Christ to convert real estate and historical assets into market investments that could be added to a financial endowment that would provide regular income to the annual budget.

Despite these efforts, the gap between income and expenses continued to rise. In December 2023, Community of Christ Presiding Bishopric noted that they were:

Exploring and implementing new sources of income to build endowments and sustain our global mission. This will include an evaluation of how to best utilize all our assets to support our vision and mission. . . . The Presiding Bishopric along with church leaders have been working on strategies related to alternate income such as those listed above for multiple years. There are numerous possibilities still being explored and some that are currently in progress. We are reasonably confident that resources will become available in 2024 to help offset the expected loss in income due to decreasing Worldwide Mission Tithes.

They also noted:

In the future we will continue to evaluate the best use of all physical assets to support mission. In some cases, this evaluation will lead to the conversion of physical assets (such as buildings and property) to liquid assets so those funds can be used for new mission opportunities locally and globally into the future.

Both Community of Christ members and Latter-day Saints would learn shortly what those assets and resources would be.

A Heartbreaking Decision

Faced with this difficult financial situation, Community of Christ leaders began discussions in June 2021 with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the possible sale of historic assets. Even considering selling such historic assets as the Kirtland Temple was devastating, as described by multiple leaders in Community of Christ:

Stephen Veazey, president of Community of Christ: “I agonized over the impact that selling these historic sites would have on members and friends who deeply valued the church’s ownership. On occasion I wept tears of concern for the disappointment and grief some would experience.”
Stassi Cramm, member of the First Presidency: “Initially, when we explored possibilities, I was convinced there had to be a way to fortify the church financially without resorting to this sale. The idea of selling these cherished physical assets seemed unimaginable.”
Ron Harmon, presiding bishop: “The decision to sell historic assets was not an easy one. It was decision filled with emotion.”
Lachlan Mackay, Apostle and descendant of Joseph Smith: “[I] spent 15 years living literally in the shadow of the Kirtland Temple . . . [and] have lived on the Joseph Smith historic site [in Nauvoo] for 18 years. These places have been my home for almost my entire adult life. . . . The Nauvoo House, Homestead, and Mansion House are my ancestral homes. For me, the decision to part with these places has been devastating emotionally. There was a time when I thought it might break me.”

Community of Christ leaders looked for various options to increase funding, but no other options became available that could cover the significant budget gap that was looming. Carla Long, member of Community of Christ Presiding Bishopric, explained:

Although leaders across the church have been discerning and responding to changing ministry contexts, change takes time. Also, some cultural trends impacting church participation are beyond our control. These factors led to the sale of Historic assets as the only remaining assets that could sufficiently fund endowments and in part generate the needed income over time to change our trajectory in some parts of the world.

Despite the pain at losing ownership of cherished historic assets, Community of Christ leaders are confident that selling these assets will position their church to continue its mission for years to come:

Stephen Veazey: “I felt rising hope for the future that the proceeds would make possible.”
Stassi Cramm: “Leaders came to understand that letting go of these physical assets—as painful as it was—would generate financial resources to invest in our current and future mission. . . . As we discerned about the future, it became increasingly clear that parting with these precious sites and items was the best way to embrace the opportunities to serve God through serving others. The realization dawned that we were choosing people over property and paper. This became a guiding principle that bolstered us when the prospect of proceeding with the sale felt unbearable. Even as we mourned the loss, the potential opportunities of the future fueled our hope. Completing this sale emerged as a crucial step in strengthening our response to wherever the Spirit leads us.”
Scott Murphy, member of First Presidency: “I found solace in seeing this decision as an investment in our future, providing capacity to grow our response to Christ’s mission of seeking justice, pursuing peace, and creating sacred communities that reflect God’s vision of shalom for the world.”
Lachlan Mackay: “If I inherited anything from Joseph Smith III, it’s his pragmatism, and intellectually the path forward is clear. I care deeply about our past, but I care even more about our future. The post-pandemic world has changed. The needs have never been greater, and we no longer have the resources, human or financial, to care for these places the way they deserve to be cared for. . . . The proceeds from the sale, at some level, are an extraordinarily generous gift from [the Smith family] that will sustain us as we move into the future. I think they would feel good about that. Amid my grief, so do I.”

A Time of Rejoicing

In the joint statement announcing the change, Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated, “We are deeply honored to assume the stewardship of these sacred places, documents and artifacts.” Latter-day Saints are grateful and excited for the opportunity to care for these treasured pieces of the past.

Latter-day Saints also recognize the great efforts made by generations past in Community of Christ to preserve and maintain these assets. “They have taken that calling [of stewardship] seriously and, even when it was costly to do so, they did their best to maintain those properties,” notes historian Benjamin Park. However, as Community of Christ Apostle Lachlan Mackay noted above, the Community of Christ no longer has the resources to care for these facilities in a way to preserve them into the future. By transferring ownership to the Church of Jesus Christ, Community of Christ ensures that these assets will be sustained for generations to come.

Through generous funding for historical efforts, the history department of the Church of Jesus Christ will be able to preserve these properties and assets in pristine condition and make them available to all who are interested, free of charge.

At this time of both heartbreak and rejoicing, Community of Christ members can find hope that this sale will enable their church to “have greater capacity to pursue our mission priorities around the world,” as noted by Stephen Veazey. They can find peace and joy through Jesus Christ, who will “comfort all who mourn, and provide for those who grieve in Zion” (Isaiah 61:2–3, NIV). And both Community of Christ members and Latter-day Saints can find joy knowing that these cherished pieces of our shared past will be well-preserved for generations to come.

David W. Smith has volunteered with FAIR since August 2019. He has had an article published in BYU Studies, and he presented at the Joseph Smith Papers Conference in 2019. He has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and a master’s degree in public administration, both from Brigham Young University.

The post Rejoicing and Mourning: Context for Selling the Kirtland Temple appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Sarah, Jennifer, and Zach go through ancient uses of seer stones and other objects seen as sacred. In this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute these claims head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Saints Unscripted Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpYrul0eRjs

Allen Hansen’s Research: https://independent.academia.edu/HansenAllen

Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(03:30) The questions
(07:37) Examples from the Scriptures
(15:24) Interview with Allen Hansen
(36:48) Wrapping up
(39:44) Conclusion

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 2 – Seer Stones: Ancient Use appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Zach, Sarah, and Jennifer go through an overview of the most common criticisms of Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones from all sides. They introduce direct claims from faithful members who dispute the use of Seer Stones as well as critics who attempt to use the seer stones to explain away the Book of Mormon. In this 6 part series, Me, My Shelf, & I will tackle and refute these claims head-on using facts from the historical narrative.

Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(02:23) Are Seer Stones Evil?
(11:38) Folk Magic
(17:42) Was Information Hidden?
(23:08) Conclusion

The post Me, My Shelf, & I – Episode 1 – Seer Stones: Questions & Criticisms appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

I know I literally just said I was going to be better at making these posts a weekly feature again and then missed a few weeks, so I apologize for that. My dad was back in the hospital for a bit and there was holiday business. I also filmed an episode of the Come Back podcast, which should be out this coming weekend. And I was actually doing a lot of work a few weeks ago on another project for FAIR that I am very excited about. I am starting a new, investigative podcast series with two other FAIR faces you may be familiar with, Jennifer Roach and Zachary Wright. It’s going to be a podcast composed of multiple miniseries on different controversial topics in Church history and culture.

I admire and adore both of my co-hosts, and we’re already having such a great time working together. We met up before Christmas and laughed and planned and ate and filmed a few trailers, which should be out soon. We’re doing a bunch of filming this weekend, in fact. Our first miniseries should launch in early-to-mid February, and will consist of six episodes. I’ll have more to say on this soon, but we’re all very excited. The entire crew working on this project is amazing, and I couldn’t ask for a better group of people to work with.

Anyway, in the last post, we successfully wrapped up section 1 of the Letter For My Wife! We’re now on section 2: The Book of Mormon. The first subsection in this portion is on DNA. I’m glad we get the chance to talk about this, because so many people misunderstand the field and the data we have, and more importantly, the data we should have. So, it’s great to have the chance to dive into this a little bit.

Now, I’m not a geneticist, and I doubt many of you are, either. But here’s the thing: neither is Thomas Faulk, and neither is Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, or any of the other critics using this as an attack against our church. When I come up against a topic I’m not trained in, I dive into the research, and I turn to people who are trained. So, I’ll be doing both of those things throughout this section.

As usual, though, Thomas Faulk begins this section with an intro and a bunch of quotes:

The Book of Mormon story begins with Lehi, an Israelite, who fled to the Promised Land with his family and landed somewhere in Mesoamerica.

That should read “allegedly landed somewhere in Mesoamerica.” That’s just a theory at this point. It’s a good one with a lot of solid scholarship behind it, but the exact location of the Book of Mormon events is still unknown and opinions strongly differ on the topic.

Lehi’s descendents [sic] grew into two large populations, the Lamanites and the Nephites.

Again, there is a caveat on this. Those descendants intermarried and mixed with the local populations, and that’s how the groups grew so large. And remember, there were multiple smaller subdivisions under those larger banners. Jacob just lumped them all together for convenience, with those who were friendly to the people of Nephi being called Nephites and those who wanted to destroy the people of Nephi being called Lamanites.

So, there were not two large populations, but multiple smaller populations that were generally friendly to one of two camps, and those multiple populations were only partially descendants of Lehi. Most of the people were not his biological descendants.

By AD 385 the Lamanites had destroyed the Nephites and then grew to populate the entire Americas.

What? No. The entire geography of the Book of Mormon, including both the Land Northward and the Land Southward consisted of only a few hundred miles in any given direction. It was a tiny stretch of land. “All the face of the land” does not mean the entire Western Hemisphere. It just means all of the land that they inhabited, which, again, was only a few hundred miles long.

This unique claim lends itself perfectly to genetic testing.

It really doesn’t, because that’s not what the Book of Mormon claims. That’s just what Thomas Faulk claims.

Studies have been performed on the genetic history of Native Americans and the resulting information reveals inconsistencies in The Book of Mormon narrative.

No, they reveal inconsistencies in Thomas Faulk’s narrative. But his narrative and the Book of Mormon narrative are two very different things.

Covered in this chapter: the Church’s original claim, statements by LDS scientists, genetic evidence, and the Church’s attempt to distance itself from the original position.

We need to be careful about calling it “the Church’s original claim” and “the Church’s…original position.” That’s not entirely accurate, as we’ll go into in a minute.

The problem Faulk has in this section is the exact same problem certain outspoken members of our Church had: overstating the Church’s position and what the scriptures actually say.

Original Claim

Over the years, prophets, apostles, and the missionary department have preached an ancestral link between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans.

Yep, absolutely. And that’s not a position the Church has recanted.

“It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” (Book of Mormon Introduction, 1981 edition)

The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not and has never been scripture. It wasn’t on the plates or a part of the Book of Mormon for well over a century after it was written. It’s just a preface written in 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie about the same time he wrote the chapter headings. It was his opinion and his interpretation of what the text said, and it was a common interpretation.

It was a popular theory in the 19th Century that Native Americans may have descended from one of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Right from the beginning, many Latter-day Saints also believed in a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon and shared the assumption that the family of Lehi were the very first inhabitants of the Americas. These were popular beliefs shared by the majority of the Saints right from the start.

But those opinions were not shared by everyone, and until the Gospel Topics Essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon was issued, there was never an official statement from the Brethren on the topic.

Before my critics freak out, let me explain what I mean by that. I mean, we never had a First Presidency statement, a proclamation, or any kind of canonized declaration. As far as endorsed statements go, we just have this introduction by Elder McConkie that was approved by the anonymous people on the Scriptures Publications Committee—and according to Dan Peterson, it was not even unanimously approved by that Committee. Some on the Committee felt that McConkie was reading more into the text than what it actually said.

Elder McConkie had a forceful personality and very strong opinions, not all of which were accurate. Anyone who knows of the controversies surrounding the publication and content of Mormon Doctrine knows what I’m talking about. Being strong-willed is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case, it does mean that he was able to push through a statement that was not universally approved and that later was shown to be inaccurate.

Way back during the April 1929 General Conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency warned against this very thing:

“So, I say, one by one criticisms which have been made regarding the Book of Mormon are falling by the way through the investigation of scientists who understand their business. I thank the Lord for them and that which they are undertaking to do. I have never had any fear that a thing would be discovered to disprove the truths contained in this book.

“We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old word to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can verily easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. A thousand years had elapsed from the time the Book of Mormon closed until the discovery of American, and we know that other people came to America during that time period.”

We also know that people came to the Americas before that time period, as he previously said. So, instead of passing around our assumptions as fact, we need to make sure that we’re repeating what the Book of Mormon actually says about the people described inside its pages.

Remember, the Book of Mormon is only a tiny fraction of the stories from the communities in question, and doesn’t account for any other community in the surrounding area. There are a whole lot of narratives we don’t have, so to assume that what we do have is the entirety of the story is being shortsighted.

“As I look into your faces, I think of Father Lehi, whose sons and daughters you are…. This is but the beginning of the work in Peru.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, God’s Holy Work in Peru, Ensign, February 1997, p.73)

The citation on this quote is wrong. “God’s Holy Work in Peru” is a subheading. The actual article is titled “President Hinckley Visits South America, Florida, Washington, D.C.”

But yes, President Hinckley said that. We’ll probably address this in more detail next week, but we don’t know if this is an accurate statement or not. We don’t know where Lehi’s boat landed. We don’t know where the biological descendants of Lehi live. We don’t even know if President Hinckley was talking about biology and genetics. For all we know, he could have been speaking symbolically, like how we’re all adopted into the lineage of Abraham when we accept the Gospel.

As it says in the Church History Topic, “Lamanite Identity”:

While some early Latter-day Saints speculated about which specific groups were the descendants of Book of Mormon peoples, most considered the Native Americans broadly as heirs to Book of Mormon promises. … Just as the history of the northern ten tribes of Israel after their exile in Assyria is a matter of speculation rather than knowledge, 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. Whatever the historical particulars, the Church continues its efforts to help realize the hopes of Book of Mormon prophets that the covenants of the Lord might be extended to all the lost sheep of Israel.

Remember, President Hinckley grew up in a time when all indigenous peoples were sometimes referred to as “Lamanites.” He was almost certainly not prophesying about the literal descendants of Lehi. He was using the term more broadly than that.

In fact, there has been a wide variety of opinions expressed by Church leaders in the past over whether every Native was a descendant of Lehi. The identity of the Lamanite descendants today is still unknown. It’s not even known if anyone from that biological bloodline still lives today.

“Central America, or Guat[e]mala, is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien and once embraced by several hundred miles of territory from north to south. The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood up on this land as will be seen from the following words from the Book of Alma: ‘And now it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful, and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi, and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water: there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.’” (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, October 1, 1842, vol.3, no.23)

That quote almost certainly wasn’t by Joseph Smith. He was the editor in name of the Times and Seasonsduring October 1842, but the paper was actually managed by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff at the time. The article in question doesn’t have a name on it, which typically means it was written by the editor. In this case, it was almost certainly Taylor or Woodruff, rather than Joseph.

While he approved much of their work, it’s important to remember for most of October, 1842, Joseph was in hiding to avoid an extradition charge over the assassination attempt on Lilburn W. Boggs. He surely was not spending those days penning articles about Guatemala.

But even if he did, most of the Mesoamerican models for the Book of Mormon include parts of Guatemala, so that may well be accurate. At the very least, we can’t say for certain that it’s wrong.

LDS Scientists

It should probably be titled Formerly LDS Scientists. I don’t think any of them are still members of the Church.

Simon G. Southerton, a senior molecular biologist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia and former bishop.

Southerton said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his professional training. He examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. He mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes. Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today’s American Indians and Pacific Islanders. In Losing a Lost Tribe, published in 2004, Southerton concluded that the LDS church, his faith for 30 years, needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts.

While I’m sorry he felt the need to make such a rash decision, his quote below shows exactly how incorrect his assumptions were going into the project.

Additionally, as a molecular biologist, he should be very familiar with the reality of genetic drift, but he appears to ignore that entirely. That’s a topic we’ll discuss in detail in a future installment, though.

“The problem is that the Church cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the ‘most correct of any book on Earth.’ They can’t admit that it’s not historical. They would feel that there would be a loss of members and loss in confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet.” (Simon G. Southerton, Bedrock of Faith is Jolted, Los Angeles Times, February 2006)

Bluntly, this quote is asinine.

The Title Page of the Book of Mormon says right on it that there may be flaws and mistakes of men in the book. Isn’t that in fact the Church acknowledging that there are potential factual errors in the Book of Mormon?

Also, I’ve made this point repeatedly before, but “the most correct of any book on Earth” does not mean free from any errors whatsoever. Joseph Smith meant it was the most doctrinally correct book, not the most grammatically or factually correct book. He meant that the principles and doctrine taught inside was more correct than that of any other religious text. Which should be obvious from reading the full sentence in question:

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

Thomas W. Murphy, Chair of the Dept of Anthropology at Edmonds College.

“In March 2000 Scott Woodward, a professor of microbiology at Brigham Young University, launched a multi-million dollar study … The Molecular Genealogy Research Group (MGRG) compiled a database of DNA records that identified connections between past and present humans…. Some optimism was expressed by church members that such research would vindicate the Book of Mormon as an ancient document…. For those who held such an expectation, the data collected by MGRG and results of similar research projects have been disappointing. So far, DNA has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of the Native Americans. Instead, genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins.”

“Now that quantitative scientific methods can indeed test for an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America, we learn instead that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian migrations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. While molecular anthropologists have the technological capability to identify descendants of ancient Hebrews, no traces of such DNA markers have appeared in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans” (Thomas W. Murphy, Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics, in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, 2002)

Again, the answer to this is genetic drift. To give a brief explanation of this concept, among other things, it says that a small population mixing with a much larger one would be quickly enveloped and would leave little-to-no genetic trace hundreds to thousands of years later.

As the Gospel Topics Essay explains:

The effect of drift is especially pronounced in small, isolated populations or in cases where a small group carrying a distinct genetic profile intermingles with a much larger population of a different lineage. … When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above. Moreover, the shuffling and recombination of autosomal DNA from generation to generation produces new combinations of markers in which the predominant genetic signal comes from the larger original population. This can make the combinations of markers characteristic of the smaller group so diluted that they cannot be reliably identified.

Or, to quote non-LDS DNA scientist Daniel L. Hartl:

If a number of Semitic speaking people from the Middle East settled in North America about 2500 years ago, and the indigenous population was large, ‘the probability’ that the DNA markers of the Semitic speaking group would be lost ‘…is reasonably high.’

This is why you can’t find traces of Roman DNA among native Brits or Viking DNA among Native American populations from the Eastern US, despite known admixture between the groups. The much smaller population was encompassed by the much larger population and no traces of their DNA remain this many years later.

In a collaboration, Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton, wrote:

“Investigation of mitochondrial DNA of more than 5,500 living Native Americans reveals that 99.4% can be traced back to Asia primarily via maternal lineages known as A, B, C, D and X. Only 0.6% came from Africa or Europe, most likely after 1492. Lineages A through D are only found in Asia. While the X lineage also is found in Europe and the Middle East, Asian and American lineages have distinctive markers that indicate an ancient separation long before the events described in the Book of Mormon. Similar results from nearly 1,000 paternal lineages substantiate a Northeast Asian origin of American Indians. Likewise, approximately 99% of the Polynesians surveyed to date can trace their maternal lineages back to Southeast Asia. The other 1% almost certainly came from Europe in the recent past… Folk biological claims of an Israelite ancestry, a curse with a dark skin, and a whitening of dark-skinned Native American and Polynesian Mormons fail to stand up to scrutiny among scientifically literate Latter-day Saints.” (Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton, Genetic Research a ‘Galileo Event’ for Mormons, Anthropology News, February 2003)

Tell that to the multiple LDS scientists and academics who believe in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

There are several solid responses to these claims. Population bottleneck is a particularly big one that we know occurred throughout the Americas after European contact, where traumatic events such as disease, famine, natural disasters, and war can cause genetic lines to go extinct. Genetic drift, as I’ve said, is another one.

The fact is, this is only an issue if the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon is the only model possible. The problem goes away with a limited geography model, as Kevin Barney explains:

Murphy and Southerton appear to be nice guys. They are sincere, and they believe in what they are doing. Both seem to have had a similar experience. They apparently grew up with narrow, fundamentalist assumptions about the Book of Mormon, believing in and presumably knowing only of the hemispheric model. When they learned that the hemispheric model was scientifically untenable, each experienced unfulfilled (unrealistic) expectations and an ensuing crisis of faith, upon which each lost his belief in the antiquity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the Church with it. Now they desire to enlighten others under the banner of science.

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia. This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To that extent, Murphy and Southerton are not arguing against a straw man; many contemporary Latter-day Saints (to the extent that they have thought of the issue at all) continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To the extent that the kind of DNA research publicized by Murphy and Southerton causes these people to reexamine their assumptions about the nature of the text, I think the effect will be a salutary one.

The problem is that Murphy and Southerton go beyond that. They recognize, as they must, that the extant DNA evidence is not inconsistent with a limited geography model of the Book of Mormon. When they reject a limited geography model, they must do so on other grounds. At this point, their argument stops being a scientific one and becomes a theological one. … Murphy’s and Southerton’s theological argument imposes the scientifically naïve assumption that Lehi and his family were the sole ancestors of all American Indians on their readers and argues that Latter-day Saints are not free to accept a limited geography model given various statements of past Church leaders. They also point, as in the article under review, to the statement in the introduction to the Book of Mormon that Lehi was the “principal” ancestor of the American Indians. I for one reject the adjective “principal” from that introduction, which was only added as a part of the 1981 edition and is not a canonical part of the scripture. I am perfectly free to reject that adjective, as well as the other similar statements Murphy and Southerton point to. Their inability to do so themselves simply reflects the fundamentalist character of the one-time faith they held in the Church…

In conclusion, for Murphy and Southerton to insist on holding the Book of Mormon only to a lowest common denominator, populist, folkloric reading would be like one judging contemporary anthropology by the opinions that average readers of Margaret Mead took from her columns in Redbook magazine.

This is the same approach that Thomas Faulk takes in this letter, and it’s the same approach Jeremy Runnells takes in the CES Letter. If you insist on caricatures and overly rigid assumptions, you can make anything look ridiculous. That’s what these authors are banking on. But their tactics fall flat when you take a step back and look at things through another lens. Yeah, the hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon is bad and full of holes. But a limited geography model has considerably more room to fit the facts.

Greater than 99% of the DNA lineages of Native Americans are only found among East Asians. The evidence suggests that they share a common ancestor and that American natives did not descend from Israeli lineage.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t say otherwise. That some leaders and lay members assumed it did does mean that it does. I’ve linked to it a few times already in this post, but the presentation by Mike Ash at last summer’s FAIR Conference addresses this issue very handily.

Jamie Hanis Handy, Brigham Young University, MS Biological Science and Genetics

“DNA is definitive. DNA is trusted. DNA is a part of our lives now. There is nothing in which to be afraid. DNA is just information, lots of information…. In my experience, each generation trusts and relies on DNA more than the previous generation, and my children are growing up in a world where DNA just is and has always been a wellspring of reliable information. Anything, any group, or any organization that tries to discredit DNA as a legitimate data source will with each passing year lose credibility with the rising generations. And so I am very, very concerned about the faith that I call my spiritual home. The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter Day Saints.”

This person is badly misunderstanding the Gospel Topics Essay if they think that the Church is trying to “discredit DNA as a legitimate data source.” They’re using DNA science to support the Book of Mormon narrative as it actually unfolds in the text, rather than the inaccurate assumptions people hold about the narrative.

“This quote appears in the newest manual for seminary and institute students, “As an example, you may want to explain that one way modern enemies of the Church attempt to discredit the Book of Mormon is by using DNA evidence to try to discredit any link between Book of Mormon peoples and Native Americans.”

That’s not discrediting DNA science. It’s saying that enemies of the Church will twist the DNA science to imply things it doesn’t actually say. Much like the way the author of this letter attempted to do.

“DNA evidence has had a huge impact on the Mormon narrative. In my lifetime, a one-word change in the introduction to our holy scripture, The Book of Mormon, has had massive ripple effects while yet also remaining mostly undiscussed by the membership at large. Originally the introduction read, ‘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.’”

How is that a “massive ripple effect”? Other than to prompt some members of the Church to read the Book of Mormon more closely and to think more critically than they had before?

“How has this one word swap changed things? I was taught every week that the Native Americans were the descendents [sic] of the Lamanites. I was shown pictures of Mayan and Aztec ruins all the time as if those were evidence of the Book of Mormon civilizations. Once DNA evidence began to show clearly that today’s Native Americans did not descend from Middle Eastern Jews (as we originally claimed), everything changed.”

Weird. That’s incredibly different from my experience at Church. I was definitely not taught every single week that all Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites, and I’ve never been shown Aztec and Mayan ruins at Church. Other than the initial buzz when the introduction was changed, I haven’t noticed a very big shift at all in the way it’s been discussed at Church—because we don’t really focus on Lamanite ancestry at Church. That’s not a common topic of discussion there. It might come up in Sunday School occasionally during Book of Mormon years, but even then, it’s not markedly different from how it was discussed when I was young.

“And yet, despite this drastic shift, we still insist on publishing something that says ‘modern enemies’ of the church use DNA evidence?”

That’s not what it said. It said that modern enemies of the Church will use DNA evidence to try to discredit any link between Book of Mormon peoples and Native Americans. Using DNA evidence is fine. Using it untruthfully or manipulatively is not. When you only give one side of the argument and you use “a lowest common denominator, populist, folkloric reading” of the Book of Mormon to bolster your claims, and you ignore geography models and parts of DNA science you don’t like, that doesn’t make you the good guy. It makes you a troll.

“… Our children will not see DNA that way. Instead they will see the church as afraid — afraid of the wonder and miracle that understanding DNA is. Afraid that truth cannot withstand study. Afraid that (for many of them) the very thing that brought them to this place, diagnosed their disease, treated their disorder, identified their parent, captured their rapist, freed their friend, gave them a healthy sibling, and that is trusted everywhere cannot be trusted at church?” (Jamie Hanis Handy, DNA and Mormonism, June 2015)

Hyperbole much? I don’t see the Church as being afraid. I see it as addressing these concerns and questions head-on. I see them being transparent about the fact that some leaders, such as Elder McConkie, got a few things wrong and didn’t look beyond their assumptions to see other possible answers. I see it publishing essays explaining how genetic testing in large populations works over time and what we can and can’t expect to find when looking for Book of Mormon DNA. I see it standing up to manipulative bullies and reinforcing its position.

I don’t see it saying anything at all about DNA science being untrustworthy. Please, show me where that claim appears in a Church publication? Notice that the source this person is supposedly citing doesn’t say at all like what they claim it says. How is that being honest and trustworthy?

Please look at cited sources more critically than that. Please don’t let someone manipulate you into doubting your testimony, especially when the arguments are this bad.

Sarah Allen is a senior researcher with FAIR, and the 2022 recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith Award. She works for Scripture Central on their research team. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She is a co-moderator the LDS subreddit on Reddit and the author of a multi-part series rebutting the CES Letter. She is also a co-host of FAIR’s “Me, My Shelf, & I” podcast. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 26: DNA appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Okay, guys, the topic this week is on failed prophecies from the latter-day prophets, but only one of these four quotes he gives is actually a prophecy, and it didn’t fail.

The author, Thomas Faulk, also uses an incorrect word as the title, so I corrected it. I won’t correct his usage going forward in the portions I quote from him, but I will be using the correct word myself. So, just to clear up any confusion this flipping between spellings may cause for those who don’t know the difference, “prophecy” and “prophesy” are two completely different words. A “prophecy” is a prediction from an oracle of God that has already been given, such as those given by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. To “prophesy” is to give that prediction in the present tense. It’s an action, something somebody is currently doing. There’s only one letter’s difference between them, but they have different meanings and different pronunciations. I’m not trying to beat up on him for the error, because Heaven knows I’ve made my fair share of typos in this series. But in this case, I think the distinction is important. Also, I really don’t want to confuse anybody by constantly flipping back and forth between the two words.

This one gets into the weeds a bit, particularly on the first quote. There’s also a lot of misunderstanding on what a prophecy is, and what prophets are, from how it looks to me. I may take next week to discuss the role of prophets and our expectations about them, because a lot of people seem to misunderstand what a prophet actually is. They expect every word out of their mouths to be correct in every situation, and that just isn’t the case. I think a discussion about the nature of prophets and prophecy would be pretty beneficial, so right now, at least, I’m leaning in that direction.

Anyway, Faulk introduces this section like this:

While reading through History of the Church, Journal of Discourses, books by past prophets and historical Mormon periodicals, I would occasionally come across prophesies that didn’t quite make sense.

I know I hammer on the reliability issues with things like the Journal of Discourses and History of the Church, but it really is important to understand what these collections are and how they were created.

The History of the Church was collected from mostly second- and thirdhand account that were then rewritten into Joseph Smith’s voice, as if he was the one saying them. This was started under the direction and oversight of Joseph himself, though not finished until well after his death, and it is a solid, reliable source overall. It was a common scribal practice of the day, and they weren’t doing anything without his permission and approval. There are problems with some of the content, and it’s not perfect. But overall, it’s a decent source. There are many things in it that Joseph did not personally say, but if you know that going into it and you know how and where to source the original documents being paraphrased, this history collection is a good starting point. It’s just not guaranteed to actually be Joseph’s words.

The Journal of Discourses is a bit different. Again, there is a lot of wonderful, true, beautiful doctrine contained inside. There is also a lot in it that isn’t accurate or true. The off-the-cuff sermons were transcribed word-for-word, then edited and altered according to the reporters’ wishes as they were prepared for publication. Sometimes, it was just a few sentences here and there that were reworded, removed, or added, but sometimes, it was lengthy passages. None of the sermons we still have the original transcripts for match 100% with what was published, and many of them have “significant” departures, to use the word of the woman who re-transcribed and compared all of them. Again, this was a common practice of the day, but the original speakers were often not given the chance to approve them before publication, and they did not always approve of the changes after reading the finished product, when it was too late to object. It’s a decent resource, but unless you have the original transcript to compare it to—and we don’t have many—you can’t assume that what you’re reading is actually the words of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or any of the other speakers. What you’re reading is often the words of the reporters instead.

Different time periods had different recording standards, and issues like these are common in historical documents. These people were using the common techniques from their day, and they didn’t do anything wrong according to what they were taught. But for us today, trying to look back on the past and cobble together an accurate understanding, it does create problems. Historians are trained on how to use sources like this and evaluate them for truthfulness and integrity. But the vast majority of us are not trained historians. I’m certainly not, so I had to learn all of this stuff as I went along.

I’m not saying these sources are wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. I think there’s real value in reading them. But when you do, understand going into it that you may not be reading actual words by actual prophets. You may be reading the inserted thoughts of someone you don’t know anything about, or you may be missing multiples paragraphs of context that would make it make more sense. It’s one of those instances when “caveat emptor” is sound advice.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at these quotes.

Joseph Smith
Reflecting on a revelation given to him in Sec. 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

“There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes… I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. Then read the 14th chapter of Revelation, 6th and 7th verses—”And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” And Hosea, 6th chapter, After two days, etc.,—2,520 years; which brings it to 1890.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.5, p.336)

Joseph’s prophecy was mistaken in two ways: he did not live to be 85 years old and Jesus did not return in 1890.

There are a few different things being quoted and summarized, here. The first is D&C 130:14-17, which says:

14I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Right off the bat, before we even look at the other sources, there are a few things worth pointing out. The first is that this is a conditional prophecy: if Joseph lives until he’s 85, he’ll see the face of Christ. Joseph didn’t live until he was 85, so the prophecy is moot. The second is that even Joseph didn’t know exactly what it meant. Did it mean that the Second Coming would happen when or after Joseph was 85, was it referring to a previous appearance he’d already had, or would Joseph die and then see Christ’s face? He didn’t know. The prophecy could have meant several different things, and Joseph wasn’t sure which one it was.

The second thing being quoted is the History of the Church, volume 5, pages 336-337:

Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end [of the world] would not come in 1844, 5, or 6, or in forty years. There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.

I was once praying earnestly upon this subject, and a voice said unto me, “My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; and I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make his appearance or I shall go where He is. I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written—the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old. Then read the 14th chapter of Revelation, 6th and 7th verses—”And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.” And Hosea, 6th chapter, After two days, etc.,—2,520 years; which brings it to 1890. The coming of the Son of Man never will be—never can be till the judgments spoken of for this hour are poured out: which judgments are commenced. Paul says, “Ye are the children of the light, and not of the darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief in the night.” It is not the design of the Almighty to come upon the earth and crush it and grind it to powder, but he will reveal it to His servants the prophets.

Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, &c. and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds; then will appear one grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world do? They will say it is a planet, a comet, &c. But the Son of Man will come as the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning cometh out of the east.

Look at what Joseph is actually saying. He’s saying that, if he had to guess, it meant that the Second Coming would not happen before the year 1890, because there was too much still that needed to happen first. He also said that when it was coming, the prophets would be able to warn the valiant members of the Church to prepare for it, even if they didn’t know the exact hour. Well, he was right. The Second Coming didn’t happen before 1890. The signs haven’t all been fulfilled yet.

What did he mean when he said that some of the rising generation wouldn’t taste of death until Christ came? Well, we don’t know for sure. Maybe the Second Coming would have happened much sooner had Joseph actually lived until he was 85. Or maybe we don’t know what Joseph actually meant by “rising generation.” Did he mean the youth who were already alive at the time, or did he mean a coming generation? He didn’t specify. The idiom typically means those who are currently in their youth, but can we say with 100% certainty that’s how Joseph meant it? No. Can we say that this comment wasn’t also conditional on his surviving until he was 85? Nope.

The last thing quoted in Faulk’s comment was Hosea 6:1-3:

1Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

2After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

3Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latterandformer rainunto the earth.

This seems to be about repenting before the Messiah comes. Joseph’s quote appears to be equating the three days mentioned with 1,000 years each, the way the scriptures say. He said that 2,520 years after that prophecy was given would be the year 1890.

I don’t know the significance of it being 2,520 years, unless it’s referring to a prophecy by a Baptist minister named William Miller which some more fringe Christians believe in. Most do not—with good reason—but for a while between 1840-1845, it was quite the national craze in the United States. It was similar to Y2K, for those who remember what that was like. So, it would make sense that is in fact what Joseph was referring to, since it was a common theory of the day.

Discussion of this prophecy opens a can of worms I don’t really want to get into. I don’t want any mention of it by me to be seen as an endorsement either by myself or by FAIR, because it’s some extreme stuff. I’ll give a brief overview of the idea, but I want to be clear that I do not put any stock into this theory and I’m actually kind of surprised to see Joseph Smith alluding to it.

The basic gist is that there is some Biblical numerology that points to the number 2,520 as being indicative of the date of the Second Coming. This math is based on obscure passages from the books of Leviticus and Daniel. It claims that every 2,520 years, there’s a major event in Jewish history, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, etc., and that the final 2,520 year will culminate in the Second Coming of Christ to the Earth.

In Leviticus 26, Jehovah threatens several times to curse the Israelites seven times. Since the prophetic year of the Israelites is 360 days rather than 365 days, 7 x 360 = 2,520.

In Daniel 5, King Belshazzar and his cronies stole the temple wine and got drunk off of it, and praised their false gods at the expense of the God of Israel. Belshazzar then saw the hand of God writing the words “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” on the temple wall. Daniel interpreted that writing as basically meaning the end of the king’s reign, which happened immediately. The idiom “seeing the writing on the wall” for the moment you realize the inevitable end of something comes from this story. This is also where the phrase “you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting” comes from. That’s a rough translation of the phrase that over time, entered into colloquial speech.

However, the words are also a math equation. “Mene” is from “mina,” which is a weight of measurement equal to 50 shekels. So, “mene, mene” is 100 shekels. Tekel or “teqal” is another word for shekel, so it’s equal to 1 shekel. And “upharsin” means “to divide.” Half of 50 is 25. Therefore, the total amount of this equation is 126 shekels (50+50+1+25). Ezekiel 45:12 tells us that 1 shekel is worth 20 gerahs, so 126 x 20 = 2,520.

These two instances combined together have been taken by some to indicate that in the Bible, the number 2,520 means the end of an era, or sometimes being a portent of doom and destruction. So, in fringe circles, this can be a prophecy of the end of times or the Apocalypse. This is not mainstream today by any means, though in the early 1840s, it was.

This minister, William Miller, used this equation to predict the end of the world in early 1843. People across the country freaked out over the idea. When the Apocalypse didn’t happen, people began using other equations to extend the deadline every few months until the end of 1844. When it still never came, most people largely abandoned the belief and there are not many at all who still hold to the idea today.

What Joseph seemed to be saying in this quote from History of the Church is that not only was Miller’s math wrong, but that Christ would definitely not come in 1843 or 1844, and would actually not come until at least 1890. To me, it’s clear he wasn’t saying he believed this 2,520 prophecy. I think he was actually saying, “No, he’s wrong. Don’t panic because it’s not happening. When it does happen, the prophets will know it and I’ve been told it won’t happen this quickly.”

So, that is not a failed prophecy by any means. Miller’s prophecy is failed, but Joseph’s was fulfilled. The Second Coming did not happen in 1843-44, just like he promised it wouldn’t. And because Joseph died well before he reached the age of 85, the conditions placed on the verses in D&C 130 could not be fulfilled. That prophecy was rendered void the moment Joseph was murdered.

Faulk continues:

Prominent early saint, Elder Oliver B. Huntington, lived with Joseph Smith in Kirtland, OH and served four missions for the Church. He wrote an article for The Young Woman’s Journal, the official magazine for the Young Ladies Mutual Improvement Association of the Church, recounting a teaching by Joseph Smith.

Oliver B. Huntington is the brother of Dimick and Zina Huntington, two other prominent early Latter-day Saints. He’s also an interesting character in his own right, and his autobiography is kind of a cool read.

“Nearly all the discoveries of men in the last half century have… contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they live 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 near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.” (Joseph Smith – The Young Woman’s Journal, vol. 03, no. 6, March 1892. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/YWJ/id/11651)

This is not a prophecy, and there’s no way to attribute it to Joseph Smith. Huntington first wrote this down in his journal in 1881, and his source was not Joseph. It was Philo Dibble. So, not only was it first recorded 44 years after it was supposedly said, but he didn’t even hear it from the actual source. This article that Faulk cited is a thirdhand record that was given 55 years after the comment was supposedly originally made, and 11 years after Huntington first recorded mention of it in his journal. We have no idea whether Joseph actually said it or not.

If he did, it’s still not a prophecy. A prophecy, as we already discussed, is a prediction of a future event. This is just a statement of the possible present.

The article quoted goes on to mention that Huntington’s patriarchal blessing, which he says was given by Joseph Smith, Sr., said that one day he might serve a mission on the moon. The FAIR article cited above, however, quotes part of the blessing:

“[T]hou 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.”

We don’t know if that means literally that they were incorrectly talking about inhabitants of our moon or whether they were referring to an unnamed celestial body such as the spirit prison or the place where God dwells, or whether it was a metaphor of some kind, or what.

And according to Dan Vogel, who arrives at poor conclusions in my opinion but who is a solid researcher nonetheless, that blessing was given by Huntington’s father, not Joseph’s.

So, there’s at least one discrepancy in his recollections, which is to be expected half a century later. It’s entirely possible that Philo Dibble had discrepancies in his recollections too, when he passed them on to Oliver Huntington.

It was a fairly common belief at the time that the moon was inhabited. Hyrum Smith apparently believed the moon was inhabited, and Brigham Young apparently believed the sun was. So, it’s entirely possible that Joseph said it, and it’s entirely possible that he didn’t. Maybe he was talking about the inhabitants of the Celestial Kingdom or the city of Enoch. We don’t know enough about whatever prompted this memory of Dibble’s to say whether this was speculation on Joseph’s part, an actual vision that Dibble mistook for being the moon when it was really something else, or a false memory of Dibble’s that was distorted by time.

Either way, though, there is a very big difference between speculation and prophecy.

Brigham Young
“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.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.13, p.271)

This one is just silly. The usual caveats about the Journal of Discourses aside, “Do you think it’s inhabited? I rather think it is,” is not prophecy. That is pure speculation. There’s no debating that. Brigham was giving an opinion, which he was allowed to do. He was not declaring a fact or announcing a new revelation or making a future prediction under the mantle of prophethood. We all have opinions, and some of those opinions are objectively wrong. That happens to all of us occasionally.

This is the quote in context:

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. 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. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet. God gives light to our eyes. Did you ever think who gave you the power of seeing? who organized these little globules in our heads, and formed the nerves running to the brain, and gave us the power of distinguishing a circle from a square, an upright from a level, large from small, white from black, brown from gray, and so on? Did you acquire this faculty by your own power? Did any of you impart this power to me or I to you? Not at all. Then where did we get it from? From a superior Being. When I think of these few little things with regard to the organization of the earth and the people of the earth, how curious and how singular it is! And yet how harmonious and beautiful are Nature’s laws! And the work of God goes forward, and who can hinder it, or who can stay His hand now that He has commenced His kingdom?

He’s pretty clearly saying that God created everything for a purpose and that it didn’t happen by chance. Those who refuse to see God’s hand in the universe and the way everything works together are blind to reality. But he never declared it was a fact that people lived on the sun or the moon. He just said he “rather thinks” so.

Personally, I “rather think” that Thomas Faulk is a dishonest actor stretching words far beyond their definitions in an attempt to discredit the prophets of God. But again, that’s just opinion, not a declaration of fact or a future prediction given under the mantle of prophethood.

Joseph Fielding Smith
“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.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol.3, p.203)

On July 20, 1969 U.S. Astronauts are the first men to walk on the moon.

Yep, he said that at a stake conference in Hawaii, although it’s not in Doctrines of Salvation, volume 3. That’s because volume 3 was published in 1956, not 1954, and the statement in question was given in 1961.

Again, though, sloppy sourcing aside, this was clearly opinion, not prophecy. He believed it would diminish faith if men were to ever reach the moon.

There are two other things worth noting about this opinion. First, it was given in 1961, as I said. Joseph Fielding Smith did not become the President of the Church until 1970, nine years later. He was an apostle in 1961, and was called as a prophet, seer, and revelator, but he was not the leader of the Church. He was not authorized to give binding prophecies on behalf of the Church unless it was in agreement with the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Second, when he was later asked about this after the moon landing, he reportedly said, “Well, I was wrong, wasn’t I?”

It is important to note that the report of his response came 40 years after it was supposedly given, and was a personal reminiscence of someone who was there. This reply is something we can’t definitively source, so take it with a grain of salt. He may well not have ever even said it. Just like with some of the other statements coming decades later as secondhand recollections, we do need to be cautious with accepting it as fact when we can’t confirm it. But, if true, it shows that he didn’t consider it a prophecy any more than I do.

So, of these four supposedly failed prophecies by prophets of the Church, only one was actually a prophecy, and it wasn’t failed. If taken to literally mean that the Second Coming would take place in 1890 if Joseph lived until that time, it was a conditional prophecy whose conditions were not met and was therefore not binding. If taken to mean that the Second Coming would not occur until after 1890, well, that’s a fulfilled prophecy because it hasn’t happened yet and we’re well beyond 1890. The other three quotes were opinion, and opinion, even when given by an apostle or prophet, is not binding on the members of the Church.

I know this post wandered off into some conspiracy theory content, and I know it got kind of weird. But I do think the context of the tangent was necessary to explain what Joseph was trying to say with that first quote. Otherwise, it’s easy to misunderstand the point the same way that Faulk did.

There are a lot of things that Heavenly Father and the Savior leave for us to work out on our own, after giving us the basics. This can naturally lead to speculation when we’re trying to fill in the gaps. Prophets and apostles are not immune to that tendency. In recent decades, our leaders have abandoned open speculation over the pulpit precisely because people were mistaking opinion for prophecy or settled fact. They’ve also taken great pains to clarify repeatedly what constitutes official doctrine and what does not.

Our critics constantly use that speculation by prior Church leaders as evidence that our church is not true. Please do not fall into the same trap that our critics do and mistake their opinion for revelation. We have to remember that they’re fallen human beings just like we are, and sometimes, they make mistakes. If we don’t allow them the grace to make those mistakes, it can do real harm to our testimonies when those mistakes happen. But the Atonement of Christ is bigger than that. It applies to prophets just as much as to the rest of us. Don’t hold these men to impossible standards they can’t possibly live up to. That isn’t fair to them, and it isn’t fair to you.

Sarah Allen is relatively new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 25: Prophecies appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The following is from LaJean Purcell Carruth’s presentation at BYU Education Week 2022 as part of the series presented on what can be learned from the Wilford Woodruff Papers.

She also gave a presentation at the 2023 FAIR Conference, which is available to watch on our YouTube channel.

Introduction

When she was eleven years old, LaJean Purcell Carruth found an old Improvement Era in her parents’ basement open to an article on the Deseret Alphabet.1 She was instantly, completely fascinated. She taught herself to read and write the Deseret Alphabet and decided that she would be a Deseret transcriber when she grew up. Little did she know where that early passion would lead.

Deseret Alphabet, from LaJean’s libraryAs a graduate student at BYU in 1974, LaJean was hired to transcribe Deseret Alphabet entries in Wilford Woodruff’s journals, which fulfilled, in part, her childhood ambition. She also taught herself to read 19th-century Pitman shorthand, then began to translate the shorthand records in Wilford’s journals. As she transcribed these records, she discovered that Wilford Woodruff actually wrote in two types of shorthand: Pitman shorthand, published by Isaac Pitman in 1837, and Taylor shorthand, published by Samuel Taylor in 1786.

Pitman shorthand consonants, from LaJean’s libraryWilford Woodruff’s Shorthand Writing

From Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, August 20, 18372

Elder Hale and myself had a good time in secret prayer. May God bless us on the islands and help us find the blood of Ephraim.

Note: Shorthand is in bold type and longhand is in regular type.

Wilford wrote some words in shorthand for convenience, especially frequently written phrases such as “distance of the day,” and “took the parting hand.”

Some of his shorthand entries are spiritual and very personal. In this example, Wilford recorded in shorthand part of a blessing he received when he was ordained a Seventy, detailing what must have been a very spiritual experience:

From Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, May 31, 18363

YEA even when my spirit was playing around the throne of God in eternity that I should travel to the nations of the Earth & the Islands of the sea to Proclaim the word of God when these and other blessings were Pronounced upon my head I was filled with the Power & spirit of God EVEN SO LET IT BE AMEN.

Another example from his mission to the Southern States:

From Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, June 30, 18364

I and Brothers Smoot and Clapp went to the woods to pray. the power of God sat on us. we prayed with the spirit of prophecy. I sealed up my brethren and prophesied on their heads great blessings by the spirit of God.

Another personal spiritual experience:

From Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, March 30, 18385

I was still sick in the morning I had Prayers & was much better after my wife laid hands on me and asked the Lord to heal me.

Wilford Woodruff’s Sermons Reported by Other Shorthand Writers

Many of Wilford’s sermons were recorded in Pitman shorthand by other shorthand reporters, including George D. Watt. However, as Watt later translated his shorthand records for publication, he frequently changed the words: he added text that wasn’t in the shorthand, he took out text that was in the shorthand, and he rewrote some passages. (This is what shorthand reporters did at the time; their ideas of accuracy were very different from ours.) Because of this, much of what was published from those shorthand records in the Journal of Discourses and the Deseret News is not what was actually said. Here is one example from a sermon by Wilford Woodruff on June 27, 1875:

The Lost Sermons: Never Transcribed or Published

The shorthand record of many sermons by early Church leaders was never transcribed. As LaJean began transcribing Wilford Woodruff’s previously untranscribed sermons, she began to learn much about him—about how he spoke, about the great dignity with which he spoke, and about his personal experiences, especially regarding the gospel.

From George Watt’s shorthand, LaJean recently transcribed this account from Wilford Woodruff’s record:

I even prayed before the Lord from time to time that I might live to behold a people who again embraced those principles and blessings I saw an account of recorded in the Bible . . . The Spirit of God bore record to me in my labors from time to time I [would] live to see that day that I should occupy a place in house of God behold a people who again embraced the gospel of Christ.7

She also recently transcribed this unpublished record written in shorthand by John V. Long, another shorthand reporter:

The Lord requires a great many things of us and the greater our blessings the greater will be our responsibilities to the Lord. The Lord will hold us responsible for all the blessings that he has given unto us he will hold us responsible for the gospel which he has revealed unto us, for the use we make he will hold us responsible for the holy priesthood and the use we make of that and he will hold us responsible [for] all the truths of light and faith that has been given unto this people . . . It is a comfort to know that we serve a God whose attributes are good and righteous and to establish righteousness and truth upon the earth to do his mind and will to accomplish things necessary for the redemption of the earth for this reign and reign of his Son Jesus Christ and the saints.8

Conclusion

These shorthand records enable us to have a more accurate view of early Church leaders like Wilford Woodruff. We can read the actual words he spoke and grow to understand the kind of person he was. But we also need to understand that some shorthand sources, like those published by George D. Watt, might be inaccurate. When we look more deeply into true and accurate sources from Church history, we can discover that this is the Church of Jesus Christ. Wilford Woodruff knew that this was Christ’s Church as soon as he found it. We can learn much from him and his willingness to search for truth.

Endnotes

To learn more about the Deseret Alphabet, read “Deseret Alphabet,” Church History Topics, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, August 20, 1837, p. 170, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed August 16, 2023, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1837-08-20.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, May 31, 1836, p. 85, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed August 16, 2023, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1836-05-31.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, June 30, 1836, p. 90, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed August 16, 2023, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1836-06-30.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, March 30, 1838, p. 25, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed August 16, 2023, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1838-03-30.
Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, June 27, 1875, p. 1, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed August 17, 2023, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/discourse/1875-06-27.
Church History Department Pitman Shorthand transcriptions, Wilford Woodruff, 1860–1872, April 6, 1860, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.
Church History Department Pitman Shorthand transcriptions, Wilford Woodruff, 1860–1872, August 22, 1863, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

LaJean Purcell Carruth is a senior historian at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City and an Advisor to the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project. She is the coeditor of Mountain Meadows Massacre: Collected Legal Papers (2017) and Liverpool to Great Salt Lake: The 1851 Journal of Missionary George D. Watt (2022).

To learn more about the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the never-before-published history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please visit wilfordwoodruffpapers.org.

The post How One Woman’s Scholarship Helps Us Better Understand Church History appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Hey, guys. Long time, no see! This week should hopefully mark the return of weekly segments of this blog series. My life has been insane this summer, and I apologize for being so absent. My dad was dying of pulmonary fibrosis, and then miraculously, got a new set of lungs a few weeks ago that saved his life. He just came home from the hospital a week ago, and is still very weak. During that same time period, I also had to move, and there were two FAIR conferences, work and family obligations, and boy drama to wade through. Some of you have asked why I’m still single—it’s because I’m a magnet for Crazy. Things do appear to finally be settling back down, though, thankfully.

Speaking of the two FAIR conferences, the digital one on the Book of Mormon was a lot of fun. The talks from that one will be put into a book which should be coming out soon. The videos are being released on the FAIR YouTube channel every other Wednesday, alternating with the talks from the main conference this past August.

We’ve already begun planning next year’s main conference, and it’s shaping up to be a great conference. We’re talking about changing things up a bit with some interesting new ideas, and I will be presenting for the first time. I think I’ll be speaking on ways to navigate a faith crisis, or helping loved ones work through theirs. This will probably include subtopics like responding to anti-LDS material, studying with the Spirit, evaluating sources, and reputable resources you can turn to help you find answers to your questions. It’s a topic I’m passionate about, and unfortunately, it needs to be addressed often. It’s still very much up-in-the-air, though, as I’m still praying about what to say. I hope all of you can either come to the conference in person or catch it online afterward, because there are always some excellent talks at those conferences.

In addition to this series and that presentation next summer, I have an exciting new project in the works for FAIR that I’ll be doing alongside some of my friends, Jennifer Roach and Zachary Wright. We aren’t ready to talk about it openly yet, but if you follow me on Facebook, you probably saw me ranting recently about some of the more frustrating research the project required. We’ll have some trailers out at the beginning of the year, and hope to launch the project in February.

My lovely friend DeLayna is also planning a project that I’m very pleased with. It’s still in the early stages, but I really love and admire her, and can’t wait to see what she comes up with. So, keep your eyes open, because there are a lot of fun, exciting new projects coming to FAIR over the next year!

We also just lost our dear President Ballard. I just wanted to take a brief moment to share my love and gratitude for him. He has been an Apostle and member of the Quorum of the Twelve for as long as I can remember, as he was called just a few weeks before my fifth birthday. It absolutely will not be the same without him. He was a quiet, steady presence in my life, and he will be greatly missed. His last testimony of the Restoration, given last month at General Conference, was beautiful. I look forward to the day when we can all see him and learn from him again.

So, with all of that being said, let’s dive in, shall we?

This week, the Letter For My Wife moves into discussing blood atonement. This is one of my favorite “weird” doctrines, just because it led to so many ridiculous myths about our ancestors. Some of those myths are horrifying and some are hilarious, but all of them are absurd.

Thomas Faulk begins with a quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their bloodshed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. 1, pp.135-136)

Yes, he did say this. What Faulk doesn’t say is that the passages before and after this paragraph list different scriptures and expound teachings that discuss capital punishment for those who know the commandments of Christ and still commit murder.

While today, we disagree with the phrasing that anyone could be “beyond the power of the atonement of Christ,” we do know from the example of King David that there are sins we can commit that mean we will lose some of the glory we may have qualified for had we not committed them. David was fully forgiven for his sins, but some of the blessings he would have received in his exaltation were conditional. That seems to be what President Smith was talking about here in this section of the book.

This is a common interpretation of blood atonement, and it’s important to understand that during the second half of the 1800s when this kind of rhetoric was common, it was exaggerated and meant to encourage repentance and to keep outsiders hostile to the faith from staying in Utah territory. Brigham Young and other leaders at the time specifically said not to practice it, and always encouraged repentance rather than vigilante justice. It was a rhetorical device. While some individuals may have taken matters into their own hands in a few instances, this was not sanctioned by the Church. The state execution of John D. Lee for his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre is cited by some as an example of blood atonement, but again, that was capital punishment more than anything else.

The idea behind blood atonement is that, when you murder someone, you can’t make restitution for that because you can’t restore someone’s life to them. So, you would voluntarily allow your own blood to be shed by the government as a way to repent for what you’d done. Obviously, we can’t atone for our own sins, only Christ can do that. But the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary entry for “atone” talks a lot about making amends for something you’ve done and answering for your actions. Those are both necessary parts of the repentance process.

Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement even further. While Joseph might have emphasized the practice of blood atonement against sinful Mormons, Brigham inspired his followers to murder in God’s name both Mormons and non-Mormons alike.

That is a pretty tall claim, and Faulk doesn’t do much to back it up. During the Utah War, there were certainly killings in defense and out of necessity, as in all wars. There were executions of spies and informants, and there were harsh judgments made that might not have been made during a period of peace. But that’s a far cry from saying that a prophet of God was calling for premeditated murder in God’s name.

The Saints who came West and settled Utah and other surrounding areas were not living in a Rage Against the Machine song. There was not widespread “killing in the name of” going on, and Brigham Young was certainly not calling for it over the pulpit.

He was employing a rhetorical device common during periods of religious “Great Awakenings” called hellfire or fire-and-brimstone preaching. The basic idea was using exaggerated and terrible imagery to scare someone straight. It was popular during both the First and Second Great Awakenings, but much less so now. It’s strange to our ears today, but it was very common in the 1800s.

Most of the following quotes are taken from the Journal of Discourses, so the usual caveats about the accuracy and reliability of the JoD apply to them all.

Brigham Young
“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them. You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so, in such a case; and under the circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands…. There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.1, pp.108-109)

You can read this quote in context here, but these all say basically the same thing so I’m going to address them all at once at the end of the batch.

“All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp.219-20)

Again, you can read this full talk here.

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world … I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.53)

To read this one in context, you can find the talk here.

“This is loving your neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.220)

And this one, which is from the same talk as the second quote, can be found here.

Now, despite the exaggerated nature of the rhetoric, he was not saying that we should murder other members of the Church whom we know are sinning. In fact, just a few paragraphs before this comment, Brigham said:

“And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things. The time has been in Israel under the law of God, the celestial law, or that which pertains to the celestial law, for it is one of the laws of that kingdom where our Father dwells, that if a man was found guilty of adultery, he must have his blood shed, and that is near at hand. But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life.”

He was saying that we should remain true to our covenants and utilize the Atonement in our lives. Moreover, we should not just be concerned with ourselves and our families, but should love our brothers and sisters in the Gospel enough to help them repent of their sins, too. We should work together to keep all manner of sin out of our societies.

There are some sins we can commit that, if left unrepented for, can have serious eternal consequences, not just for ourselves but for others. Sometimes, those sins require a temporary removal from the membership of the Church of Christ. This is both for our own protection (our covenants are canceled so that if we backslide, we won’t be held responsible to the same degree that we would otherwise) and for the protection of the rest of the Saints (so that we don’t pull others away with us).

It’s a meme in our society today that a true friend is one who would help you bury the body after you commit a terrible sin. In reality, a true friend is one who would help you repent and make amends to the best of your ability.

Obviously, that doesn’t mean we should murder each other to speed along the repentance process, but that was the analogy that Brigham Young used to make this point. We shouldn’t tolerate and approve of sin, but help each other eradicate it from our lives. We should support and encourage each other to become the best versions of ourselves that we can be, to stretch and grow and to become as sanctified as it’s possible for a fallible mortal being to become. A real friend would help you become that person, not help you run from it.

Along with Porter Rockwell, William Hickman was bodyguard to Joseph Smith then Brigham Young. In his autobiography, Hickman confessed that he was often tasked by Brigham to take the lives of men.

“I found him, used him up, scalped him, and took his scalp to Brigham Young … He took it and thanked me very much. This was my first act of violence under the rule of Brigham Young.” (William Hickman, The Autobiography of William Hickman, Brigham’s Destroying Angel: The Life Confessions and Startling Disclosures, Salt Lake City, 1872, p.47)

After feeling remorse later in his life, Hickman confessed his crimes to R. N. Baskin, mayor of Salt Lake City and member of the Utah Supreme Court. Justice Baskins states,

“The Danites were an organization in the Mormon church. Its existence was stated by Bill Hickman in his confession made to me. He stated that the members were bound by their covenants to execute the orders of the priesthood, and that when a direct order or intimation was given to ‘use up’ anyone, it was always executed by one or more of the members. Hickman confessed to me that he personally knew of thirteen persons having been murdered, some of them by him … that at one time he murdered a man by the name of Buck at the personal request of Brigham Young.” (R.N. Baskin Reminiscences of Early Utah, 1914, p150)

William “Wild Bill” Hickman was a pretty controversial figure in Utah history. He served under Brigham Young during the Utah War, but later led a gang of horse thieves and murderers, was denounced by Brigham, wrote a tell-all book exaggerating his exploits and naming Brigham as the mastermind behind all of them, and was excommunicated over it all.

Taking his words at face value when he was known to exaggerate his crimes and Brigham’s involvement in them is poor scholarship. Obviously, not all sources who are critical of the Church are wrong in everything they say. There are certainly some things in his book that are true, just like there are some things that are true in William Chase’s book and in Ann Eliza Webb Young’s book. But just like in both of those other books, there are also a lot of things in Hickman’s book that are untrue. You can’t just accept everything he says uncritically if you want to find out the truth.

According to a biography on Hickman by Hope Hilton, there was some correspondence between Hickman and Young after the excommunication. Hickman was looking to secure a railroad contract, while Brigham wanted a confession and an apology, and offered rebaptism if Hickman would meet those terms. Hickman claimed ignorance of any wrongdoing at the time, though according to his descendants, he did later admit to lying over Young’s involvement. He was eventually rebaptized by proxy in the mid-1930s, some 50 years after his death, on the strength of that apparent confession.

While it’s impossible to know exactly how much of his story is exaggerated, we know for a fact that some portions of his autobiography are exaggerated. If the Church leadership had evidence to believe that he had confessed to lying about Brigham and eventually rebaptized him because of that confession, why should we believe those earlier accusations instead? That doesn’t make any sense.

Heber C. Kimball
“If men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.375)

I’m going to do the same thing with Heber C. Kimball’s quotes and give you the links to read them in context, then discuss them all at the end. This quote from comes this talk.

“Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles—good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men…. It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants…. I know the day is right at hand when men will forfeit their Priesthood and turn against us and against the covenants they have made, and they will be destroyed as Judas was.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol.6, pp.125-26)

This quote can be read in context here.

“These are my views, and the Lord knows that I believe in the principles of sanctification; and when I am guilty of seducing any man’s wife, or any woman in God’s world, I say, sever my head from my body.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.20)

And this one can be found here.

With these three, the first two quotes are talking about something completely different than the last one is. Faulk lumps them all together here as they’re talking about the same thing for some reason. The first two are about how the enemies of the Church of Christ will one day have to face the consequences of their actions. Unless they repent they will be destroyed, whether physically or symbolically, according to the Lord’s promises. That’s obviously not something we want to happen to anyone, but unfortunately, some people earn that reward.

The final quote was Heber saying that he would rather die than fail to live up to his covenants. The entire talk about was standing strong and apart from the rest of the world, and living up to our responsibilities as children of God. We have been called to a righteous calling, and it takes sacrifice and dedication. But if we fall short and succumb to the temptations of the world, and we fail to repent whenever that happens, we disappoint our Father and we potentially lose some of our blessings. When we take the Lord’s great sacrifice in vain, there are eternal consequences for that. Heber would rather lose his life than his integrity. That’s something to admire, not something to attack.

Jebediah M. Grant
“I say, there are men and women that I would advise to go to the Presidency immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their care; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are too deep a dye … I believe that there are a great many; and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood … Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid.” (Apostle Jebediah M. Grant, 2nd counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.4, pp.49-51)

This quote can be read in context here, in a talk fittingly titled “Rebuking Iniquity.” This talk goes directly after those hypocrites who engage in all manner of things that are against the commandments, including attacking the Church, but who come to meetings on Sundays and claim to be faithful, recommend-holding members of the ward. We all know people like that. They even have a name on Reddit: PIMO, or “physically in, mentally out.” The Savior had some pretty harsh words for hypocrites during His earthly ministry, too.

President Grant was saying that we needed to stay vigilant against those wolves in sheep’s clothing, to keep them from preying on the vulnerable among us. Was his phrasing sharper than what you’re likely to hear today? Yes. Was his ultimate message any different from talks we hear today? No. We all know what’s eventually going to happen to those who spend their time trying to lead the Saints away from God, especially those who do so in secret.

Joseph Fielding Smith

“Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol.1, pp.135-136)

This is the same quote from Joseph Fielding Smith he quoted before, so we’ve already covered this.

This is horrifying!

Why? Obviously, it’s not rhetoric we employ today. There’s a reason why Church leaders today are a lot more cautious in their phrasing, and it’s because people like Thomas Faulk deliberately misconstrue their meaning. But there’s nothing horrifying about understanding that people taught lessons differently 150 years ago than they do today.

Lives have been taken under the direction of the Church and in the name of the Lord.

Name one. You’ll notice that Faulk didn’t do that, and that’s because he can’t. While there was certainly violence and vigilante justice in the American West, and Utah was no exception to that, if there was any credible evidence at all to suggest that Brigham Young ordered the death of anyone, Faulk would have presented it here and hammered that point home repeatedly. He’d have gloated over it for pages, and yet, he hasn’t come up with a single name. The only name given by anyone at all is “Buck,” aka Horace Bucklin, a man Hickman killed as part of the Aiken massacre, and Hickman’s account can’t be fully trusted or corroborated. Faulk doesn’t even mention “Buck” by name or claim that Brigham Young directly ordered his murder or anyone else’s. Ask yourselves why that is.

Does merely claiming divine authority give someone a free pass to murder?

Obviously not, but contrary to common refrains of the day, words are not violence. Nothing Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, or any of the other past or present Church leaders said was equivalent to murder. If critics could provide any actual proof of our Church leaders murdering anyone, don’t you think they would have done so by now?

If so, many terrorist organizations around the world that commit horrific acts in the name of God should also get a free pass. Should we feel that the Prophet Brigham Young and the early saints are justified for their actions?

And what terrorist activity did Brigham Young engage in? Give specifics that are backed up by actual proof. We’ll wait.

Imagine if Thomas S. Monson were to preach this at general conference and task local authorities to follow through with this council.

Where’s the evidence that any of the other prophets ever asked local authorities to have anyone in their stakes murdered for their sins? Brigham repeatedly taught that blood atonement wasn’t something to be acted upon in this life.

It is obvious why the Church would not want this part of the history to become common knowledge. Does this practice sound like it was truly the will of a loving Heavenly Father?

How is blood atonement not common knowledge? It’s repeated in the Journal of Discourses, it’s published in a Gospel Topics Essay on the Church’s website, Saints volume 2—also on the Church’s website—discusses it, the Brethren have discussed it in interviews, there have been multiple statements made by the Church denouncing it as a practice, etc. It hasn’t exactly been hidden.

As for the second question, many people today seem to forget that while God is loving and merciful, He is also just. The demands of justice are equal to the demands of mercy. He perfectly balances both sides of the equation. Remember, the same Savior who selflessly sacrificed Himself to grant salvation to all of mankind also came to bring a sword instead of peace. And the Savior does the will of the Father. Our Heavenly Father is a loving God, but He is also a just God. If we’re unrepentant for our sins, we will lose out on many of the blessings He has offered us.

It is a prophet’s duty and calling to warn of us that. Different prophets have different styles of teaching, because we each learn in different ways. Different styles appeal to different people. If you don’t like Brigham’s brash, hyperbolic technique, there are a lot of other prophets to choose from. They’re all teaching the same message: that the only way to return to our Father’s kingdom in full glory, reaching our highest potential, is through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 24: Blood Atonement appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

While traveling to western Missouri in the fall of 1830, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr., and Ziba Peterson made a stop in Kirtland, Ohio to preach the gospel to some of Parley’s friends and former religious associates. While there, they taught and baptized more than a hundred individuals! They then ordained some of the men as Elders and placed them in charge of the affairs of the Church in that area. The missionaries then continued on to their assigned mission in Missouri.

Left to their limited understanding of the restored gospel, which included a renewal of the gift of the Holy Ghost and spiritual gifts, a few of these newly ordained Elders and members began experiencing unusual spiritual phenomena during their worship services. These included ecstatically jumping up and down, swinging from ceiling joists, falling into trances and unconsciousness, seeing visions of parchments with written messages from heaven, crawling around like snakes on the floor, preaching in tongues to invisible congregations of Lamanites, wielding invisible swords of Laban, and so forth.

Of course, these practices drew the ridicule of outsiders in the community, including in the local press, and gave plenty of fodder for the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed.

Partly in response to the large conversion in Kirtland in the fall of 1830, Joseph Smith and his family moved there the following February. After attending worship services in Kirtland and seeing some of the practices that had developed among these new members, the prophet wrote a letter to his brother Hyrum Smith, stating, “the devil had made many attempts to overthrow” the church there. It is in this context that he received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 46 which warns the members to “not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils. Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:7).

Two months later, he received another revelation on this topic:

Hearken, O ye elders of my church … and attend to the words of wisdom which shall be given unto you. … Behold, verily I say unto you, that there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world. And also Satan hath sought to deceive you, that he might overthrow you. Behold, I, the Lord, have looked upon you, and have seen abominations in the church that profess my name. … [W]o unto them that are deceivers and hypocrites, for, thus saith the Lord, I will bring them to judgement. Behold, verily I say unto you, there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some, which has given the adversary power; but behold such shall be reclaimed; But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-9).

The Lord then laid forth how “the elders of his church” could discern between deceiving spirits that are “not of God” and the “Spirit of truth,” so that they could “chase darkness from among [them]” and “overcome all things which are not ordained of [the Father]” (vv. 10-34).

Later, Joseph Smith would state,

A man must have the discerning of spirits, before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors: for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God” (1 April 1842, Joseph Smith Papers).

It should come as no surprise that these “false spirits” are still “abroad in the earth” today and are “deceiving the world” (D&C 50:1-2). Unfortunately, as Joseph Smith warned, these “abominations” sometimes show up “in the church” among those “that profess [God’s] name” (v. 4), and members may “think they have the spirit of God” when, in fact, they are “under the influence of a false spirit” that is “diabolical.”

These false spirits lead to controversy, confusion, and division among church members. And, like in 1831, this gives plenty of fodder for critics and the media to ridicule the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Thankfully, although some Latter-day Saints may at times be misled by “deceivers and hypocrites” who are under the influence of false spirits, the Lord has promised that “such shall be reclaimed,” but “the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death” (D&C 50:7-8).

The use of the term “hypocrite” in this revelation is interesting.

The word hypocrite ultimately came into English from the Greek word hypokrites, which means ‘an actor’ or ‘a stage player.’ The Greek word itself is a compound noun: it’s made up of two Greek words that literally translate as ‘an interpreter from underneath.’ That bizarre compound makes more sense when you know that the actors in ancient Greek theater wore large masks to mark which character they were playing, and so they interpreted the story from underneath their masks” (The Origin of ‘Hypocrite’).

In other words, these “hypocrites” aren’t individuals who fail to live up to what they believe, but they are spiritual “actors” who hide behind masks with the intent to deceive. Thus, “there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some” (v. 7).

In the Church, these hypocrites may be people who pretend to have special spiritual gifts, like happened in Kirtland in the winter of 1830-1831. Perhaps they claim special spiritual manifestations such as receiving the Second Comforter or seeing visions of the future like those recorded in the extremely problematic book, Visions of Glory. These hypocrites may also be those who pretend to have special insight into the scriptures or doctrines of the church, or they may claim divine authority outside of the divinely established order of the church (See FairMormon Conference Speaker Identifies a Spiritual Threat on ChurchofJesusChrist.org). Latter-day Saints should not be “seduced” by such “false spirits” and “hypocrites” since the Lord has clearly revealed how we can discern truth from error.

For example, we should never forget the Lord’s rebuke of David Whitmer, saying, “you have not given heed unto my Spirit, and to those who were set over you, but have been persuaded by those whom I have not commanded” (D&C 30:2). Safety comes from giving “heed unto [God’s] Spirit, and to those who [are] set over [us]” while rejecting the seductive voices of “those whom [God] has not commanded.” And how can we know if they are commanded of God?

And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until [Joseph Smith] be taken. … And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any [other] that shall come before you as revelations or commandments; And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before (Doctrine and Covenants 43:3, 5-7).

The apparent antecedent to the phrase “as I have told you before” is in the previous revelation:

[I]t shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up the church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:11).

This is an unambiguous “law unto” the members of the Church.

In 2017, M. Russell Ballard taught,

Today I repeat earlier counsel from Church leaders. …

Do not listen to those who have not been ordained and/or set apart to their Church calling and are not acknowledged by common consent of the members of the Church. (See Doctrine and Covenants 26:2; 28:13; 43:6–7.)

Be aware of organizations, groups, or individuals claiming secret answers to doctrinal questions that they say today’s apostles and prophets do not have or understand” (M. Russell Ballard, The Trek Continues!).

As I’ve written elsewhere, “if we are to avoid deception, we are commanded by God to not listen to anyone who purports to reveal his doctrine or his will other than the properly called, sustained, and ordained leadership of the church. Nobody talks for God but God and those properly called by Him, sustained by the membership of the church, and regularly ordained by those in authority.”

In our day of social media influencers and instantaneous mass communication, there are many individuals that are like Almon Babbitt, of whom the Lord said, “he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church; and he setteth up a golden calf for the worship of my people” (D&C 124:84). It does not matter whether these individuals have impressive scholarly training or insight, or whether they profess to have visions, manifestations, or dreams — if we “give heed” to “those whom [God] has not commanded,” we will be deceived (D&C 30:2).

Any individuals who proclaim that they have special, revealed insight, or who try to supplant the direction given by church authorities, are simply deceived and/or deceiving. They are the “deceivers and hypocrites” we were so clearly warned of in Doctrine and Covenants 50.

“Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:7).

Recommended Reading

“Try the Spirits,” Joseph Smith
“Spiritual Gifts,” Dallin H. Oaks
“Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Dallin H. Oaks
“Alternate Voices,” Dallin H. Oaks
“The Trek Continues!,” M. Russell Ballard
“Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” M. Russell Ballard

Andrew I. Miller is a FAIR volunteer from Crystal City, Missouri. He has served as a bishop and currently serves as the stake young men president. By profession he is a High School teacher.

The post “Beware lest ye are deceived” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

Imagine for yourself for a moment that you’re face-to-face with a critic of the church who states “The church is lying to you about its history” or “the church is trying to cover up its past.” When you ask them what they mean, they explain how the church has suppressed the details behind how a seer stone was used throughout the translation of the Book of Mormon. They continue “It’s only until the advent of the internet where the church has been forced to be honest.” What this critic does not know is that this claim is, for the most part, misinformation. The unfortunate reality is that misinformation can be spread as simply as the example above, and it can have some devastating consequences.

Now, the vast majority of this series has been dedicated to arriving at correct conclusions, and I’ve mostly talked about us using data to build our own arguments and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions. However, besides my episode on logical fallacies, I haven’t given all that much attention to teaching how to identify bad information. So far, all my episodes have been working under the assumption that the information I’ve been presenting is accurate. In reality, this isn’t always the case. Reality is often very complicated, and the manner in which data is presented can be incorrect, misleading, biased, or otherwise presented in a way that can incorrectly sway our opinion. Critical thinkers need to be aware of how data can be presented in ways that can lead to incorrect conclusions, so that we don’t fall prey to information that can have lasting negative consequences. To start, we’ll discuss what misinformation is, and talk about how it can be combated. Then, we’ll talk about propaganda in a similar way, and finally, we’ll discuss how to protect yourself against bad information. Let’s get into it.

Misinformation

Before we can launch into describing propaganda, we first need to understand what misinformation is. Misinformation is described as “incorrect or misleading information” (1). This kind of information serves critical thinkers very little good because in order to solve problems, we have to acknowledge the effects those problems have in reality. If we don’t understand the reality of a problem, that is, how that problem affects us in the real world, then we run the risk of implementing ineffective solutions. Keep this in mind as we proceed through the sources we analyze.

Let’s jump back to the example in the introduction. For those who don’t know what a seer stone is, the short answer is that it was a small, chocolate-colored stone that Joseph Smith used during the translation process. This hypothetical critic made the claim that the church was actively hiding the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone during the translation process of the Book of Mormon (2). If this was true, then members of the church who wanted to explain what happened would need to explain not only why Joseph used a seer stone, but also why the church was allegedly hiding the issue. In other words, those kinds of details would need to be factored into whatever analysis we did on the church and its truth claims. However, is it true that the church hid it? Well, the answer is kind of complicated, but I’ve found that it’s actually pretty universally “no.” For example, we have records of David Whitmer, a witness of the translation process, recording during his lifetime that Joseph Smith used a seer stone during the translation process (3). We also have Emma Smith, another direct witness, indicating that he used a seer stone as well (4).

This is where things get tricky though. These are both rather late sources, which if you remember from my article on evaluating historical sources, can sometimes make things a bit more complicated than we’d like. This led some members and leaders of the church to disbelieve the idea Joseph used a seer stone. Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, knew that Joseph Smith had the seer stone, but didn’t believe that it was used during the Book of Mormon translation (5). This sentiment arguably dominated the rhetoric of the time regarding the translation. However, this certainly wasn’t the unanimous opinion in the 1900s. We have records of historians such as Richard Lloyd Anderson, alongside apostles Neal A. Maxwell and Russell M. Nelson, who affirmed that Joseph used the seer stone in the hat during the translation a few decades later (6). As you can see, there’s far more nuance to this issue than meets the eye.

That brings us back to the topic of misinformation. With this in mind, is it really fair to say that the church as an organization was actively trying to hide the fact that Joseph used a seer stone? As you can see, this critic’s claim had information that was either misleading or even outrightly untrue. We have multiple general authorities affirming that Joseph Smith used a seer stone during a portion of the Book of Mormon’s translation. Was this detail contested? Sure, but that’s very different from saying that the church was actively, knowingly, and deceptively lying or hiding this issue from the general membership. Even so, we see this issue rehashed by critics of the church time and time again, despite the claim’s misleading nature.

Before we move on, it’s worth noting that there is some distinction between misinformation and its more devious cousin Disinformation. Disinformation is described as “false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth” (7). To put it another way, misinformation is just information that is incorrect, while disinformation is the intentional use of incorrect information. Now, I don’t like accusing people of spreading disinformation, because that would be assuming the intent of another person, which is very VERY difficult to prove with any degree of certainty. I think that Hanlon’s razor may be useful, or at least a variant of it: Don’t assume malintent when human frailty can account for the same behavior. Impracticality aside, it’s an important (albeit theoretical) distinction to make, seeing as it entails that we see the purveyor of disinformation in a different light than we see the purveyor of misinformation.

Propaganda

Now, misinformation is definitely a problematic thing, and its presence is felt in a lot of aspects of life and is often implemented in the realm of propaganda. Propaganda is described as “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view” (8). Another source described propaganda as being “dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion” (9). As you can imagine, this is often an instrument in much of political discourse, but as you can imagine, propaganda can also be found in a lot of other areas of life, such as in religious discourse.

If we study those definitions carefully, propaganda is focused on this idea of swaying people to agree with you, using a carefully selected concoction of facts and/or misinformation and fallacious reasoning to get people to agree with you. Researchers seem to agree with the idea that propaganda is information that is disseminated to elicit emotional responses, often using rhetorical devices and vaguely defined terms (10). However, as some writers have noted, there aren’t a lot of great ways to determine the difference between genuine persuasion and overt manipulation, and consequently, it’s difficult to define propaganda well (11). For our purposes, we’ll be working off of the definitions above wherein propaganda is more manipulative, biased, and misleading, even when it contains partial truths.

For example, consider this comment I saw on social media recently (source available upon request):

This is an excellent example of propaganda. It’s a claim made about the church that attempts to elicit an emotional response: A feeling of unfairness. It wants us to actively distrust the church, and leave behind the organization that is allegedly extorting money from us “under duress”. However, if we take some time to unpack this claim, we find it’s stringing together points that don’t make much sense. I don’t pay tithing because I’m under duress. I pay tithing because I love God and I want to give everything I can to him. I hope my family will do the same, but I recognize that some of them may choose not to. If they don’t want to be around me in Celestial glory, then they don’t have to be around me. I won’t do anything to force them to, and neither will the church. Think about this for a moment: How could anyone force them?

Now, more could be said on this topic from a theological perspective. For instance, according to LDS theology, if someone I love doesn’t want to live a Celestial life, our scriptures indicate that I’ll still be able to minister to them, and consequently be around them (12). However, this example shows how a deeper dive into propagandistic claims can expose the kind of half-truths inherent in a lot of these kinds of arguments. By oversimplifying the issue, and targeting the emotional response of the reader, the critic employing this kind of argument may cause serious doubt to a genuine believer.

Fighting Bad Information

How do we avoid falling victim to misinformation and misleading propaganda? Well, analyzing the data very much like I did now may prove to be useful. It’s helpful to go back over the primary sources, see what different people are saying, and then draw conclusions about the data. Drawing on the first article I wrote, a pattern of asking questions may also be useful. Asking questions like these may be helpful:

What is the cultural background of the people who are talking about X?
How has discourse about X shifted over time?
Is there ambiguity regarding what the sources say that would be benefitted from further research?
Is the person I’m listening to omitting important information, or focusing on information, about X in a way that alters their conclusion?

We can use tactics like these to analyze information regarding just about any topic, and there are definitely benefits from using these techniques when analyzing church history. While we should always be open to being wrong, following these patterns can lead us to be wrong less often, and consequently be more able to resolve problems in a practical, powerful way.

Luckily for us, critical thinking is also helpful in discerning what is true and what is not true in regards to propaganda as well. As it is with misinformation, asking questions can prove to be useful, and having at least a cursory grasp of the discourse behind the issues at hand is just as helpful. By knowing a thing or two about the topics being discussed, it can become easier for us to understand where the people presenting arguments are coming from, and consequently discern between bias, truth, and especially assumptions.

Honestly, as someone who has spent a significant amount of time parsing through arguments for and against the truth claims of the church, I’ve found that the most prominent thing that brings people out of the church is assumptions and negative feelings. The idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone for portions of the Book of Mormon’s translation doesn’t necessarily bring people out of the church. More often than not, it’s the assumption that church leaders lied about their history, and often the negative feelings that follow thereafter (13). Manipulative propaganda thrives on assumptions, inferences, and fallacious reasoning. To avoid being misled, think about the presuppositions you have, so that you can study them out, and not allow your emotions alone to guide your behavior and thought processes. Figure out what presuppositions other people have so that you can parse through bias more effectively. In this series, we’ve talked about several tools now that can help us identify good information, and differentiate it from bad information. I hope those tools can be useful.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it’s valuable to us as critical thinkers to practice discerning between good and bad information. Misinformation runs rampant in every corner of our society, and manipulative, deceptive propaganda can cause just as many problems. Luckily for us, there are ways to combat misinformation, and to protect ourselves from those who would deceive us (intentionally or otherwise). Critical thinkers have a plethora of tools to help them find truth, and with those tools, we can develop the confidence we need to make decisions that will help us accomplish what we need, and to solve the greater problems in today’s world. As always, I’m of the opinion that doing so will help us become the kinds of thinkers, and believers, that God wants us to be.

References:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misinformation
The reasoning behind this criticism varies significantly depending on the critic. Mostly though, this criticism ties Joseph’s use of a seer stone to local folk magic practices, which can make people uncomfortable. Many authors have tackled this topic more extensively than we have time to do here, but some great resources to study more about this include Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, alongside Michael Hubbard Mackay and Nicholas J. Frederick’s Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones. Other balanced sources include analyses from Mormonr, and FAIR presentations like this one.
https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/12/mode/2up
https://bhroberts.org/records/0iSghu-CyqXGc/emma_smith_reports_that_joseph_used_the_urim_and_thummim_before_the_lost_pages_and_a_dark_seer_stone_afterwards
https://archive.org/stream/Doctrines-of-Salvation-volume-3-joseph-fielding-smith/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv3_djvu.txt
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_Church_sources_discuss_either_the_use_of_the_seer_stone_or_the_stone_and_the_hat_as_part_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_process%3F
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=propaganda
https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
https://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluate/propaganda-vs-misinformation
https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-1384
D&C 76:85-87, It is for this reason that I believe that the “together” part has to do with unity just as much as (if not more than) proximity. Families can be united in purpose and love forever, if they so choose. No one is going to be coerced to live a certain way, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
https://leadingsaints.org/the-root-cause-for-why-members-leave-the-church-what-leaders-can-do-about-it/

Further Study:

Fear Leads to the Dark Side – Navigating the Shallows of (Mis)Information – René Krywult; This video talks about much of what we talk about, and goes through examples of how to parse through claims made about LDS theology.
Introduction to Propaganda; A great introduction to propaganda. Note how they indicate that propaganda in of itself is “morally neutral”, once again affirming how propaganda can be viewed and used in different ways.
Finding Truth in the Misinformation Age; a BYU professor of communications outlines how to battle misinformation from a theological perspective.

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 8: Misinformation and Propaganda appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Matthew C. Godfrey

One of the seminal events of Wilford Woodruff’s life was his participation in the Camp of Israel (later known as Zion’s Camp) expedition in 1834. Wilford was recruited to participate in the camp after he had been a member of the Church for only a few weeks. The camp was the first time he got to meet individuals such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball, and it taught him several lessons. Wilford transmitted these lessons to the Saints throughout his life, and they are teachings that can benefit Church members today as well.

Zion’s Camp Overview

Zion’s Camp had its roots in the expulsion of the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri, in the fall of 1833. In late October and early November, Jackson County citizens organized and violently attacked settlements of the Saints in the county. Ultimately, members were forced to flee into surrounding counties, the majority of them going to Clay County. In January 1834, the Missouri Saints sent Parley P. Pratt and Lyman Wight to Kirtland, Ohio, to inform Joseph Smith and other Church leaders of their plight.

At the February high council meeting where Pratt and Wight spoke, Joseph Smith declared his intent of “going to Zion to assist in redeeming it” and then “called for volunteers to go with him.”1 That same day, a February 1834 revelation (section 103 in today’s Doctrine and Covenants) instructed Joseph to recruit up to five hundred men to go to the aid of Church members who had been expelled from Jackson County. The group would settle on land purchased in the county and vicinity and provide protection against any “enemies” that sought to drive the Saints from the “goodly land.”2

To fulfill these instructions, Joseph Smith and a contingent of men from Kirtland, Ohio, departed in May 1834; another contingent was recruited in Pontiac, Michigan Territory, by Hyrum Smith and Lyman Wight and joined the Kirtland group in June 1834 at the Allred settlement in Missouri. The camp totaled approximately 205 men and around twenty-five women and children. The march was at times grueling, with camp members walking as much as forty miles a day. Sometimes camp members did not have enough food or water, but for the most part, they had adequate provisions.

At other times, the expedition was threatened by individuals, most notably at Fishing River in Missouri where a storm prevented a mob from attacking the camp. At the end of June 1834, the camp was disbanded after a revelation stated that it was not yet time for Zion’s redemption (Section 105 in today’s Doctrine and Covenants). An outbreak of cholera hastened the camp’s dispersal and ended up killing thirteen participants and two other Church members.3 Joseph Smith led the expedition as the “Commander in Chief of the Armies of Israel.”4

Wilford Woodruff -1849Wilford Woodruff’s Experiences

When the Lord instructed Joseph Smith and other Church leaders to recruit individuals for Zion’s Camp, Wilford Woodruff had been a member of the Church for just a few weeks. Wilford was baptized near Richland, New York, where he was living, by Zera Pulsipher on December 31, 1833, at the age of twenty-six. About two months after Wilford’s baptism, Joseph Smith and Parley P. Pratt left Kirtland for the eastern United States to recruit men for the expedition. On March 19, 1834, they separated. Joseph Smith returned to Kirtland while Parley continued his efforts in New York.

One of the places Parley visited was Richfield. Here he met Wilford and Wilford’s brother Azmon. Parley told them about the proposed expedition to Missouri. According to Wilford, Parley said “it was the will of the Lord that the yong men & middle aged what could be spared should go up to Zion.”5 However, Azmon and Wilford had only recently purchased a farm in Richland, and they were concerned about leaving it just as spring was coming. Wilford expressed his concern to Parley, who responded that it was Wilford’s “duty to try to prepare [himself] and go up to Zion.”6 Wilford and Azmon were at a crossroads. Would they do what Parley said was God’s will or would they stay on their farm?

Wilford chose to go while Azmon chose to stay—and Wilford did not look back. “I used evry exertion,” he stated, “to settle my accounts arange my affairs and prepare myself to join my Brethren to go to Missourie.”7 He later remembered that after Parley had preached about the necessity of helping the Saints in Missouri, he knew that he had to go. “My feelings were such,” Wilford recalled, “that if all the gold in the world had been presented to me, I could not have been hired to stay at home.”8

Having made the decision to go, Wilford traveled with Harry Brown and Warren Ingalls to Kirtland, where they arrived on the night of April 25. “There,” Wilford declared, “for the first time I had a view of our beloved Brother Joseph Smith the Prophet & Seer which God hath raised up in these last days through whom the saints receieve Revelations from time to time.”9 Wilford’s opinion of Joseph only increased as he became better acquainted with him—something that happened easily since Wilford stayed with Joseph the week he was in Kirtland.

On May 1, 1834, Wilford left with the first company of the expedition, consisting of about twenty men and four baggage wagons, one of which was Wilford’s. They traveled to New Portage, Ohio, that first day, where they waited for the rest of the group to join them a few days later. Then the expedition set out across Ohio for Missouri.

While on the journey, Wilford experienced all of the hardships and good times of Zion’s Camp, including the long days of walking, the cholera outbreak, the uncovering of a skeleton in a burial mound that became known as Zelph, and the Fishing River storm.10 He considered his experiences as important to his spiritual growth and tried to educate the Saints about Zion’s Camp for the rest of his life.

One of the Church’s most diligent recordkeepers in the nineteenth century, Wilford provided several accounts of Zion’s Camp. One account came in his journal. This was not something he kept contemporaneously while he was on the expedition, but he wrote a summary of his experiences probably in late 1834 or early 1835, although he inserted some details later than that. This account provides some good details about the camp, especially about the cholera epidemic.11

Wilford Woodruff – 1881In 1882, Wilford composed a history of the expedition titled “The History and Travels of Zion’s Camp,” based on several sources, including the manuscript history of the Church and his own memory and writings. This 124-page manuscript, written from Joseph Smith’s perspective, contains a daily account of the expedition’s travels, as well as copies of pertinent correspondence.12 Wilford also occasionally related episodes from Zion’s Camp in his discourses to the Saints. A few of these appear in Journal of Discourses. Many of these recollections focused on how the expedition allowed Wilford to interact with Joseph Smith. These interactions convinced him that Joseph was a prophet of God.

Another account came in Leaves from My Journal, the third installment of George Q. Cannon’s “Faith Promoting Series.” Cannon published Leaves from My Journal in 1882. It was a condensed version of Wilford’s autobiographical writings from the 1850s and 1860s and contained examples of Wilford listening to the Spirit throughout his life, as well as his testimony of the Restored Gospel. This history contains several stories about Wilford’s experiences in Zion’s Camp, including details about his impressions of Joseph Smith.13

In all of these accounts, Wilford portrayed Zion’s Camp as one of the most important events in his life pertaining to his spiritual growth. He came to know that God was with the Saints just as he had been with the children of Israel in Old Testament times. He saw the Lord intervening on behalf of the camp. His experiences clearly solidified Wilford’s testimony of the Restored Gospel. “Had I not gone up with Zion’s Camp,” he once declared at a time when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “I should not have been here today.”14

Lessons from Wilford’s Experiences with Zion’s Camp

Wilford learned many lessons from his time in Zion’s Camp. One of these is that the Saints in the latter days were not that different from the children of Israel in the Old Testament. In some of his accounts, Wilford compared Zion’s Camp to the children of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. For example, after the expedition reached New Portage, Ohio, and set up camp, Wilford “went to the top of the hill and looked down upon the camp of Israel.” After praying on the hill, “I rejoiced and praised the Lord that I had lived to see some of the tents of Israel pitched, and a company gathered by the commandment of God to go up and help redeem Zion.”15

Wilford also equated the Fishing River storm to the Lord destroying the armies of Pharaoh in the Red Sea. “The Lord delivered Israel in the days of Moses by dividing the Red Sea, so they went over dry shod,” he explained. “The Lord delivered Zion’s Camp from their enemies on the 19th of June, 1834, by piling up the waters in Fishing River forty feet in one night, so our enemies could not cross. He also sent a great hail-storm which broke them up and sent them seeking for shelter.”16

In addition, Wilford believed that Zion’s Camp was similar to the journeys of Book of Mormon peoples, specifically the Jaredites. “Every night before retireing to rest,” he explained in his history of Zion’s Camp, “at the sound of the trumpet we bowed before the Lord, in the several tents; and presented our thank and offerings with prayer and supplications.” Each morning, he stated, “every man was again on his knees before the Lord, imploring his blessings for the day.” In this way, he declared, “our journey was like the ancient Jaredites pitching our tents by the way.”17

Wilford’s connection of the camp with ancient Israel and the Jaredites showed him that we are all the covenant children of God, who interacts with us in the same ways that he interacted with the children of Israel or Book of Mormon peoples. This gave Wilford—and can give us—the confidence that we are just as important in the Lord’s eyes as those people of scripture were. And the events of our lives can be as significant for those who follow as the accounts of God’s people in the scriptures are for us today.

Wilford also learned about the necessity of sacrifice in developing spirituality through his Zion’s Camp experiences. His willingness to leave his and his brother’s farm behind to do his duty to the Lord was one example of this sacrifice—and it had a great impact on Wilford’s life. It is interesting to think about why Wilford became one of the Church’s great leaders—even the prophet of God—while his brother Azmon struggled with his testimony for much of his life. There are certainly many reasons for this—matters of faith are complicated things—but Wilford’s willingness to sacrifice for the Gospel, expressed early in his Church membership, was one factor.18

While on the expedition, Wilford had other experiences that taught him the importance of sacrifice. One of these came after the cholera epidemic broke out among camp members. When the expedition arrived in Clay County, Missouri, Wilford and his group went to the residence of Church member John Burk. He had an extra room in his house that he said Wilford’s company could have if they would clean it. “Fearing some other company would get it first,” Wilford remembered, the group “left all other business and went to work, cleaning out the room, and immediately spread down our blankets, so as to hold a right to the room.” However, not long after, several men suffering from cholera “were brought in and laid upon our beds. None of us ever used those blankets again, for they were buried with the dead.” Wilford concluded, “We gained nothing but experience by being selfish, and we lost our bedding.”19

Wilford then explained the lesson that he learned from this, one that he believed was especially important to youth: “Whenever you are blessed with any good thing, be willing to share it with others. By cultivating these principles while you are young, you will lay a foundation to do much good through your lives, and you will be beloved and respected of the Lord and all good men.”20

Another key lesson Wilford learned from Zion’s Camp was how much God was interested in His life. There were several examples of divine intervention throughout the expedition, but none more pronounced than what happened to the group at Fishing River. While the expedition was camped there, a small contingent of men threatened that the Saints would “see hell enough before morning.” After the men left, “a small black cloud appeared in the northwest and it began to unroll itself like a scroll.” In just a few minutes, Wilford stated, “the whole heavens were covered with a pall as black as ink,” and a gigantic thunderstorm hit “with wind, rain, thunder, lightning and hail.” Observing the storm, Joseph Smith, according to Wilford, declared, “Boys, there is some meaning in this—God is in the storm.”

The rain and hail, together with a drastic rise in the river, prevented any mob from attacking the camp. “It was reported,” Wilford related, “that the Captain of the company” hoping to fight the expedition “said that it was a d—d strange thing that they could do nothing against the d—d Mormons but what there must be a d—d hail storm or some other d—d thing to hinder them from doing anything.” Yet, Wilford continued, the captain “did not feel disposed to acknowledge that God was fighting our battles.”21 To Wilford, that lesson was obvious—God was with the camp and helped it in its time of need. God’s interest in the camp—and in Wilford personally—was a great lesson that remained with Wilford for the rest of his life.

Wilford was also grateful that Zion’s Camp allowed him to interact with Joseph Smith and observe the Prophet closely. For a recently baptized member, this deepened his testimony of Joseph as a prophet. “I went up to Missouri in Zion’s Camp; I saw the Prophet every day, and I knew he was a Prophet of God,” he stated to a group of Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1862.22 On another occasion, he explained that Zion’s Camp provided him with “an experience that we never could have gained in any other way.” He continued, “We had the privilege of beholding the face of the prophet, and we had the privilege of traveling a thousand miles with him, and seeing the workings of the Spirit of God with him, and the revelations of Jesus Christ unto him and the fulfillment of those revelations.”23

Wilford concluded that Zion’s Camp showed him that in Joseph’s “public and private career he carried with him the Spirit of the Almighty.” Indeed, Joseph “manifested a greatness of soul which I had never seen in any other man.”24 We may not have the opportunity to interact with the Prophet every day like Wilford, but we can observe his teachings and see “the workings of the Spirit of God with him.” As we do so, our testimonies of the prophet can deepen just as Wilford’s did.

Finally, Wilford’s experiences with Zion’s Camp—and his careful chronicling of them—teaches us the importance of keeping records. We can benefit spiritually from Wilford’s accounts of the expedition because he was willing to keep such records. It is sometimes difficult to find the time to write in a journal or compose a brief history of our lives, but doing so will bless the lives of those who follow. In 2007, President Henry B. Eyring counseled Church members to “find a way” to preserve experiences that demonstrated God’s love and His hand in our lives. These would then become cherished records to buoy us up when we “need to remember how much God loves us and how much we need Him.”25

Wilford found a way to record his experiences, and if we can also find a way, our experiences can have just as much of a spiritual impact on those who follow as Wilford’s have on us. We can be a blessing and strength to those that come after us as well.

Endnotes

Minutes, February 24, 1834, josephsmithpapers.org/minutes/1834-02-24.
Revelation, February 24, 1834 [D&C 103:20, 24–26], josephsmithpapers.org/revelation/1834-02-24.
Matthew C. Godfrey, “‘The Redemption of Zion Must Needs Come by Power’: Insights into the Camp of Israel Expedition, 1834,” BYU Studies Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2014): 126–127.
Minutes, February 24, 1834, josephsmithpapers.org/minutes/1834-02-24.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 11, 1834, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1834-04-11.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 11, 1834, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1834-04-11.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 11, 1834, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1834-04-11.
Wilford Woodruff, “Early Events of the Church, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses 7:98.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, April 25, 1834, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal/1834-04-25.
For more information about the expedition’s travels, see Matthew C. Godfrey, “The Camp of Israel’s March to Missouri,” in Zion’s Camp, 1834: March of Faith, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey (Sandy, UT: History of the Saints, 2018), 33–65, and Alexander L. Baugh, “The Camp of Israel in Clay County, Missouri,” in ibid., 67–101.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, p. 1, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/journal.
“History – The History of Zion’s Camp,” p. 1, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/the-history-of-zions-camp.
“Leaves From My Journal,” p. 1, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/leaves-from-my-journal.
Wilford Woodruff, “The Holy Ghost—Laboring in Faith—The Kingdom of God—Patriarchal Marriage,” Journal of Discourses 13:156.
“Leaves From My Journal,” p. 17, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/leaves-from-my-journal.
“Leaves From My Journal,” p. 18, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/leaves-from-my-journal.
“History – The History of Zion’s Camp,” p. 7, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/the-history-of-zions-camp.
Thomas G. Alexander explores this question—as well as Wilford’s experiences in Zion’s Camp—in his excellent article “Wilford Woodruff and Zion’s Camp: Baptism by Fire and the Spiritual Confirmation of a Future Prophet,” BYU Studies 39, no. 1 (2000): 130–146.
“Leaves From My Journal,” p. 18, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/leaves-from-my-journal.
“Leaves From My Journal,” p. 19, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/leaves-from-my-journal.
“History – The History of Zion’s Camp,” pp. 62–64, Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/the-history-of-zions-camp.
Wilford Woodruff, “Fulfilment of Prophecy—Power of the Gospel—Consistency of Its Principles,” Journal of Discourses 10:9.
Wilford Woodruff, “The Holy Ghost—Laboring in Faith—The Kingdom of God—Patriarchal Marriage,” Journal of Discourses 13:162.
Wilford Woodruff, “Early Events of the Church,” Journal of Discourses 7:98.
President Henry B. Eyring, “O Remember, Remember,” Ensign, ChurchofJesusChrist.org/ensign.

Matthew C. Godfrey is a general editor of the Joseph Smith Papers and senior managing historian for outreach and engagement with the Church History Department. He holds a PhD in American and public history from Washington State University. He previously served as managing historian of the Joseph Smith Papers and was the lead historian on three volumes of the Documents series. He has authored or coedited several books and articles, including Religion, Politics, and Sugar: The Mormon Church, the Federal Government, and the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, 1907–1921 (2007); The Earth Shall Appear as the Garden of Eden: Essays in Mormon Environmental History (2018); Zion’s Camp 1834: March of Faith (2018); and Know Brother Joseph: New Perspectives on Joseph Smith’s Life and Character (2019). He serves as an Advisor to the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

The mission of the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation is to digitally preserve and publish Wilford Woodruff’s eyewitness account of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thousands of transcribed pages are available at wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents, including Wilford’s journals, missionary records, dreams and visions, autobiographies, and histories.

The post Sacrifice and Obedience: Lessons from Zion’s Camp appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This post will be the last in the section about race and the Priesthood restriction. I apologize for not getting this up sooner. My offline life has been a little crazy this summer, and I just didn’t have the time to do this post justice until today. It’s an important topic, and I wanted to make sure I was able to treat it with the respect it deserves.

The bulk of the conversation this week is about the idea that the prophets can never lead the Church astray:

Follow the Prophet

The Church reminds us to give strict obedience to the prophet because he speaks for God and is incapable of misconduct.

No, the Church absolutely does not teach either of those things. If you run a search on the Church’s website for the phrase “strict obedience,” do you know what you find? A whole bunch of scriptures, talks, and lesson manuals advising strict obedience to the commandments of God and the covenants we make with Him. I went through several pages of search results and didn’t find a single entry teaching strict obedience to the prophets.

For my entire lifetime, multiple prophets and apostles have counseled us to pray over their words for confirmation from God that they’re speaking the truth. In fact, when I wrote my response to the CES Letter last year, I spent a decent chunk of one post listing multiple quotes by Brigham Young, saying that he fearedthat the Saints would trust him without bothering to ask the Spirit for confirmation that he was teaching them correct doctrine. Here are some of the things he had to say about blindly trusting your leaders:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves.” (Source)
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (Source)
“I do not wish any Latter–day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Source)
“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.” (Source)
“It is your privilege and duty to live so that you know when the word of the Lord is spoken to you and when the mind of the Lord is revealed to you. I say it is your duty to live so as to know and understand all these things. Suppose I were to teach you a false doctrine, how are you to know it if you do not possess the Spirit of God? As it is written, ‘The things of God knoweth no man but by the Spirit of God.’” (Source)
“… [B]e faithful, live so that the Spirit of the Lord will abide within you, then you can judge for yourselves. I have often said to the Latter-day Saints—’Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not.’ Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not. That is the way we want all Saints to live. Will you do it? Yes, I hope you will, every one of you.” (Source)
“Now, let me ask the Latter-day Saints, you who are here in this house this day, how do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? … [H]ow do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? And this is what I wish to urge upon you—live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God.” (Source)
“… ‘How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?’ By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, ‘I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years—over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward.’ But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, ‘I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!’ All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach … [i]t would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. But be careful that you do not lose it! Live so that you will know the moment the Spirit of the Almighty is grieved within you.” (Source)
“How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?” (Source)

(And, just as a quick caveat, most of those were taken from the Journal of Discourses, so be careful about accepting them as word-for-word quotes.)

So, because of multiple statements just like these ones described here, I reject Faulk’s framing here. The prophets themselves tell us they’re fallible and that they want us to seek their confirmation from the Spirit that what they’re teaching us is true.

In fact, when President Spencer W. Kimball heard that Sister Elaine Cannon had taught the young women of the Church that when the prophet speaks, “the debate is over,” he was so alarmed that he met with her the very next day and asked her not to say things like that again. She explained what she actually meant, but he worried that people would think they wanted to take away their agency, because that wasn’t at all true.

Remember, it was Lucifer’s plan to leave us as choiceless automatons who did everything we were told to do. God’s plan was one of free will. And because we do have free will, none of us mortal humans are free from making the occasional error.

Faulk then quotes some statements about prophets never leading the Church astray:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” (President Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, October 1890)
“Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, October 1966)
“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray. (Elder Boyd K. Packer, General Conference, October 1992)
“Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; don’t go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way.” (Children’s Songbook)

This quote was initially taken from Official Declaration 1, the Manifesto officially ending plural marriage in the Church.

However, it was a teaching that actually originated with Joseph Smith. In a 2014 post on the Ether’s Cave blog, Matthew Roper cited multiple accounts of people remembering Joseph and also Oliver Cowdery teaching that by following the majority of the church membership and the majority of the Twelve, who kept the records of the Church, a person would never be led astray into apostasy.

President James E. Faust elaborated that this is because the Twelve hold the Priesthood keys.

And in an excellent devotional given to students at Ensign College last year, Keith Erekson said:

“In its complete original context, Wilford Woodruff’s teaching emphasized that the prophet would not … lead people ‘astray from the oracles [or revelations] of God and from their duty.’ Prophets will not lead us away from their true witness of Jesus Christ, from His revelations or from the path, however hard it may be, to follow Him.

If you follow these thoughts to their natural conclusion, you arrive at President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto. If the main body of the Church was ever led too far astray, the Priesthood keys would be lost and removed from the Earth just like they were back during the Great Apostasy. Because the Lord has promised us that the Priesthood would never again be taken from the Earth, this means that the prophet and the majority of the apostles can’t lead us astray.

So, as you can see, the way that Faulk presents that line is not the way that the Church treats it. It’s not that prophets can never make a mistake. It’s that prophets can never lead the Church into such deep apostasy that the Priesthood keys will again be removed from the Earth.

In that same devotional cited above, Erekson also taught some wrong assumptions people have about prophets, which I think is worth repeating here. This is a bit long, but I thought it was important to share because we see all of these things throughout this letter:

Erekson asked his listeners what expectations they might have about prophets, how those expectations might be influenced by their upbringing and culture, and if they are assuming things that are incorrect.

“Admitting the errors in our own thinking is sometimes the most difficult part of understanding Church history because it takes humility to change our expectations and assumptions after we learn they are incorrect.” … Many oversimplify living prophets to a simple binary of being inspired or uninspired….

Many cultures have models of prophets. For some, a prophet is a sphinx, riddler or soothsayer who speaks in anonymous riddles. For others, a prophet is a “lone voice who speaks out against all evil and oppression” and denounces every wrong. Another model is that of a cable news pundit who pins the blame for tragedies on the sins of an enemy group, offering harsh condemnations.

Some Latter-day Saints come to expect prophets to act like these models. “Then, if prophets speak too clearly in favor of vaccination, or if they fail to stand with or against the internet’s outrage of the day, or if they offer kindness instead of criticism of refugees, some turn away in rage like Naaman,” Erekson said.

Another unhelpful expectation is a distrust in a person who is influenced by culture. Every human is shaped by the language, customs, knowledge and experiences of individuals, families and societies, making it impossible for anyone — including prophets — to not be influenced by culture….

“Prophets do not urge us to follow or imitate them, but to follow and imitate the Savior,” Erekson said.“Stated another way, the prophets do not teach us to follow them, but to ‘hear Him’!” …

Why do prophets need the grace of Christ? “For the same reasons that you and I depend on His grace — to forgive our sins, succor our infirmities, mitigate our shortcomings, expand our capabilities, turn weaknesses into strengths,” Erekson said.

Prophets make mistakes and they disagree. In extreme cases, their differing perspectives can lead to disputes. “Most of the time,” Erekson said, “the differences of opinion serve to bring all perspectives on issues into the discussion.”

The only person to ever live a mistake-free life was Jesus Christ. Prophets are aware of their own shortcomings, Erekson said, citing Moses who worried over his speaking inadequacies, Moroni who felt the same about his writing, and Joseph Smith who published his errors and divine rebukes. … Simply citing the many instances of when prophets disagreed, made mistakes or were tricked is incomplete, Erekson said, “without understanding that prophets serve ‘through the … grace of [our] Lord Jesus Christ.’ His grace is sufficient to bring them to unanimity, refine their souls and succor them.”

Prophets don’t know everything about the future. “While it is true that God reveals some of His secrets to prophets, and that some prophets including Moses, Enoch and Nephi received sweeping visions, that does not mean that every prophet knows everything about everything,” Erekson said. The things they do know are not always spelled out for them.

“As the ‘mouthpiece’ of the Lord, they do not simply open their mouths and the word of God flows out,” he said. “Sometimes revelation has come as dictated wording, but prophets also receive inspiration, feelings and impressions that they must put into words and actions. Sometimes they explore paths that don’t work out.” …

Prophets work to be inspired of the Holy Ghost because they don’t know everything, and they gain light and truth from the Lord line upon line…

“We should rightly expect prophets to be called through the will of God and the grace of Jesus Christ and receive ongoing guidance through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,” Erekson said. “As we do so, we can, like Naaman, shed incorrect expectations and assumptions about prophets that both impede our ability to be blessed and prompt divisive anger.”

There are a lot of incorrect assumptions given about prophets and their roles and abilities in this section of the LFMW. We need to be able to spot them and to know how to challenge them, because if we don’t ward against this kind of manipulation, it’ll eventually infect our minds. It’s how we sway from righteous teachings and beliefs into unrighteous ones.

Today the Church says the past leaders were in error because their statements were just “theories”.

Not exactly. Church leaders today say that those statements were theories because they were speculative statements based on opinion and ignorance rather than revelation. They may have thought at the time that they were preaching revealed doctrine, but we know today that they were not.

It’s okay to make mistakes and to be wrong occasionally. Most of us know what it feels like to receive personal revelation from God. He doesn’t often appear to us in person and dictate word-for-word what we record in our journals. He points us in the right direction and nudges along, and He gives us inspiration and understanding, but He also often gives us the basics and lets us figure out the details. It’s how we learn and grow, by stretching ourselves and discovering how to recognize His direction. Sometimes, we get those details wrong, because we’re still learning how to recognize His voice and what He’s saying to us.

It works the same way for our prophets. They may occasionally hear God’s voice or meet with the Savior face to face, but most of the time, their spiritual experiences are just like ours. They need to figure out what their impressions and directions mean, the same way we do. Sometimes, that involves trial and error. Sometimes, it means making the wrong choice before correcting their mistake and making the right one. Sometimes, it means relying on assumptions and inferences that turn out to be incorrect once more light has been shed.

We’ve all been there. We know what it’s like. We know that we’re not perfect and that sometimes, we get things wrong even when we’re trying our hardest to get it right. So, we need to grant our prophets and apostles that same level of understanding and grace. They’re trying their hardest to get it right, too. And you know what? They usually do get it right.

But expecting perfection from fallen, mortal men is an exercise in futility. Why do we insist on holding our prophets and apostles to an impossible standard that even God Himself doesn’t hold them to?

When I ask this question, the response I usually get is, “They’re prophets of God. They’re supposed to be better/smarter/wiser/more attuned to the Spirit than the rest of us.”

Well, where did they ever get that idea? Have they ever even read the Old Testament? Those prophets surely made their fair share of errors.

Yes, there are many areas in which President Nelson is more knowledgeable than I am. He knows considerably more than I do about the way the human body works, particularly the heart and lungs. He also has nearly 60 more years of experience in recognizing and following the Spirit than I do. He has a lot to teach me.

But if I don’t allow him the chance to be human and to make mistakes sometimes, I do both of us a huge disservice. It holds him to an impossible standard he can’t possibly live up to. For me, it weakens my capacity for charity and gives me a distorted view of not only the Priesthood keys but also personal and prophetic revelation, and even the Atonement itself.

Another common refrain is, “What do you expect when the Church teaches us songs like ‘Follow the Prophet, he knows the way’?”

What we expect is that when we teach kids simple, black-and-white concepts, their understanding will expand and deepen as they grow older.

For example, we teach kids not to talk to strangers, but as they get older, we expect them to realize that sometimes, they have to converse with strangers. When you buy something at the store, you usually have to talk to the cashier. When your internet goes down, you have to talk to the guy who comes out to fix it. When you take your car in for repairs, you have to speak to the mechanics. You have to speak to strangers in job interviews. Some of us have to engage with customers at work. Etc.

We teach children by degrees, the same way that the Spirit teaches us. We give them basic concepts when they’re young, and as their maturity and understanding grows, so does the way we discuss these topics.

So, if your thinking on this particular topic hasn’t grown or expanded since you were four years old and singing simplistic songs in Primary, that’s a problem. You should probably talk to somebody about that, because that isn’t normal cognitive function.

Applying the idea that the priesthood ban on blacks was just a theory also doesn’t make much sense when considering what Pres. David O. McKay stated, “…discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God.”

This is dishonest framing with a cherry-picked and cropped quote. If you read the full statement, a very different picture of President McKay’s words appears. I’ll quote the relevant portion here:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back to the beginning with God…

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s preexistent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals his will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the gospel. We have no racially segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await his revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established….

We join with those throughout the world who pry that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in the due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.

They were in error regarding the Priesthood restriction coming from the days of Joseph Smith, but these are not the words of hateful racists trying to hold Black people down. They believed they were following the direction of God, and we can’t say for certain that they weren’t.

Brigham Young said that this was ordained/decreed by the Lord and that he could not change it until the Lord Himself did. We don’t know if that belief came from a direct revelation or not, because Brigham believed that all knowledge or belief was revelation from God, whether it actually was or not. That muddies the water and makes it very difficult for us to figure out exactly what happened.

It does seem clear that however it began, the Lord did need to reverse it by revelation. Remember, President McKay told a room full of witnesses that he prayed for it repeatedly until the Lord told him to stop asking because, while it would change someday, it wouldn’t be under his tenure.

After that experience, I think the First Presidency was justified in saying in the statement above that it needed to be changed by revelation and that they couldn’t do it themselves. Whether that was just the Savior using a man-made policy for His own purposes or not, I don’t know.

I can’t say that the Priesthood restriction came about because of a revelation, and I can’t say that it didn’t come about because of a revelation. There’s conflicting, unclear information. What I can say for certain is that before 1978, multiple prophets believed it came from revelation and that the Lord would not allow them to change it.

If prophets claim to speak the will of Heavenly Father when their words can be later disavowed, then how was it that they were prophets at all?

What makes someone a prophet is not their ability to reason, to be infallible, or to always say everything exactly the way God would say it. A prophet is a prophet because he was called of God and holds all of the Priesthood keys to direct God’s church on Earth.

Part of a prophet’s job is to correct misunderstandings that have crept in—even if those misunderstandings came from a prior prophet who shared information that he believed was true before more light and knowledge was given to clarify the situation.

Prophets preach the Gospel according to their own understanding of the scriptures and their personal revelation. They go into their new calling the same way we all do, with our prior knowledge and beliefs backing us up. They aren’t suddenly gifted with infinite knowledge and wisdom when they’re set apart.

We can trust that these are men who love the Lord and are doing their utmost best to serve Him the very best they can. We can’t trust them to be perfect in all they say or do or think, but we can trust that they take their callings seriously and are doing the very best they can with the knowledge and light they have.

I trust them, and that’s why I’m willing to follow them. I don’t do it blindly, but I choose to do it, even knowing that they may make an occasional mistake.

This completely undermines the ‘prophet will never lead us astray’ principle.

No, it doesn’t, because “the prophet will never lead us astray” does not mean “the prophet will never make a mistake about anything.”

As we discussed above, that statement was regarding Priesthood keys and prophets leading the Church into widespread apostasy to the point where those keys were taken again from the Earth.

What doctrines currently attributed to God by today’s prophet can be discredited as just “theories” by future general authorities?

I guess we’ll find out, won’t we? That’s the beauty of a church led by modern-day prophets and ongoing revelation. As more revelation comes to light, older beliefs are clarified and corrected or deepened, depending on the situation.

We’re not members of a church that clings to revelation given to a specific group of people 5,000 years ago pertaining to their specific circumstances. Universal truths are still taught in every dispensation, but for revelation specific to our society and world today, we look to our current-day prophet. We don’t look to prophets who have been dead for decades, centuries, or millennia.

That’s a feature of our church, not a bug. If new light, knowledge, and understanding wasn’t waiting to come into the world, we wouldn’t have needed a single prophet since Adam.

It’s weird that Faulk is pushing the idea that revelation shouldn’t change over time. Do you see how manipulative that is? If he can cement that idea into your head, and you think about it for even two seconds, you start wondering what the point is of having prophets at all. Don’t fall into that trap. You’re smarter than that.

God sends us prophets because He still has much, much more to teach us. We just need to open ourselves up to embrace it. If we refuse to listen to our current prophets because we prefer the teachings of dead ones, He won’t give us any new revelation. If we don’t read the scriptures we already have, He won’t give us the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or any other records He has waiting in the wings for us. If we won’t embrace His way of teaching us line by line, He won’t continue to teach us anything.

I’m not personally willing to give that up for Thomas Faulk or Jeremy Runnells, or any of the other ex-Mormon “prophets” out there. I prefer to listen to real ones.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 23: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [D] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This year’s conference was well-attended with the venue full to capacity and many more participating via online streaming. Topics were wide-ranging, such as portrayals of the Church in the media, DNA and the Book of Mormon, abuse in the church, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses, and the necessity of […]

The post What happened at the FAIR Conference this year? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Zachary Wright Introduction In my life, I’ve found that everyone has a specific philosophy that they live by, whether they realize it or not. Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to the philosophical branch of epistemology. Epistemology, while sounding complicated and boring to some, is just the fancy way of saying […]

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 5: Epistemology appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

I was hoping to get this done before the FAIR Conference this past week, but life got in the way so I’m a little late. It was absolutely lovely to meet so many of you in person! I finally got the chance to meet so many friends I’ve only ever met online before, and that […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 22: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

As we pick up with the difficult racial quotes this week, I want to start again with the disclaimer that neither I nor anyone else at FAIR agrees with or condones the words and attitudes on display in these comments. I am not defending their use. I am just putting some history and context back […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 21: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: The Holy Ghost by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Holy Ghost. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that […]

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Acts 6–9 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

We’re now moving into one of the most controversial topics in our church’s history, the Priesthood restriction for black members of African descent. Like plural marriage, this is a topic that comes with a lot of emotion behind it. People have very strong feelings about this part of our history, and for good reason. I’m […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 20: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: Baptism for the Dead by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about baptism for the dead. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common […]

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Zachary Wright Introduction In the last article in this series, we discussed some elementary ideas behind critical thinking. We showed how critical thinking skills like asking questions and evaluating worldviews may help deal with controversial topics behind LDS theology and history. Now, those skills are essential for approaching a controversial topic. Even so, we […]

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 2: Evaluating Sources appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

One of the Church history topics I find the most fascinating is that of the Nauvoo Expositor and the lead-up to and aftermath of the martyrdom. My first real exposure to the story of the Expositor was as a sophomore in high school in Utah. An anti-LDS substitute math teacher decided to take it upon […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 19: The Early Church – Polygamy [D] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: The Garden or the Cross? by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Gethsemane and the crucifixion. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing […]

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Luke 22; John 18 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Sorry for taking so long to get this posted! I’ve been putting in more than 60 hours a week at work lately, and I just didn’t have time to properly research this post until now. This week, the topic under discussion is Joseph’s wives and the way that he personally practiced plural marriage. It’s true […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 18: The Early Church – Polygamy [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Zachary Wright

Have you ever wanted to problem-solve better? Not just the daily issues we deal with, but the massive world-changing problems we deal with constantly? What about wanting to be more effective in your study? Have you ever wanted to learn to differentiate between what’s true and what’s not? Maybe you’re not as ambitious, but you want to be a better disciple of Jesus Christ and learn more about Him and His gospel. All these skills, and more, apply at least some form of critical thinking skills, and I’m here to help you learn how to be a more effective critical thinker.

Throughout this series, we’ll explore some basic principles behind critical thinking and practice critical thinking about LDS theology and history, answering questions about them. We’ll discuss basic logic principles, learn to evaluate sources, and become informed about topics orbiting the restored gospel. Join us every other Sunday to learn how to become a better thinker, debater, and advocate for your beliefs. With the skills you learn in this series, you’ll be able to be more effective in every single field of your life and find ways to help other people in meaningful ways.

I invite you to join me as we learn together, starting our journey of learning “by study and by faith.”

Episode 1: What is Critical Thinking?

Introduction

When I began my research on Critical Thinking in preparation for this series, I came across an article that described “The Emerging Crisis in Critical Thinking”. Consider the following:

“Unfortunately, rather than creating a generation of “super-geniuses,” there are emerging reports that although modern students are quite adept at memorizing and regurgitating facts presented in class or in reading materials, the ability to reason, think critically, and problem-solve has actually been dramatically reduced in recent years.” (1)

I didn’t need an article to tell me that critical thinking is something that modern schools struggle to incorporate. I went to charter schools for most of my life, but while it seemed that my teachers seemed to pay lip service to the almighty “critical thinking skills,” I don’t recall them ever sitting down and explaining to the students “Critical thinking includes X, Y, and Z”. Why would they? It’s not in the syllabus.

It wasn’t until I was about 18 that I began picking up on what it actually meant. Critical thinking has far more to do with how you go about learning and solving problems, and far less to do with what you’re actually learning. You don’t need a college degree in American Religious History to think critically about Joseph Smith’s religious and cultural background, and you don’t need a degree in Biblical Greek to think critically about the New Testament texts. While such knowledge may be helpful, it is not essential to employ critical thinking skills. Latter-day Saints should know and care about these critical thinking skills to help others, solve problems, become good citizens, and “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3). So, what does it mean to think critically? Let’s explore that topic for a moment.

What is Critical Thinking?

If I had to boil down the concept of “critical thinking” to one concise statement, I’d probably summarize it as “Us making sure that we have good reasons for what we believe” (2). How is this done? Well, according to the University of Louisiana, the process of critical thinking includes an ability “to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions” (3). Fair enough; but consider this for a moment, as you were reading this list, did you stop and consider what each item of the list meant? Did you think about how this list may apply at home? School? Work? Church? Such practices are important aspects of critical thinking, but if you’re like me, you probably didn’t the first time around…and that’s okay. Critical thinking does NOT come naturally to people any more than running a marathon comes naturally to people. Like with any skill, it comes with deliberate practice, and experience…lots of it.

If I’ve succeeded today, you will be able to practice these critical thinking skills more effectively than you were able to before. This doesn’t mean that we’ll go over every aspect of this definition here, but we will be going over some of it. Specifically, we’ll talk about how to ask effective questions, look at events from different perspectives, and then discuss what it looks like to be a critical thinker in conjunction with the spirit.

Asking Effective Questions

An essential aspect of critical thinking is the ability to ask important questions. One pair of researchers noted that in relation to critical thinking, asking questions can: stimulate the brain, open communication/create an exchange, prompt discovery of what others know, encourage listening, provide the opportunity to acknowledge other ideas, and lead to the process of discovery (4). Consider the following:

“Not only do questions and critical thought have an appropriate place in the Church, but as President Dieter F. Uchtdorf has pointed out, the Church would not exist without it. He explains that the doctrinally loaded and foundational experience of the First Vision came as the result of Joseph Smith’s critical thought toward existing churches and a desire to know which he should join. Knowing for ourselves if the church that was restored through Joseph Smith’s efforts is truly the “only true and living church” (D&C 1:30) can be done only by following his lead and “ask[ing] of God” (James 1:5). “Asking questions,” President Uchtdorf said, “isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a precursor of growth.” (5)

With both secular and religious voices united in the call for asking questions, it almost goes without saying that we should be willing to ask important questions when dealing with important subjects. Why should it be any different when dealing with theological and historical questions regarding the church?

So, what kind of questions should we be asking? Well, cursory internet searches may be helpful here (6), but it may be best to begin by focusing on the basic idea of critical thinking: How do we know what we know? This may include questions such as:

How does this source claim to be getting their information?
How reliable is that method of getting information?
Do other ways of getting information corroborate this source?
Is what the source claims being overly distorted by bias, positive or negative?
When was the source speaking/writing about the subject?

A case study of how a critical thinker may approach a subject with good questions may be helpful here. Consider how a critic of the church may assert that Joseph Smith manufactured a set of fake (not gold) metal plates, and presented those plates as the ancient record of the Book of Mormon. Is that possible? Sure, but a critical thinker would ask questions like:

Where did Joseph Smith learn to make such plates?
Who taught him to create metal plates?
Did anyone contemporary to his time mention his ability to make plates?
What materials did Joseph use? Where did he obtain these materials?
Where did he manufacture these plates?
When did he have time to make these plates?

I could continue, but this should suffice. Do you see how all of these are important questions to ask when dealing with historical issues in LDS history? Anyone making the claim that Joseph was fabricating the plates would need to answer these questions in order to make a more compelling case.

Note that asking these questions doesn’t counter their arguments; it gives the critic the opportunity to support their position. Questions, in this manner, are not to be confused with arguments (we’ll deal with logic and arguments another day). You can support your questions with other sources, but it’s important to recognize that this method of asking questions can be more impactful in the realms of apologetics and research than practically anything else. If a faithful believer can learn to ask pertinent questions about LDS history and theology, it will make the conversation go much more smoothly. However, in order to improve your questions, it’s important to understand how to look at things from different perspectives, which is what we’ll discuss now.

Looking at Problems from Different Perspectives

A worldview is described as “a set of values and assumptions about the world, through which we interpret our experiences” (7). In order to ask important, pertinent, and even faithful questions, it’s essential to understand what ideas your questions are based on. A worldview is also described as “a collection of attitudes, values, stories and expectations about the world around us, which inform our every thought and action” (8). In order to be an effective critical thinker, it’s important to be able to differentiate between, and look at, different perspectives or worldviews. In truth, we do something similar all the time, almost daily, most of the time without us ever realizing it just by going about our day. A faithful church-going man who wakes up and goes to work may be looking at things from a variety of perspectives: his perspective as a father, his role as a husband, his role as an employee, his role as a child of God, etc. All of these perspectives have different ways of manifesting themselves and have different questions and goals. Similar analyses may be applied to how we critically think about certain topics. Consider the following:

“Furthermore, since belief and belonging are intricately interconnected, these changes in identity will often be accompanied by cognitive forms of restructuring, which allow the coexistence of faith and of secular knowledge of religion. One such form may focus on the recognition of two distinct layers of explanations of reality: a faith-based one, with supernatural foundations, and a secular one, with a focus on human dynamics within the phenomenon of religion.” (9)

I appreciate this analysis because while it’s careful to maintain that the secular and spiritual are connected, it is keen on pointing out that there are two different viewpoints to look at events that both answer different questions and have different presuppositions. We’ll go over a couple of these viewpoints now.

The restored gospel perspective is one that we Latter-day Saints are most experienced in. This viewpoint is primarily focused on things like our relationship with our Heavenly Father, the morality of our choices, and how Jesus Christ established, re-established, and guides his church today. It looks at this world as being a step along an eternal path, one with divine potential, where God’s purpose is to bring about “the immortality and eternal life of man” (10). This perspective assumes that those who deal with it believe in God, believe Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, believe that God has called prophets (like Joseph Smith) to teach us, and that those who make and keep covenants will return to the presence of God. (This is not a comprehensive view of this perspective, but it will suffice.)

As you can imagine though, other perspectives can be useful. Consider the Historical perspective, which is primarily focused on gathering data from various sources in order to synthesize an understanding of what occurred in the past (11). This perspective is focused on trying to figure out what occurred by studying what people before them wrote and thought about events. They are primarily concerned with finding out what people make what claims and interweaving each of the accounts into one coherent, plausible, and accurate narrative of events. This perspective presupposes that the events are able to be known by the people who record them, and they know there are gaps in the data that are irrecoverable as it stands right now. Even so, they are able to study documents as a means to the end of learning about events in the past with varying degrees of certainty.

Another perspective that Latter-day Saints encounter is the scientific worldview. Tracing its roots back to the Renaissance (and Greek Philosophy), it seeks to establish causality for everything that occurs in the world. Much can be said about the history and assumptions of empirical science, but suffice it to say that it is assumed that knowledge can be obtained through direct observation of the material world (12). In this perspective, scientists are concerned about how different things interact with each other, what causes different reactions, and what variables can be manipulated to bring about what result. Assumptions made by scientists vary, but it wouldn’t be untrue to state that they assume that everything is a long string of “cause-effect” reactions. This perspective, when taken to its extreme, may result in the acceptance of determinism (13).

The perspective of this very article and series is worth mentioning…I wrote this under the belief/assumption that God exists and that concepts such as morality and libertarian free will (14) are true. With those presuppositions in mind, I hope that I’ve been able to show that each of these perspectives is based at least somewhat in reality and may be useful in determining the truth, that is “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;”. Practicing looking at things from different perspectives may be challenging, and it may push you out of your comfort zone, but it is infinitely worth it (15). However, every one of these perspectives can be warped, leading to conclusions that are unhealthy, harmful, and not conducive to the moral life we try to build. This doesn’t mean that there is something wrong with the worldview itself, any more than it would mean that a hammer has something wrong with it because it can’t mow the lawn. The purpose, assumptions, and answers each worldview provides are different, and I posit that each one should be used to answer questions in its respective domain.

Now, how does this relate to critical thinking? I mention this because a critical thinker is able to take information from multiple perspectives to find ways to solve problems and make decisions with data from a variety of worldviews. Ignoring one or more perspectives in favor of another is referred to as “bias”. For example, when discussing controversial topics such as the relationship between members of the LGBTQ+ community and the church, it’s important to understand what perspectives are at play and to avoid bias in any format. For example, LDS critical thinkers should be careful to not ignore what role genetics might play in homosexuality (16), and the critical thinking members of the LGBTQ+ community should be careful to remember the role that traditional families play in the afterlife (17). Allowing one perspective to cloud another will lead to contention, frustration, and a lack of intellectual and spiritual engagement with all parties involved.

To recap, a critical thinker needs to be aware of the inherent worldviews/perspectives of every source being analyzed. While not separating the perspectives or allowing bias to cause them to distort or ignore other worldviews, critical thinkers are able to collect, synthesize, and evaluate data from different sources. After all, we believe in anything that is “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy” (18). Latter-day Saint critical thinkers will then be able to look at the problems and questions of others, and either ask questions about, or provide answers with, the differing worldviews/perspectives in question. In this way, I believe that being able to differentiate between the worldviews (and assumptions) of different people, will prove to be yet another essential aspect of LDS apologetics and research.

An Invitation to All

That was kind of long, I hope you’re still with me. In our discussion above, I’ve alluded already to the idea that I, the author, am carrying a few assumptions with me as I’m writing, namely I believe in God, agency, and moral law. The critical thinker will rightly be able to point out that no one can prove empirically that these things are real with a scientific perspective…and they would be right. There are limits to every worldview, but the careful reader will be able to realize that these very limitations are exactly why I’m writing this article in the first place. We can’t just use “one worldview” as the be-all-end-all standard by which we are to view the universe, any more than we can expect a plumber to be able to perform heart surgery. We need to be willing to look beyond mere bias, and thus, I have an invitation to every critical thinker out there, both church members and non-members alike.

For members, I invite you to study LDS church history and theology, employing critical thinking skills as you research. I invite you to listen to the spirit, and accept truth from all sources. I invite you to redouble your efforts to “Come unto Christ, and be perfected in him” (19). Do things to increase your faith as you increase your knowledge of other domains. As you do so, I promise that both your spiritual and intellectual capacities will increase and that you will find greater happiness and confidence as a result. In other words, continue your efforts to seek learning by study and by faith (20), and share the blessings of such efforts with everyone that you know.

For those who are not members of the church, I assert that there is a spiritual domain and that it can be known through spiritual methods. These methods include meditation, prayer, and the study and application of the words of the prophets. Over time, upon acting on these spiritual exercises, I claim that you will begin to feel a rejuvenated sense of power and confidence and that you will feel the inert “good” that comes from each of these (21). I testify that this spiritual perspective will not contradict truth, but will help you embrace it wholeheartedly. I invite you, in this sense, to seek God, and to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ. I invite you to study the words of the prophets, both ancient and modern, and look for the spirit to testify to you of this higher plane. I invite you to Come and See, Come and Help, Come and Stay (22), and most importantly, I invite you to follow Jesus Christ’s admonition to follow him (23).

Hopefully, you’ll take the skills I’ve presented here about asking questions and examining things from different lenses to heart as you do this. I also hope that you don’t dismiss this invitation off-hand. I promise you that as you look over the collective history of God allegedly working with people, you will see His hand, and you will feel Him calling you. I further promise that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can help you find a relationship with God that you cannot find anywhere else. If you have questions throughout your spiritual endeavors, please contact us! We’d love to help however we can.

Conclusion

In conclusion, much more can be said about critical thinking, and those working on this series will spend most of their time finding ways to foster critical thinking, and demonstrating that these skills inevitably leave room for faith. The irony of writing a series on critical thinking is apparent though, seeing as I would hope that you would thoughtfully examine, and even challenge the ideas presented here when appropriate. Even so, I hope that I’ve been able to show the utility of asking good questions, understanding differing worldviews and perspectives, and inspire everyone to more deeply study LDS theology as a means to the end of building faith in Jesus Christ. While I make no claims of omniscience, I do think that these skills will bless lives in both spiritual and secular domains. I look forward to helping pave the road to a far better future as a result.

References:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201703/the-emerging-crisis-in-critical-thinking
https://youtu.be/Cum3k-Wglfw
https://louisville.edu/ideastoaction/about/criticalthinking/what
Kowalski K. (2007). The value of asking questions. Journal of continuing education in nursing, 38(5), 200. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20070901-04
Anderson, Shayne. “Critical Thinking in Religious Education.” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 18, no. 3 (2017): 69-81. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol18/iss3/6
https://www.brown.edu/sheridan/teaching-learning-resources/teaching-resources/classroom-practices/learning-contexts/discussions/questions-critical-thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHdIsT4eiEQ
Gray A. J. (2011). Worldviews. International psychiatry : bulletin of the Board of International Affairs of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 8(3), 58–60.
Mauro Properzi; Belonging (and Believing) as LDS Scholars of Religion. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 January 2009; 42 (3): 37–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/dialjmormthou.42.3.0037
Moses 1:39
https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/resources/what-is-a-historian
Hepburn, Brian and Hanne Andersen, “Scientific Method”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/scientific-method/
https://www.google.com/search?q=determinism+definition&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS998US1000&oq=determinism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433i512j0i512l8.2690j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8; see also Churchland P. Neuroscience: reflections on the neural basis of morality. Edited by Walter Glannon. Defining Right and Wrong in Brain Science: Essential Readings in Neuroethics. New York: Dana Press; 2007
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/mormonism-and-determinism/
Meredith, Adrianna (2020) “Plea to Professors: A Passionate Approach to Controversy in the Classroom,” Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition/vol15/iss2/11
Mukherjee, S. (2017). The gene.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng
Articles of Faith 1:13
Moroni 10:32 (see also vs 33)
D&C 88:118
Alma 32
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/04/54uchtdorf?lang=eng
Matthew 4:19

Further Study:

“Real Vs. Rumor” by Keith Erekson from the 2021 FAIR Conference
“Worldview Apologetics: Revealing the Waters in Which We Swim” by Jeffrey Thayne
Socratic Questioning Series [Disk 1] [Part 1] (Specifically the first video, the other videos cover different portions that will be called on later in this series)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814022034
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A121765630&v=2.1⁢=r&sid=AONE&asid=358e44db (has great list of questions you can ask when evaluating sources)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/as-he-thinketh-in-his-heart-?lang=eng (In this talk, Elder Oaks discusses how the presuppositions that LDS have lead them to different conclusions about different topics)

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 1: What is Critical Thinking? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we’re frequently taught to value honesty. Primary children sing “I Believe in Being Honest.” Our 13th Article of Faith declares openly that we believe in being honest. It’s actively encouraged by our Apostles. Our temple recommend question was recently updated from, “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?” to the even wider-reaching, “Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?” Our scriptures teach us to deal with men honestly and to be open and honest in our conversation and renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, because those with honest hearts are accepted by the Lord, while liars will be thrust down to Hell.

But, even with all of those admonitions, we understand that there are some situations where acting with complete honesty is not the morally justifiable thing to do. These situations can range from the benign (for example, your friend gets a bad haircut or outfit, and rather than hurt their feelings by telling them you think it’s ugly, you fib and say they look nice) to something much more precarious (such as someone living in Germany during World War II who hides a Jewish family and lies to the authorities about their whereabouts). This type of thing is even shown in our scriptures, where Abraham and Sarai used an ambiguous word to imply that Sarai was not his wife, and then allowed the Pharaoh to believe the false implication. We believe that they were correct to do that. The Book of Abraham even clarifies that God told Abraham to do it.

We see these same types of questions, when one direction from God conflicts with another one, at various times throughout the scriptures. One notable example is Adam and Eve choosing between the direction to avoid the fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the direction to multiply and replenish the Earth. Another is Nephi slaying Laban at the Spirit’s direction despite knowing that murder was a violation of the commandments. Sometimes, our circumstances here on this fallen world, surrounded by other fallen, mortal human beings, means that the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves takes precedence over the commandment to be honest in all that we do. Most of us understand that sometimes, it’s impossible to follow both of those commandments at once. In those instances, we have to make the choice to follow which commandment we believe is most important in that moment.

That dilemma is at the heart of everything I’m going to talk about today. The focus for this portion of the Letter For My Wife is Joseph Smith’s public and private denials of the practice of polygamy. None of these situations are exactly as Thomas Faulk frames them to be. Because he tries to keep his tone neutral throughout most of this, it’s difficult to tell whether the framing was done on purpose to deceive the readers, or because he just didn’t understand the facts of the situation. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately, it’s getting harder to do that every week.

He begins:

Secrets and Denial

Additional marriages were kept secret and when word began to spread Joseph turned to outright denial.

This is a prime example of that bad framing I was just talking about. Joseph was always extremely careful with his words when he discussed plural marriage. Those “outright denials” are not exactly what they appear to be at first glance, and they were made for very specific reasons. This is where critical thinking skills are going to come into play. We can accept the surface-level analysis that Faulk presents, or we can look a little deeper and realize that this situation was far more complicated and deadly than he would have us believe it was.

He then presents four examples of those “secrets and denials” that he was talking about.

Emily and Eliza Partridge

Emily and Eliza were the daughters of the first bishop of the Church, Edward Partridge. When he passed away, his daughters Emily (16) and Eliza (20) sought work as maids to help support their family. Emily recalls:

“The first door that opened for us was to go to Smith’s, which we accepted.” “[I was] a nurse girl, for they had a young baby … Joseph and Emma were very kind to us; they were almost like a father and mother, and I loved Emma and the children.” “the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family … We had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the 4th of March 1843, Elder Heber C. Kimball performing the ceremony. My sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later. This was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith. Two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives, providing he would give her the privilege of choosing them. She accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself, and to save family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed. Accordingly on the 11th of May, 1843, we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time, in Emma’s presence … From that very hour, however, Emma was our bitter enemy. We remained in the family several months after this, but things went from bad to worse until we were obligated to leave the house and find another home.” (Emily Partridge’s journal)

It’s true that Joseph was sealed to both Emily and Eliza Partridge before Emma gave her permission for them to be sealed. It’s also true that they were sealed a second time in her presence without telling her about the first sealings in order to keep the peace. The rest of Emily’s story illustrates why such extreme measures were employed.

You see, Emma didn’t just freeze them out and make them so uncomfortable that they moved out. She tried to drive them entirely out of Nauvoo. Emily explained:

Emma was present [at the sealing of Emily and Eliza]. She gave her free and full consent. She had always up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph Smith with Emma’s consent; but ever after she was our enemy. She used every means in her power to injure us in the eyes of her husband, and before strangers, and in consequence of her abuse we were obliged to leave the city to gratify her, but things were overruled otherwise, and we remained in Nauvoo. My sister Eliza found a home with the family of Brother Joseph Coolidge, and I went to live with Sister Sylvia Lyons. She was a good woman, and one of the Lord’s chosen few.

Emma’s hurt and anger over plural marriage are well known. There are multiple stories of her losing her temper and causing scenes and even physical harm to others. These stories led to a strong resentment against her from the Saints who crossed the plains to Utah, which unfortunately lasted for generations. I’ve noticed a shift in attitude toward her even in my lifetime, which means it hung on for 150 years.

I have a lot of respect and admiration for Emma Smith, and I don’t want to spread gossip or add any fuel to the fire against her. I think it’s perfectly understandable that she grappled with the principle of plural marriage. I can’t imagine being asked to live that law on top of everything else she’d gone through because of Joseph’s calling. It would probably be the most difficult thing any of us were ever asked to do. But I do need to discuss some of those stories because they provide important context for Joseph’s behavior in these instances I’m covering today.

It’s difficult to know for certain which of these stories are true and which are false. Some came many decades later, while others are contemporary. People who knew her personally believed and shared the stories as if they were fact. Several apparently came from Joseph himself.

There’s the account of Hyrum trying to give Emma the written revelation and her jumping down his throat over it. The revelation was subsequently burned, though sources vary on whether or not Emma burned it, Joseph burned it at her behest, or Joseph voluntarily burned it to try to smooth out hurt feelings.

There was a public argument between Emma and one of Joseph’s other wives, Flora Ann Woodworth, that was recorded by William Clayton, Joseph’s chief scribe and one of his closest friends during the last few years of his life. Clayton’s journal entry from August 23, 1843 reads:

23 August 1843, Wednesday Nauvoo 2

Wednesday 23rd. … Prest J. told me that he had difficulty with E. yesterday. She rode up to Woodworths with him & caled while he came to the Temple. When he returned she was demanding the gold watch of F. he reproved her for her evil treatment. On their return home she abused him much & also when he got home. he had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse but finally succeeded.

Joseph had apparently given Flora a gold watch. He’d also given gold watches to Emma and to Eliza R. Snow, so it was something of a special token he gave out on occasion. When Emma went to visit the Woodworth family that day, she discovered Flora’s watch. It’s not clear how she discovered it or what Emma knew of the union before that point, but she became upset over the watch and demanded it back. Flora wouldn’t give it to her, and the argument was still on-going when Joseph arrived to pick her up. He told Emma to stop and they quickly left, though many decades later Seymour B. Young said that before they did so, Emma actually did crush the watch under the heel of her boot. We have no way of knowing whether his recollection is true or not.

Anyway, Emma apparently yelled at Joseph all the way home and even afterward, until he made her stop. I have no idea what Clayton meant by “harsh measures,” but I do know that there were no allegations or rumors of physical abuse in their marriage. Emma had threatened divorce that summer, so maybe he threatened it back, or reminded her of the seriousness of her covenants, or simply shouted back at her. We don’t know the details.

Flora was so upset by the altercation that she eloped to Carthage and married another man the very next day, and Joseph had to release her from her sealing for time. It was quite a scandal, and that’s just one example of a major fight between Emma, one of Joseph’s wives, and Joseph himself.

Another is the poisoning incident. One of Joseph’s other wives, Desdemona Fullmer, recounted a dream or vision she had one night where she claims she was warned to leave the Smith house because Emma would try to poison her if she stayed. When she told Joseph, he supposedly agreed that “she would if she could.” So, Joseph helped her moved into William Clayton’s home.

Shortly afterward, Joseph became violently ill. He was so sick that he was vomiting blood, and doing it so hard that he dislocated his jaw in the process. Joseph, Desdemona, and others apparently believed that Emma had poisoned him instead once Desdemona was out of the house. Joseph’s doctor agreed that he was poisoned. There was supposedly a private council meeting held where Joseph accused Emma of the poisoning attempt in front of the council. She began to cry rather than defend herself, which unfortunately led many to believe it was true. Brigham Young also later shared this story as being true.

However, as Richard Bushman noted in Rough Stone Rolling, Joseph dislocated his jaw from vomiting on at least one other occasion, maybe two, so it’s unlikely that she actually did try to poison him. Their marital strife must have been pretty bad at that time if he was willing to publicly accuse her of something like that, however. And with Desdemona’s account of a possible vision warning that Emma would do it to her, it does muddy the water a little. Desdemona may have been lying or exaggerating, but again, we just don’t know.

The most famous of these rumors is, of course, Emma pushing Eliza R. Snow down a flight of stairs and beating her with a broom handle. There is no contemporary evidence to back up any such altercation. All of those stories come from much, much later, and Eliza’s own journal seems to refute that allegation.

It’s been postulated that, rather than Eliza R. Snow, it was actually Eliza Partridge that this happened to, which would fit with Emily’s accounts of abuse from Emma. But Emily only ever described verbal abuse, not physical, and surely, she would have mentioned something as momentous as Emma dragging her sister by her hair and throwing her down a flight of stairs. Something that extreme would have left records: doctor’s visits, scandalized neighbors, letters, journal entries, etc. None of that exists here. There is no evidence this ever happened, and I personally don’t believe that it did.

So, why were the Saints in Deseret so quick to believe these stories about someone they’d once considered a close friend? Because of what happened in the aftermath of the martyrdom.

For one thing, while dividing up Joseph’s estate, it was very difficult to tell what belonged to him personally and what belonged to the Church. There was a legal fight between Emma and the Church, and Emma initially came out on top. She was granted ownership of a lot of land that the Church was hoping to sell in order to fund the trek West. However, in the years following the exodus from Nauvoo, Emma had that property taken from her by the government and she had to repurchase some of it with the little funds she was granted by his debt settlements. Even before that, nobody was buying the property at value, so she was land rich, but cash poor. However, the Saints didn’t know that, being so far away in Utah territory.

For another thing, Emma denied until her death that Joseph had ever participated in plural marriage. Because she had actually participated in some of his sealings to other women, this was a blatant falsehood, but it’s one she maintained for the rest of her life.

So, the Saints thought she had stayed behind and become wealthy while denying polygamy, while many of them lost everything they had, including family members, during the arduous journey to the Salt Lake Valley. Even once they arrived, they didn’t have peace. The US government sent the army out to eradicate them. They were mocked and insulted all over the world. They had their rights to due process and to have representation in government taken from them. The female right to vote was rescinded in their territory. The government seized their property and refused Latter-day Saint immigrants entry into the country. Apostles were murdered. Etc.

The Saints in Utah territory did not have an easy time for well over half a century, sacrificing all that they had to live the commandment of plural marriage. During that time, they believed that Emma was living a very easy life back in Nauvoo because she denied its existence and kept their property for herself. They resented her for that, and unfortunately, it came out in the form of malicious gossip.

They were wrong, just like she was wrong in thinking they had the bulk of Joseph’s property with them. But that means that it’s difficult today to tell which of the later accounts are true and which are false.

From these accounts, however, I think it’s clear why Joseph tried to hide some of his plural marriages from Emma. She was very hurt and upset by them, they caused a lot of strife and acrimony in their marriage, and she struggled to accept the doctrine. He didn’t want to cause her pain, and he didn’t want to start any more arguments when their marriage was already in a precarious position. But at the same time, he had to obey God. He had to be sealed to the women he was commanded to be sealed to. It maybe wasn’t the best decision he could have made, but I don’t blame him for making it. And I don’t blame her for feeling the way she did about it all.

Letter from Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney:

“…my feelings are so strong for you since what has passed lately between us…it seems, as if I could not live long in this way; and if you three would come and see me…it would afford me great relief…I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction…the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety…burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts…You will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be…I think Emma wont come tonight if she don’t fail to come tonight…” (Joseph Smith, George Albert Smith Family Papers, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah)

This is disingenuous framing. This letter was not a love letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney. It was a letter written to her and her parents, asking them to come visit him while he was in hiding. I’ve cleaned up the spelling and grammar, though you can see the original at the cited link. It says:

Dear and Beloved Brother and Sister Whitney, and &c.—

I take this opportunity to communicate some of my feelings privately at this time, which I want you three eternally to keep in your own bosoms; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has passed lately between us, that the time of my absence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this, my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief of mind, if those with whom I am allied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succor, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Granger’s, just back of Brother Hyrum’s farm. It is only one mile from town. The nights are very pleasant indeed. All three of you come can come and see me in the fore part of the night. Let Brother Whitney come a little ahead, and knock at the southeast corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield. I have a room entirely by myself. The whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safety. I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not at all. Now is the time or never, but I have no need of saying any such thing to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord when it is made known to you. The only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes. Then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. Only, be careful to escape observation, as much as possible. I know it is a heroic undertaking; but so much the greater friendship, and the more joy. When I see you, I will tell you all my plans; I cannot write them on paper. Burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts. My life depends upon it. One thing I want to see you for is to get the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c., you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be. Your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me. I close my letter. I think Emma won’t come tonight. If she doesn’t, don’t fail to come tonight. I subscribe myself your most obedient and affectionate companion, and friend.

Joseph Smith

So, just to explain what was happening, this was in the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Lilburn W. Boggs, the governor of Missouri who issued the extermination order against the Saints. Joseph was being blamed in the press and local gossip for putting a hit out on him. A Missouri sheriff came to arrest him and take him back to Missouri. He fought the extradition and was released, so he went into hiding for a few weeks to prevent it happening again, or in case any of Boggs’s supporters wanted revenge. Posses were out searching for him in Illinois and Iowa territory, and he was afraid they would try to kill him rather than extradite him.

He invited Sarah Ann Whitney and her parents to come visit him, all in one room. This wasn’t a secret tryst he was arranging. This letter was sent three weeks after Joseph and Sarah Ann were sealed, and three days before her parents, Newell K. and Elizabeth Ann Whitney, were sealed. It seems pretty clear he was talking about potentially sealing her parents at the Granger home, and then being comforted by having close friends with him.

As for the stuff about Emma, that also has a very obvious explanation. This letter was sent on August 18, 1842. Sarah Ann’s parents were sealed on August 21. But on August 16, 1842, Emma wrote a letter to Joseph, saying:

I am ready to go with you if you are obliged to leave; and Hyrum says he will go with me. I shall make the best arrangements I can and be as well prepared as possible. But still I feel good confidence that you can be protected without leaving this country. There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you.

On August 17, 1842, the next day, Joseph’s journal recorded that local rumors were saying his location had been discovered. Emma came to him and together, they decided he needed to move to Carlos Granger’s house. That information is found at the same link as her letter above.

So, Emma was worried that too many people knew Joseph’s location and that his life was in danger because of it. Then, there he was, inviting more people out to come visit him. That’s why he directed them to burn the letter, because it had his location on it. They were worried that Emma was being followed, and if she was there with a group of people, it would be obvious that Joseph was there, too. It’s also possible that he was trying not to scare her worse than she already was by letting her know that even more people knew where he was. Or maybe, he was trying to spare her because it involved the celestial marriage revelation, though I think Joseph’s safety is a far more likely reason in this case.

1835 Statement on Marriage

While still before the official revelation on plural marriage in 1843, an early edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (Sec 109:4) reprints a statement by Joseph addressing the public’s concern with his illegal practice of polygamy:

This one is also dishonestly presented. The 1835 Statement on Marriage was written alongside the 1835 Statement on Governments and Laws in General. These joint statements were written by Oliver Cowdery, not Joseph Smith. And there were very specific reasons why they were written.

The Statement on Governments and Laws was written mostly to address slavery and the need to obey the law. By this point, multiple Saints had already moved to Missouri and been expelled from Jackson County. It was a tenuous situation, and they were trying to keep the peace there.

The Statement on Marriage, however, was directly in reference to things going on in Ohio at the time.

After the Law of Consecration was announced, giving the Saints all things in common, a lot of people in the Ohio area believed that also meant having communal wives. The Oneida Community is perhaps the most famous of these free-love Utopian communities, but it is not the only one. Many people had the impression that the close-knit Latter-day Saints were one of those communities. That is what the reference to polygamy was referring to, not Joseph Smith’s personal practice of it.

The main reason it was written, however, is because the Church needed to have a formal declaration of their views on marriage before they could perform marriages in the state of Ohio. Ohio law said that any ordained minister could obtain a license to perform marriages, but Sidney Rigdon was denied one by an anti-LDS judge. His was the only denial on record for any of the years surrounding 1835. But there was another law on the books, one stating that churches could perform marriages without licenses so long as the marriage was in agreement with their rules and regulations on marriage. So, the Church had to create a list of those rules and regulations in order to legally perform marriages.

“Statement on Marriage. August 17, 1835. 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. (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paper Summary/doctrine-andcovenants-1844?p=441) This passage has since been removed from later editions of the D&C.

In 1835, the official doctrine of the Church was monogamy, not plural marriage. It was later removed because it was not a revelation, just a statement of doctrine in 1835. By 1841, the official revelation on marriage was beginning to be taught to many of Joseph’s inner circle. In 1852, it was announced publicly to the world. By 1876 when it was officially replaced, the 1835 Statement on Marriage had been outdated for decades. It was no longer official doctrine, and was replaced by something that was official doctrine.

Why would Joseph mention that the Church was accused of the crime of polygamy in 1835 when supposedly God didn’t reveal this practice until 1843?

God revealed the practice at least by the time of Abraham. In this dispensation, it was in 1831.

And as stated, Oliver mentioned that the Church had been accused of polygamy in 1835 because many members of the public believed that the Church was a free-love Utopian community who had communal wives in addition to communal property. Oliver was clarifying that no, that was not the case.

Probably because by the time that Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants was written, Joseph had wed 29 women by his own desire.

Where is the evidence that it was by his own desire? All of the accounts from those actually involved say that Joseph was commanded to be sealed to specific women and reluctant to act on those commands.

As late as 1844, Joseph continues to deny his involvement in polygamy, despite having well over 30 wives by this point.

Like the other examples given here, this one requires some backstory and explanation. Again, this is not framed accurately.

“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are – whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” (Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, History of the Church, May 26 1844, vol.6, pp.410-411)

So, again, this was a very specific statement made in response to specific allegations. Under Illinois law in the 1840s, if someone didn’t publicly announce adultery or polygamy, they weren’t guilty of engaging in it. If it was kept private, Joseph wasn’t breaking the law.

As noted above, this speech was given on May 26, 1844. On May 10, 1844, the Prospectus of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. The full edition would be published on June 7, 1844. Around this time, William and Wilson Law made public accusations that Joseph was committing adultery with Maria Lawrence. An indictment for those charges was handed down on May 24, 1844. The trial was set for that October, but obviously, Joseph was murdered at the end of June.

This speech of Joseph’s was given two days after that indictment came down, and was given in direct response to it. There was a two-day conference scheduled for the 26-27, and Joseph was scheduled to speak. Since this was fresh news and everyone would be worried about it, Joseph’s entire morning talk addressed the matter. In that speech, he stated:

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

This is why he said he could prove them all perjurers, because he had scribes following him everywhere and recording everything he said and did. Remember, they alleged that Joseph admitted to having an adulterous affair with Maria Lawrence, one of his sealed wives. Joseph could prove that allegation false.

He continued:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this. William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. … I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are—whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me.

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. … There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth’s sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves….

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bear down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors. I then sent Mr. Backenstos, when they declared that they were my enemies. I told Mr. Backenstos that he might tell the Laws, if they had any cause against me I would go before the Church, and confess it to the world. He [William Law] was summoned time and again, but refused to come. Dr. Bernhisel and Elder Rigdon know that I speak the truth. I cite you to Captain Dunham, Esquires Johnson and Wells, Brother Hatfield and others, for the truth of what I have said. I have said this to let my friends know that I am right.

I quoted a large chunk of this because I think it’s important to know what he was actually saying. He was saying that he wasn’t an adulterer and that they were lying in their charges against him. Under the law, he wasn’t guilty of adultery or polygamy, because he wasn’t admitting it publicly. He did legally only have one wife, even if he was sealed for time for some and for eternity with others. He was being very, very careful with his words, but his comments were in response to the specific allegations made against him. It was not a blanket denial. It was a denial that he was flaunting his relationship with Maria Lawrence around town, and it was a denial that he’d admitted to William and Wilson Law that he was engaging in adultery with her.

The Nauvoo Expositor situation led directly to Joseph’s death. It led to the Saints being expelled from Nauvoo. It led to the mobs and armies trying to murder the Saints. Joseph was publicly denying the charges in the indictment, but he was also trying to keep his people safe from harm, and save his own life. And yes, sometimes we have to be a little dishonest in order to do a far greater good, like saving the lives of thousands of people who look to you for leadership.

So, these situations are not what Faulk presents them to be. This is why researching is so important. If you hear an allegation and you don’t know the facts around it, look them up. Because in my experience, the allegations are usually far from the actual truth. The full context changes these situations completely in several cases, and in others, sheds light on why Joseph did what he did. It’s so important that we don’t just take antagonists at their word. Oftentimes, they’re not being truthful—just like William and Wilson Law were not being truthful. We have to learn how to cut through the bias and find the truth. It’s not always easy, but we need to do it.

And while we do that, we need to lean on our Father in Heaven to point us in the right direction and give us understanding of the facts.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 17: The Early Church – Polygamy [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Plural marriage is one of the top two or three most controversial things about our church’s history. It’s something that most people have strong feelings about. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground, and it’s been a divisive doctrine right from the very beginning.

It’s probably what we’re most known for, and is definitely what we’re most mocked over. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been watching a show or movie, only to have a random “joke” tossed out about “the Mormons” and polygamy.

Personally, I know a great many people who are disturbed or embarrassed by this part of our history. I’m sure you all do, too. Some people really, really struggle with this doctrine. It’s one I personally developed a testimony of about ten years ago, but I had very conflicted feelings over it before then. It’s still not something I’d be happy to live and I’m incredibly grateful that I live in a time when I don’t have to, at least in this lifetime. I do firmly believe that it did come from God, but it’s complicated and messy. I can’t give anyone a testimony or make anyone believe the way I do. Everyone needs to resolve that question for themselves.

What I can do is help clarify some of the history and some of the doctrinal reasons that were given for its implementation. I can point you toward research done by people much smarter than I am. I can respond to Faulk’s claims with the same level of scrutiny I’ve given his other claims. And I can discuss this topic openly and honestly, the way I always try to, and not shy away from those messy, complicated aspects of the practice.

I’m biased—I’m telling you right up front that I believe this practice was instituted by God. Thomas Faulk is biased, too. He believes it wasn’t instituted by God. But you shouldn’t take either of us at our word. Put in the work and do the research, and most importantly, pray to Heavenly Father. Tell Him how you feel about it, and ask Him for guidance, understanding, and clarification. It’s what I did, and it’s the best advice I can give: develop your own testimony. Don’t rely on mine or your spouse’s or your parents’, or anyone else’s for that matter. Obtain your own, and maintain and grow it over time. Let the Holy Ghost work on you. Let Him teach you. It’s why He’s there.

Another thing I want to say right off the bat is that many of my citations on this topic are going to come from the work of Brian Hales. He is perhaps the world’s leading authority on Joseph Smith’s personal practice of polygamy. I can’t think of any other scholar who would even be close except for Don Bradley, Brian’s frequent collaborator and research assistant. They are both very knowledgeable on this topic, far more so than any of the authors of these various “letters.”

Faulk introduces this topic like this:

What kind of motivations could a man have to wed many women?

There are many things that would motivate a man to marry multiple women. Joseph Smith did not leave a personal statement of his motivation, but his friends repeated his motivation multiple times: he believed it was a direct commandment from God. It was also referred to explicitly as a commandment in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Therefore, the question in this case is likely not what his motivation was. It should be whether or not you believe him when you hear his motivation.

As I said above, this is a question I took directly to Heavenly Father. I put aside my personal assumptions and I asked Him if it was a commandment from Him, and if it was, to open my mind and give me understanding and insight as to why it was a commandment. Because I did that, I can say that yes, I believe Joseph when I hear what his motivation was, according to those who knew him and the revelation he received.

The idea that he did it for reasons of lust isn’t borne out by the evidence. There isn’t any evidence of sexual relations in most of his unions, and the ones that do have evidence show that it happened rarely.

By some estimates Joseph Smith married up to 65 women from a growing group of people that intensely admired him and that he held great influence over.

There are two parts to this question, the number of Joseph’s wives and whether or not he coerced them.

The exact number of Joseph’s wives is unknown and varies depending on the source. Hales puts the number at 35, not 65. Wikipedia lists approximately 50 potential wives, drawing on the work of Todd Compton, George D. Smith, and Fawn Brodie. That list is unconfirmed and some names are purely speculative. I can’t find a single source but Faulk who puts it as high as 65. Most sources put in the 30-40 range.

Something to bear in mind here is that these were not all marriages as we consider them today. Many—more than half, according to the evidence—were sealings for the next life only. Sealings and marriages are not the same things, though we often perform them together in the temple today. In the Nauvoo period, there were three different types of unions: marriages or sealings for this life only; sealings for the next life only; and marriages for time and eternity, like those we conduct today.

Joseph engaged in at least two of these types of unions, time-and-eternity and eternity-only, so while they’re all referred to his as his “wives,” that term isn’t technically accurate. Many were only sealings for the next life, with little-to-no contact in this life. They didn’t live as a married couple, there were no sexual relations, and they were rarely ever alone together in any capacity. And after Joseph’s death, several of the Apostles married Joseph’s wives for time-only. We’ll surely dive into all of this in more detail later in this section.

One prominent accusation of critics is that Joseph used his influence to coerce women into marrying him. There were two or three accusations of that at the time by women who were close to John C. Bennett and William Law, but none that hold up very well under scrutiny.

He also declined the opportunity to marry additional wives, which he likely wouldn’t have done if his behavior was predatory in any way.

Reports by the vast majority of those whom Joseph proposed plural marriage to suggest that he was very cautious about it, often using an intermediary. These were not passionate declarations of love or lust; at least on a few occasions, they were described as businesslike, contractual obligations.

Most importantly, several women turned him down without any reprisals or consequences, and he actively encouraged all of the women involved to pray for their own testimonies of the practice before answering him. The women were always to have a choice in the matter.

Even more interestingly, multiple women described intense spiritual experiences in response, from visions of the Celestial Kingdom to being surrounded by halos of light to divine messengers confirming the commandment from God.

For unspecified reasons his polygamy is never addressed in the Church education system, yet when studied in detail, problems appear concerning the timeline that Joseph began this practice, the secretive nature with subsequent denial, and the types of women married.

Is Faulk legitimately claiming that between four years of Seminary, four years of Institute, attending the MTC, and going through at least 22 years of Sunday School before graduating college, he never once was taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy? I find that incredibly difficult to believe. Maybe he just wasn’t paying very close attention in class or something, I don’t know, or maybe I’m just being judgmental. But I honestly don’t understand how someone can study the Doctrine and Covenants and read Section 132 without coming to the realization that the prophet who restored plural marriage also practiced it himself.

Plural marriage was deemphasized for a few decades in the 20th Century after the practice was ended, but it was never hidden information. The reason for this minimization was almost assuredly to further separate our church from that of the fundamentalist sects who still continue the practice. But even with that, it was still widely available information.

I’ve told this story before, but we moved into the house where I spent most of my youth when I was seven years old. That’s the ward I was baptized in. Before we moved there, I had a friend who lived up the block from me who was the daughter of a polygamist family. When I learned that her father had three wives, I thought it was kind of weird, but not that weird, because I’d already been taught in Primary that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both had more than one wife. I didn’t know any of the details yet by that point, but I’d been taught even at that young age, prior to baptism, that it happened. And that wasn’t the only time I was taught about it in a Church setting. I learned more in Sunday School as I grew older, and more still in Seminary and Institute.

And growing up in Utah, it’s common to meet those who had ancestors who were married to Joseph Smith. I had a friend in middle school who was a descendant of Edward Partridge and was named Emily. It was impossible to be friends with her and not know that she was named after her distant relative who was one of Joseph’s plural wives.

I know that not everyone had those same experiences, and I do sympathize with those who learned the information later in life and were shocked by it. But I don’t understand how someone can grow up in the Church and serve a mission or watch tv and movies and never once hear that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. I don’t understand how people could be aware of the exodus from Nauvoo across the plains, or learn of the martyrdom, without knowing that plural marriage was a catalyst for all of it. I’m not saying that to berate or belittle anyone who didn’t know about it, but I just genuinely don’t understand how they didn’t know. I’m always surprised and confused when I hear that from someone who didn’t convert to the Church later in life.

Many of those same people are equally shocked when they hear I learned it so young. In fact, a friend of mine has insinuated that my memories are false and that I gaslit myself into believing that I learned it before adulthood. But that same friend also can’t explain why I was comfortable with my friend’s polygamist family without having a basis for that, or how I knew about my friend Emily’s ancestry.

The point is, we all have different experiences in this Church, and trying to make your experience apply universally just doesn’t work. That’s something the authors of these different “letters” do, claim that their experiences are the exact same experiences everyone has in the Church. But that’s just not true. Their experiences aren’t universal, and their conclusions don’t have to be, either.

As far as the “problems” that Faulk describes, he’ll go into more detail as we go along, so I’ll address them as they come up.

Timeline

An issue arises when we compare the date of the revelation to begin polygamy and the dates of Joseph’s marriages.

This “issue” is pretty easily explained by the actual history of the revelation. The date when it was written down was not the date when it was first received. Joseph apparently received at least a portion of the revelation back as early as 1831 while working on the JST. Then, subsequent portions as it related to the Temple Endowment and celestial marriage may have come over the next few years, or it all may have been given at once. The full timeline is murky, but the evidence does show that at least part of it was received in 1831. It wasn’t recorded yet presumably because of its controversial nature and because the time had not yet come when the Saints were commanded to live by its doctrine.

The story goes that, in 1843 when Emma was struggling so badly with the doctrine, Hyrum went to his brother and requested a written copy of the revelation so he could take it to her and try to help her understand and accept it. Joseph apparently warned him that it was a bad idea, but agreed to let him try, and dictated it to William Clayton. Hyrum’s meeting with Emma did not go well, to put it mildly, and Hyrum apparently told them later that “he had never received a more severe talking to in his life.”

So, that’s why it was ultimately written down, but it was received well before then.

Doctrine and Covenants, (Heading) Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. (The Church has recently amended this heading to include, “evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.” What they fail to clarify is that the 1831 revelation shows that Joseph instructed some elders to “take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome” (Letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young, August 12, 1861, Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Historians Office.)

This is conflating two different things, and one of them is not confirmed. It’s true that the section heading for 132 does agree that at least some of it was received in 1831. However, it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that the Church has “recently amended this heading to include, ‘evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.’” The way it’s worded, it implies that the Church only recently added the information about it being known as early as 1831.

You see, as Reddit user WooperSlim pointed out, in the 1981 edition—when the section headings were standardized—it originally said, “it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.” All they did was clarify that it was some of the principles, and update some of the phrasing.

And, as I said earlier, some elements of the revelation may have come later.

There is no existing copy of any revelation on marriage given in 1831, though. There are two secondhand reports that there was some kind of revelation given that recommended marriage to the “Lamanites,” but they conflict on the details. More importantly, neither record purports it to be the same revelation as the celestial marriage covenant given in D&C 132.

The first record was a letter from Ezra Booth, a former member of the Church who had apostatized and turned critical of Joseph. This letter was printed in the Ohio Star on October 27, 1831, and claimed that Joseph was encouraging members of the Church to divorce their wives and marry Native American women instead. This was apparently so that the Church members could take up residence in what was then called Indian territory and proselytize that way.

The second record is the one mentioned by Faulk above, a letter from W.W. Phelps written on August 12, 1861, thirty years after the fact, in which he quotes the supposed revelation. It’s unknown what source he was working off when composing the letter, because if it was memory alone, it’s highly suspect because of how detailed it is. In that letter, Phelps tells Brigham Young that Joseph gave a revelation saying that some of the missionaries to the Indian territory should marry Native American wives. Phelps added that when he asked Joseph about that, since they were all already married, his response was that they should have more than one wife like Abraham did.

We have no way of knowing whether that report is accurate or not. That there were two people who claimed to know about it, even if the details differ, points to something of the sort being said. But Booth was not one of those missionaries who were supposedly given the revelation, so it would appear that he was just passing along information that he heard from someone else.

And it’s unknown whether Phelps was recreating it from memory 30 years later, or if he was working off of notes taken around the time, or a copy of the revelation, or what. By that point, he’d spent 30 years justifying and defending plural marriage, so it’s entirely possible his memories altered over time. He admitted right in the letter that nobody in the company at the time had paper or pen or ink to write with, so whatever notes he would have made would have been from several days later—or more—after the revelation was supposedly given.

None of the other missionaries ever mentioned it, so we can’t even say that this revelation was ever even given, let alone that it said anything about plural marriage. The certainty with which Faulk makes his declaration is just not warranted by the evidence.

In 1833 Fanny Alger became Joseph’s first marriage after Emma – ten years before the official revelation. At the time, Fanny was living in the Smith home, helping Emma with housework and the children.

This isn’t quite accurate. We don’t know much about Fanny Alger’s relationship with Joseph Smith, but we know some things. She went to live with Joseph and Emma as a servant in the household in 1833, but best estimates of the actual marriage date puts it sometime in late 1835 or early 1836.

It was also not “ten years before the official revelation,” as we just covered. It was about eight years before the revelation was written down, but it was approximately four years after it was revealed to Joseph that the practice would be restored. According to Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, it was also at least a year after the angel with the drawn sword first commanded Joseph to start practicing it himself.

It is true, however, that Fanny was the first of Joseph’s plural wives.

A family friend, one of Brigham Young’s plural wives, recalls:

“Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night…By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach. Since Emma refused decidedly to allow her to remain in her house … my mother offered to take her until she could be sent to her relatives” (Ann Eliza Webb, Wife No. 19, 1875)

Again, there’s some distorted information in all of this. Ann Eliza Webb Young wasn’t even born until 1844, well after Fanny had moved away. Categorizing Ann Eliza as a family friend of Fanny’s is a gross inaccuracy. They never even met one another.

Fanny stayed with the Webb family for a few months after moving out of the Smith home, but that was in 1836. You could possibly consider Fanny a family friend of Ann Eliza’s parents, but there’s not much evidence they kept in touch after she left town. Besides, that isn’t the claim that Faulk made.

Beyond that, listing Ann Eliza as a plural wife of Brigham Young without giving the rest of the details is seriously sketchy. She divorced Brigham after four years, sold off a bunch of his possessions from the house he set up for her, got herself excommunicated for apostasy, and then went on the lecture circuit telling wild, untrue stories about her time in the Church. She also wrote an autobiography that was later proven to be more fiction than fact, and no credible historian should take her word seriously without doing a lot of fact-checking. I won’t get into her personal life other than that, but she had a lengthy history of dishonesty, and using her as an unironic source tells me a lot about Faulk’s level of research.

Oliver Cowdery also addresses this situation when he noted his extreme displeasure regarding Joseph’s conduct with Fanny Alger while married to Emma. In a letter to his brother, Warren A. Cowdery, Oliver wrote:

“We had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what 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 that matter and as I supposed was admitted by himself.” (Oliver Cowdery, Far West, Missouri, January 21, 1839)

There’s been some interesting research done on this letter. First of all, we don’t have a copy of the actual letter. Back in the 1800s, it was common for people to have what they called letter books. They would copy their letters into them before they send them, so they’d have a full record of the correspondence. The copy of this letter is from Oliver’s letter book, which was maintained by his nephew.

Second, we need to focus on the word “affair.” According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, it wasn’t referring to a romantic or adulterous affair. It was using the other meanings of the word: “business” that was conducted, “matters,” or “concerns.”

But more importantly, Oliver didn’t even use that word. His nephew did. The word “affair” was written over the top of another word that had been crossed out. That word was “scrape,” which is “a low word” meaning a “difficulty” or “perplexity.” It being a low word meant that it was kind of a crass term, not something that people used in polite society. Because it wasn’t a polite word, Oliver’s nephew apparently felt it would reflect badly on Oliver for using it, so he edited it while copying it into the letter book.

Essentially, Oliver was referring to “a dirty, nasty, filthy situation,” something he didn’t approve of but not something he was willing to call adultery.

This is important because Oliver despised the entire idea of plural marriage. He did not believe it came from God, and he believed that Joseph was a fallen prophet for discussing it. It’s the main reason for the deterioration of his friendship with Joseph and for his excommunication. Only two years before rejoining the church and four years before his death, he wrote a letter in which he called the practice “an abomination.” That position likely didn’t change before he died. He viewed the practice as sinful and wrong.

Even with Oliver’s important role in the formation of the Church, Joseph could not allow his affairs to become public. The issue of polygamy divided Oliver and Joseph so wide that Joseph turned Oliver out of the Church after his unceasing disapproval of the practice.

It appears that Faulk took the word “affair” at face value. Oliver was not excommunicated to silence him, and it was not the only reason for his excommunication. He was charged with a lengthy list of things that included writing counterfeit checks and defrauding members of the Church, something that hurt his feelings deeply. He maintained his innocence on those charges until the end, because he highly valued his reputation as an honest man. And the reason he valued it so highly was because he wanted people to believe his testimony of the Book of Mormon:

But from your last [letter], I am fully satisfied, that no unjust imputation will be suffered to remain upon my character. And that I may not be misunderstood, let me here say that I have only sought, and only asked, that my character might stand exonerated from those charges which imputed to me the crimes of theft, forgery, &c. Those which all my former associates knew to be false. I do not, I have never asked, to be excused, or exempted from an acknowledgement, of my actual fault or wrong—for of these there are many; which it always was my pleasure to confess. I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest. But, enough, enough, on this.

That lengthy list of charges included insinuating that Joseph committed adultery, but that was far from the only thing on the list.

In a chapter of a book titled The Persistence of Polygamy, Don Bradley shared his thoughts on the matter. I agree wholeheartedly with his characterization of Oliver:

Even the vehement oral accusations and letter by Cowdery, for instance, fall short of stating that Smith’s behavior constituted adultery. In his trial, Cowdery was charged with “insinuating” that Smith’s relationship with Alger was adulterous, accused of this in the testimony, and convicted of making insinuations rather than assertions that Smith had committed adultery. Though said to have given his verbal answer with incongruous body language, he stated “no” when asked point blank if Smith’s confessions to him amounted to an admission of adultery. There is nothing to indicate that “adultery” was his term. This reluctance to use the term “adultery” seems out of line with his emphatic condemnation of Smith’s “dirty, nasty, filthy” behavior and his insistence that his reports had been “strictly true” and “never deserted from the truth of the matter.”

Because Cowdery was alienated from Joseph Smith at the time of his trial and was being expelled from the church, it is not likely that the best construction was being placed on his words and actions. And Cowdery was not in attendance at his trial, rendering him unable to defend himself from exaggeration and misunderstanding. The wrong he saw in Smith might thus have not been adultery, but polygamy.

Evidence coincident with Cowdery’s return to the church eight years later indicates his revulsion to polygamy and his incredulity that it would be allowed as a religious practice. For Cowdery, polygamy was a sexual sin in itself, and perhaps arguably constituted adultery. Such an uncertain definition on Cowdery’s part would account for his curious mix of vehemence against Smith’s “dirty, nasty, filthy” behavior on the one hand and reticence to directly call it “adultery” on the other.

Though Cowdery’s letter, with its talk of Smith’s “dirty, nasty, filthy affair,” would seem to explicitly identify the relationship as an extramarital affair, it does not. The letter stops short of an accusation of adultery….

It’s an important point that Oliver wasn’t there for his trial, so he couldn’t rebut what they were saying about him. The testimonies against him easily could have been exaggerated or misconstrued. However, it also seems quite clear that he believed polygamy was an immoral sexual sin, even if it may not have technically been adultery.

He was found guilty and excommunicated at this trial, by the way, after Joseph got up and explained the truth of the situation between him and Fanny. The minutes of the meeting state that he addressed “the girl business,” but they’re deliberately brief and vague. It does not say what he told them, just that he gave an explanation that satisfied them. According to Bradley, though, the scribe of those minutes later wrote a letter where he said that polygamy first came to light in 1838, the year of the trial. It seems pretty clear that Joseph told the High Council about being commanded to practice plural marriage at that time, and that they accepted his explanation even if they didn’t fully understand or believe it at that time.

Additionally, Fanny’s uncle Solomon Hancock was on that High Council. So, her own family believed Joseph’s explanation and found Oliver guilty of, among other things, wrongly insinuating that Joseph had an affair with Fanny.

Whether he actually implied that openly or not, Oliver saw polygamy as something immoral and filthy. He viewed it just like he viewed any sexual sin. He may have hesitated to call it adultery outright, but he certainly didn’t approve and didn’t seem to see much difference, though he acknowledged that Joseph did.

The main accusation flying around during the Kirtland days was not of polygamy, it was of adultery. Joseph repeatedly and strenuously denied that he was engaged in adultery, and that was the crux of his argument with Oliver on the subject. Oliver was hesitant to call Joseph a liar, but he wasn’t shy about saying that he believed what Joseph was doing was wrong. He did not believe that something like polygamy could ever come from God. Joseph was equally forceful in saying that it wasn’t wrong, it was a commandment from God, and it wasn’t adultery. Joseph’s denials from this time period were focused on this point: he was not an adulterer and did not appreciate being called one.

But Oliver was not “turned out of the Church” simply for that reason, and it was not done to silence him. Nothing could have stopped Oliver from saying whatever he wanted to after he was excommunicated, but he didn’t make any further accusations. Instead, he continually reaffirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon and the miraculous things he’d witnessed. He and Joseph had forgiven one another and were headed for reconciliation when Joseph died. Most importantly, he was rebaptized and died strong in the faith.

Oliver’s story is an exemplification of the pride cycle and the redemptive power of the Atonement. It’s not the story of a whistleblower being silenced for daring to speak the truth.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 16: The Early Church – Polygamy [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In full disclosure, I’ve been concerned about this post this week. There are some things coming up today that I am not very comfortable discussing in a public setting. It involves questions I feel are important to address, but I do take temple covenants very seriously and I don’t know that this is the best place to address them. There will be things from the Letter For My Wife that I can’t copy and paste directly, and things I’ll have to skim over and paraphrase. It’s going to be a difficult needle to thread, and I can’t guarantee I’ll do it well. I’m trying to follow the counsel we’ve received in recent years to be more open about what happens inside the temple, while still not crossing the lines we’ve covenanted to keep sacred.

We’ll start off with a little bit more temple history, and from there, Faulk will move into the difficult portion. He picks up with more discussion of Freemasonry:

LDS Masons

Joseph’s family and several of the first members of the Church were Masons. Joseph Smith Sr. was a documented member in upstate New York. He was raised to the degree of Master Mason May 7, 1818 in Ontario Lodge No. 23 of Canandaigua, New York. His older brother Hyrum was a member of Mount Moriah Lodge No. 112 at Palmyra, New York. Other prominent members include: Joseph’s other brothers Samuel and William Smith, Brigham Young (2nd president of the Church), John Taylor (3rd president), Wilford Woodruff (4th president), Lorenzo Snow (5th president), Sidney Rigdon (first presidency), William Law (first presidency), John C. Bennett (first presidency), Newell K. Whitney (Presiding Bishop), Heber C. Kimball (first presidency), Orson Pratt (apostle), Parley P. Pratt (apostle), Orson Hyde (apostle), Lyman Johnson, (apostle), William Clayton (Joseph’s secretary), Porter Rockwell (Joseph’s bodyguard) and many more.

Yes, while there was a strong anti-Mason sentiment in various parts of the country, Masonry was also a popular organization for many men. In fact, in the Northeastern United States, the organization experienced “rapid growth” between 1800-1830, the time period in which several of those men listed above were inducted.

During the early part of the United States’ history, it was basically the most popular way for men to gather socially and hang out together. It’s not surprising that many early Saints—who were friends with one another in Joseph’s inner circle—would seek other ways to spend time together. Many of us today do the same thing with our friends, whether it’s game nights or movie nights or book clubs or whatever. Freemasonry was kind of like the pre-Civil War version of a modern D&D group. Obviously, it’s more a serious organization than that, but on its face, it was a social group for men to bond with one another.

You can see a list of members of the Nauvoo Lodge from 1841 in the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge Minute Book, pages 27-28 of the cited link. It’s not comprehensive and it’s difficult to read, but most of the men listed above are on it.

As soon as the saints erected the Nauvoo lodge, Joseph Smith also sought membership in the fraternity.

“15 March 1842 Tuesday – I officiated as grand chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo Lodge of Free Masons, at the Grove near the Temple. Grand Master Jonas, of Columbus, being present, a large number of people assembled on the occasion. The day was exceedingly fine; all things were done in order, and universal satisfaction was manifested. In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office.” (Joseph Smith, Journal 1841–1842. Also in History of the Church, vol.4, p.550)

Yes, Joseph Smith joined as an Entered Apprentice the night the Nauvoo Lodge was officially instituted.

Just seven weeks after his initiation as a first-degree mason, on April 4, 1842, Joseph introduces the endowment ceremony in the upper room of his red brick store; the same room where his Masonic initiation took place. Present were Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, William Law, Heber C. Kimball and others.

I personally think this is because he was excited by the things he saw in the Masonic lodge. He’d finally figured out how best to teach the Endowment. I spoke last week about the message and the messenger, or the gift and the wrapping paper. Joseph had the message/gift already. But the Lord didn’t give him explicit instructions on how to implement it, and let him figure it out for himself. The ritual drama he saw at the Lodge, along with the ancient elements that he would have known about, gave him the messenger/wrapping paper/delivery method.

He already knew the Endowment would be happening in the new Nauvoo Temple that was being built. After all, on October 12, 1841, the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter in which they declared that the Nauvoo Temple “would be a place for proxy baptism, worship, endowment, the revelation of God’s laws, and the manifestation of ‘all the ordinances.’”

I don’t consider this an odd or unusual move, considering the things that had already been revealed to Joseph about the Endowment by that point. We covered this last week, but by March of 1842, Joseph had been receiving segments of revelation concerning the Endowment for thirteen years. Portions of it had already been instituted in the Kirtland Temple six years prior. Joseph had already lamented that he’d never had the opportunity to give the Saints the full plan that God had revealed to him before they were forced to flee Kirtland and abandon the Temple. It was also 11 months after the revelation now known as D&C 132, the celestial marriage revelation, was starting to be taught to select members of the Church that Joseph knew he could trust. The first documented plural marriage of the Nauvoo period was in April of 1841. There were things echoing temple language in many early revelations and sermons. As Jeffrey Bradshaw explained:

It appears that the Prophet learned much about temple ordinances through personal experiences with heavenly beings and revelations associated with his inspired translation of scripture. His revelations contain many unmistakable references to significant components of priesthood and temple doctrines, authority, and ordinances. Many of these date to the early 1830s, a decade or more before the Prophet began bestowing temple blessings on the Saints in Nauvoo. And given Joseph Smith’s reluctance to share the details of the most sacred events and doctrines publicly, it is certainly possible he received specific knowledge about some temple matters even earlier than can be now documented. These matters include: 1) the narrative backbone, clothing, and covenants of the modern temple endowment; 2) the sequence of blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood; and 3) priesthood keys and symbols expressed in keywords, names, signs, and tokens.

So, given all of that, of course Joseph was excited to finally have a way to teach those things to the Saints. And we know that’s likely how he viewed it, because Joseph Fielding told us:

Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry [or, rather, the Priesthood]. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.

They viewed Masonry as a stepping stone to something greater, something true and restored. Bradshaw explains what Joseph might have been trying to teach the Saints by using Masonic elements:

One aspect of this preparation apparently had to do with the general idea of respecting covenants of confidentiality. For example, Joseph Smith once told the Saints that “the reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them.” But as he later observed, ‘“The secret of Masonry is to keep a secret.” Joseph may have seen the secret-keeping of Masonry as a tool to prepare the Saints to respect their temple covenants.

In addition, the rituals of the Lodge enabled Mormon Masons to become familiar with symbols and forms they would later encounter in the Nauvoo temple. These included specific ritual terms, language, handclasps, and gestures as well as larger patterns such as those involving repetition and the use of questions and answers as an aid to teaching. Joseph Smith’s own exposure to Masonry no doubt led him to seek further revelation as he prepared to introduce the divine ordinances of Nauvoo temple worship.

Finally, although Freemasonry is not a religion and, in contrast to Latter-day Saint temple ordinances, does not claim saving power for its rites, threads relating to biblical themes of exaltation are evident in some Masonic rituals. For example, in the ceremonies of the Royal Arch degree of the York rite, candidates pass through a series of veils and eventually enter into the divine presence. In addition, Christian interpretations, like Salem Town’s description of the “eighth degree,” tell of how the righteous will “be admitted within the veil of God’s presence, where they will become kings and priests before the throne of his glory for ever and ever.” Such language echoes New Testament teachings. Thus, apart from specific ritual language, forms, and symbols, a more general form of resemblance between Mormon temple ritual and certain Masonic degrees might be seen in the views they share about the ultimate potential of humankind.

Steven Harper gave a great presentation at the 2013 BYU Church History Symposium in which he explained how Joseph “translated” the Masonic imagery for Latter-day Saint audiences the same way he translated ancient scripture, or “restored” it the way he restored the Church and Priesthood. (He also made a truly hilarious joke about “hermetic sealing” that you guys really should check out. It makes me laugh every time.) Samuel Morris Brown agrees and says something very similar in his book, In Heaven As It Is On Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death.

That’s also how Heber C. Kimball explained it to Parley P. Pratt in a letter dated June 17, 1842:

We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper, for they are not to be written. So you must come and get them for yourself. We have organized a lodge here of Masons since we obtained a charter. … There is a similarity of priesthood [ordinances] in Masonry. Bro. Joseph says Masonry was taken from priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Bradshaw puts a slightly different spin on it:

However, sometimes it may be more accurate to see the process by which revelation came to the Prophet in an inverse fashion. 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 should be no more a surprise to Latter-day Saints if some phrasing of the rites of Freemasonry parallel selected aspects of restored temple ordinances than the idea that wording similar to that of the King James Version was adopted in the English translation of scriptural passages from the Old Testament included on the Book of Mormon plates. In both cases, the use of elements already familiar to the early Saints would have served a pragmatic purpose, favoring their acceptance and understanding of specific aspects of the ancient teachings better than if a whole new and foreign textual or ritual vocabulary had been introduced.

So, Bradshaw believes that seeing the Masonic rituals and drama allowed Joseph to convert the revelations he’d received over the years into something concrete and understandable to the Saints of the Nauvoo period. He did that by using elements they were familiar with through participation in Masonry.

Heavenly Father often gives us direction to do something without telling us how. He leaves that up to us, because things like that are how we learn and grow. If He told us exactly what to do in every situation, we’d never be able to become like Him, because He’s taking all of the difficulty out of it. We don’t truly learn until we stand on our own feet. By teaching us to “study it out in our minds” and come up with solutions beforegoing to Him, He’s letting us learn to stand on our own, rather than carrying us.

I believe that’s precisely what He left Joseph to do here. And Joseph followed the model Heavenly Father had already given him when He used the seer stones to help Joseph learn how to become a prophet. Joseph then packaged the Endowment, something new and overwhelming and confusing, into something digestible by using the familiar packaging of Masonry they were used to.

Similarities between Masonic rituals and LDS Temple Ceremony

What exactly was Joseph exposed to during this initiation and is it possible that any of it made its way into the endowment ceremony? Two expository books on Masonry written by William M. Morgan and Jabez Richardson disclose various temple ceremonies. (Illustrations of Masonry by One of the Fraternity, 1827 and Monitor of Free-Masonry. www.themasonictrowel.com/ebooks/freemasonry/eb0348.pdf) They show that the words, actions and symbols used in Masonic rituals are nearly identical to LDS temple ordinances. Below is a small collection of those that bare most striking resemblance.

Okay, obviously, this is the part we’re not delving into in any kind of detail. He goes on from here, showing pictures and describing signs, symbols, and tokens. I’m going to bypass all of that. I will just say first that the Church’s website has an entire section on temples that is full of solid information. It even lists out the temple covenants, and as is an excellent resource.

Second, while there are similarities, there are also instances of Joseph Smith using those same symbols and signs in Latter-day Saint theology before becoming a Mason. Matthew B. Brown’s book, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons spends several chapters and appendices going through those evidences.

These include things like the all-seeing eye being described as early as 1829; the handclasp as early as 1832, with a more specific teaching of using that handclasp to determine whether an angel is one of the light or of the darkness in 1839; “Holiness to the Lord” as early as 1830; and bees were obviously first mentioned in 1829 in the Book of Mormon, but as a specific symbol of the Saints as early as 1832. Joseph was also using the sun, moon, and stars in multiple documents, including in the capacity of scripture, as early as the late 1820s. Additionally, in D&C 124:42, during a revelation given in January of 1841, the Lord says He “will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house” (the Nauvoo Temple). Joseph later stated that the symbols on the outside of the temple were given to him in revelation, fulfilling this prophecy.

Brown also explains why Joseph would not have taken the Endowment ordinance itself from the Masons:

About one year and give months before Joseph Smith became a Freemason (5 October 1840), he told the congregants at general conference in Nauvoo, “God will not acknowledge that which He has not called, ordained, and chosen. … [T]he ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed, otherwise [the] priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.” On 22 January 1843—just a little over eight months after giving the Nauvoo endowment for the first time—the Prophet taught the very same concept, saying, “All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth [are] of no use to the children of men unless they are ordained and authorized of God. For nothing will save a man but a legal administrator, for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels.”

Since the Prophet was teaching near the time of his Masonic initiation that the system of the Masons was “degenerated” and had been “taken from [the] Priesthood,” he certainly would not have viewed its administrations as being ordained and authorized of God, nor efficacious in matters of personal salvation. It should also be emphasized that there is no primary, secondary, or tertiary historical source where Joseph Smith states that he borrowed elements of the Masonic ceremonies….

So, if Joseph had declared on multiple occasions that no ordinance was valid unless it was ordained, given by those holding authority, and performed exactly as God decreed, and he was teaching at the same time that Masonic rites were “degenerated” and corrupted, why would he copy them for use in the Temple? That makes no sense at all. Corrupted ordinances by their very nature cannot be performed exactly as God decrees.

I found it interesting that it was not until after Joseph Smith’s exposure to Masonry that he introduced the endowment ceremony. Just seven weeks separated Joseph’s Masonic initiation and the instructions for the first endowment.

I don’t. He’d been searching for a way to teach it, as he implied in that 1839 letter mentioned above. This gave him an idea on how to do that. And again, that is just the “messenger,” or the outer packaging for delivering the ordinances and covenants. The actual ordinance is not adapted from Masonic ritual at all.

He used certain elements to teach people how to keep sacred things private, and to teach certain concepts like the eternal progression of man.

According to Steven Harper:

Joseph seems to have used Masonry as a point of departure, a beginning rather than an end in itself. Several scholars of differing degrees of belief in Joseph Smith’s teachings have analyzed the evidence and arrived at this conclusion. Michael Homer argued that “the rituals of Freemasonry provided a starting point for the Mormon prophet’s revelation of ‘true Masonry.’” David Buerger argued that the pattern of resemblances was too great and the content of the endowment too unique to explain simply. “Thus,” he concluded, “the temple ceremony cannot be explained as wholesale borrowing from Masonry; neither can it be explained as completely unrelated to Freemasonry.” Allen Roberts concluded that “Joseph’s Masonry was not a conventional one. He attempted to restore it in much the same way the gospel was restored. That is, he saw Masonry like Christianity, as possessing some important truths which could be beneficially extracted from what was otherwise an apostate institution.”

Joseph modified one ritual drama into another one, changing it and using it to teach a completely different concept and story. I don’t think that’s very scandalous, personally, but I know this is an issue that bothers some people quite a bit.

March 15, 1842 – Joseph Smith became a Mason in his general business office. (History of the Church, vol.4, p.551)
May 4, 1842 – Joseph instructed the other leaders on the washings, anointing, signs and tokens. (History of the Church, vol.5, p.2)

And, as we went over, many of those were already taught by Joseph a decade or so before the Endowment was first taught as a whole. All the Masonic rites did was give him a vehicle he could adapt for his own purposes to teach the Saints.

Steven Harper explained:

It requires a logical leap to bridge the evidentiary gap between similarity, which was obvious to those who knew both Masonry and the endowment, and dependence, which is assumed—not known. Some people reason that Joseph Smith initiated men and women into the endowment ordinances after he was initiated into Freemasonry; therefore, the temple rituals derived from Masonry. One problem in this theory is that Freemasonry itself borrowed much of its ritual and ceremony from elements preserved since antiquity. There is ample similarity and difference not only between Freemasonry and LDS temple ordinances, but in many other ancient and more modern stories and rituals as well. Disentangling the complex relationships between them is not possible and should not be oversimplified.

It is possible to discern differences in the functions (however similar in form) of Masonic and LDS temple ordinances. Masonic rituals use aprons, door-knockings, and unusual handshakes to foster brotherhood. Bonds are made between men, not between people and God. LDS temple ordinances endow believers with power to regain the presence of God as they make and keep covenants with him. The ritual is not the endowment of power itself. It may be that some ritual forms were adapted from Masonic traditions, but the endowment teaches a divine plan of creation, Fall, and redemption through Christ—promising those who covenant to keep God’s laws that they will gain power over the effects of the Fall. As Heber Kimball was perfectly positioned to know, the endowment did not simply mimic Masonry.

The Endowment and the Masonic rites are not the same thing. As I said last week, “Yes, there are some elements of Masonic ceremony in the endowment. But those elements link back at least to early Christianity, and some are far older than that. Additionally, those elements are small things, like signs, tokens, symbols, minor phrasing, and the fact that there’s a ritual drama to teach us important lessons. They do not include the lessons themselves or the ordinances and covenants.”

It appears that every LDS temple ceremony has a nearly identical Masonic ceremony with the corresponding symbols. This brings up the question – Who is the real author of the endowment? Parallels between Masonry and the endowment seem to be problematic. Could Joseph Smith have simply borrowed this “revelation”?

It doesn’t bring up that question unless you’re reaching for it, and to me personally, it’s not problematic when you actually study the details around it. Joseph Smith obviously didn’t “borrow this revelation” if he was discussing prominent elements of it as far back as 1829 and all throughout the 1830s. Greg Kearney gave a great overview of all of the similarities and, more importantly, some of the major differences between Masonic ritual and the Latter-day Saint Endowment. Scott Gordon also gave a fantastic presentation on this at the 2017 FAIR Conference.

I also have to take exception to the scare quotes around “revelation.” Joseph received the Endowment in many revelations across more than a decade, and there is documented proof of that. Jeffrey Bradshaw’s paper gives a good timeline of that, and so does Matthew Brown’s book. Just because Thomas Faulk doesn’t believe that the Endowment came from God, does not mean he’s right. He’s not.

The Endowment is a beautiful gift, the bestowal of God’s power to us.

President Nelson once taught:

When we realize that we are children of the covenant, we know who we are and what God expects of us. His law is written in our hearts. He is our God and we are His people. Committed children of the covenant remain steadfast, even in the midst of adversity. When that doctrine is deeply implanted in our hearts, even the sting of death is soothed and our spiritual stamina is strengthened.

The greatest compliment that can be earned here in this life is to be known as a covenant keeper.The rewards for a covenant keeper will be realized both here and hereafter. Scripture declares that “ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, … and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven … [and] dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness.”

God lives. Jesus is the Christ. His Church has been restored to bless all people. … And we, asfaithful children of the covenant, will be blessed now and forever.

And Brigham Young said:

Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to talk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.

There is so much for us to learn and understand about the temple. It’s a lifelong process, and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or inadequate. But when questions arise, or when you see the attacks of critics, just remember the very wise words of President Nelson:

Now a little word of warning. There are those who would undermine your ability to call upon the power of God. There are some who would have you doubt yourself and minimize your stellar spiritual capacity as a righteous woman [or man].

Most certainly, the adversary does not want you to understand the covenant you made at baptism or the profound endowment of knowledge and power you have received or will receive in the temple—the house of the Lord. And Satan certainly does not want you to understand that every time you worthily serve and worship in the temple, you leave armed with God’s power and with His angels having “charge over” you.

A friend and I recently had a conversation in which he said that there are no guarantees in this life. I have to respectfully disagree. This is a guarantee: God has gifted us His power, and He will go before our faces, on our right hand and our left, and His Spirit will be in our hearts. He will send His angels to watch over us and gather round us, to bear us up. Because of that, we “need not fear.”

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 15: The Early Church – The Endowment [B] appeared first on FAIR.

In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death

View Details

While the Endowment is a subject that I find comforting and fascinating to study, I will admit upfront that I’ve been feeling some trepidation regarding this section. In his Letter, Faulk actually describes and shows images of many of the temple signs, symbols, and tokens, and those are not things I’m comfortable discussing in a public setting. I take our temple covenants very seriously, and I don’t want to put myself or FAIR or any of the readers here in the position of potentially breaking those covenants. Because of that, there will be a large section of this topic that will just be skimmed over without the usual level of detail and documentation I try to provide.

And frankly, I’m actually appalled that Faulk would post that information for everyone to read and look at. I don’t believe in mocking someone else’s sincerely held religious beliefs, even when I find those beliefs strange or off-putting. Unfortunately, that’s what Faulk’s Letter leads to deeper in this section. While I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that wasn’t his intent, he does air these things publicly where they can and will be mocked by those who belittle them.

This week, however, we’ll be focusing most of our attention on the idea that the Endowment was copied from Freemasonry. There is some truth and a lot of untruth behind that charge.

Before diving in, I’d like to again thank Jeffrey Bradshaw, Brandon Cole, Trevor Holyoak, and Ryan Mercer, who all offered me assistance on this topic. Some gave it this week, while others passed along information as I was working on the response to the CES Letter with similar accusations. I’ll be drawing on a lot of that same information again, so I appreciate their input and the resources they provided.

Was the temple endowment really a revelation from God or could it have another origin? This chapter covers the origin of Freemasonry, founders of the Church and their Masonic membership, and similarities between Masonic temple ceremonies and the LDS temple endowment.

There are absolutely links between the ritual, symbols, and tokens of the Endowment and those of Freemasonry. That’s not really in dispute. It’s also indisputable that the covenants and teachings of the Endowment are far, far more ancient than that and were revealed, at least in part, to Joseph well before he ever became a Mason, or even moved to Nauvoo, for that matter.

Before we go into some of the details, it’s important to recognize that there are different parts to the Endowment ceremony. There’s the Endowment ordinance itself, with the covenants and the endowment of Priesthood power, and then there’s the ritual, which is full of symbolism. It’s the method used to teach the Endowment, not the Endowment itself.

This separation has been described in various ways by Latter-day Saints. For example, Greg Kearney, a Latter-day Saint and a Mason, refers to it as “The Message and the Messenger.” David O. McKay has referred to it as the “mechanics” of the temple vs the “symbolism.”

The analogy I personally used to describe this before was that of a birthday gift. You have the present itself, which is the covenants and ordinances, and the Priesthood power we’re endowed with, and then you have the wrapping paper. The gift wrapping is the outer covering, something that we put time and effort into making. We want it to look beautiful and enticing, but ultimately, it’s just the disguise the gift hides in. This is much like the ritual that the teachings, ordinances, and covenants of the Endowment are housed in. We learn those teachings through rituals and repetition, through symbols and tokens. Those things are not the Endowment; they’re just the packaging the Endowment comes in.

However we describe it, it’s important to know that those are separate things. When you purchase a package off Amazon, it often comes in a cardboard box. The box is part of the package, but it’s not the important part. The important part is what’s in the box.

And to further explain some of the terminology we’ll be using over the next few weeks, here are a few other examples. First, think of an elder raising his arm to the square when he baptizes someone. That’s a sign of the ordinance he’s performing. Second, the rainbow is a symbol representing God’s covenant with Noah to never again flood the Earth and destroy the people. And third, a wedding ring is a token, a physical reminder of the vows you made to your spouse when you got married.

These are all immediately recognizable to us because we’re familiar with them. But when we first go to the temple, the signs, symbols, and tokens we find there are brand new to us, and it can throw us off. It takes time to learn to understand them and what they represent.

So, with all of that said, let’s dive into the LFMW and see what Thomas Faulk has to say:

Origin of Freemasonry

“The earliest Masonic texts each contain some sort of a history of the craft, or mystery, of masonry. The oldest known work of this type, The Halliwell Manuscript, dating from between 1390 and 1425.” (Grand Lodge of British Columbia, The Halliwell Manuscript. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/regius.html)

“Some are also told that King Solomon ruled over Masonic lodges as grand master. The stories they weave around the building of the temple are obviously not literal or historical facts but a dramatic means of explaining the principles of Freemasonry. Freemasonry neither originated nor existed in Solomon’s time. The general agreement amongst serious Masonic historians and researchers is that Freemasonry has arisen, either directly or indirectly, from the medieval stonemasons who built great cathedrals and castles. Those who favor the direct descent from operative masonry say there were three stages to the evolution of Freemasonry. The stonemasons gathered in huts (lodges) to rest and eat. These lodges gradually became not the hut but the grouping together of stonemasons to regulate their craft. In time, and in common with other trades, they developed primitive initiation ceremonies for new apprentices.”

“As stonemasons could easily travel all over the country from one building site to another, and as there were also no trade union cards or certificates of apprenticeship they began to adopt a private word which a traveling stonemason could use when he arrived at a new site, to prove that he was properly trained and had been a member of a lodge. It was, after all, easier to communicate a special word to prove that you knew what you were doing and were entitled to the wages it deserved that to spend hours carving a block of stone to demonstrate your skills.”

“We know that in the early 1600s these operative lodges began to admit men who had no connection with the trade – accepted or gentlemen masons. Why this was done and what form of ceremony was used is not known. As the 1600s drew to a close more and more gentlemen began to join the lodges, gradually taking them over and turning them into lodges of free and accepted or speculative masons, no longer having any connection with the stonemasons’ craft. This is based on evidence from Scotland. In England, the first evidence of a lodge completely made up of non-operative masons is found. English evidence through the 1600s points to Freemasonry existing apart from any actual or supposed organization of operative stonemasons. This was a period of great religious and political turmoil and intolerance. Men were unable to meet together without differences of political and religious opinion leading to arguments. Opposing views split families and the English civil war of 1642-6 was the ultimate outcome. As their central idea was one of building a better society they borrowed their forms and symbols from the operative builders craft and took their central allegory from the Bible, the common source book known to all, in which the only building described in any detail is King Solomon’s Temple. Stonemasons tools also provided them with a multiplicity of emblems to illustrate the principles they were putting forward. The formation of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717 had been followed, around 1725, by the Grand Lodge of Ireland and, in 1736; the Grand Lodge of Scotland. These three Grand Lodges did much to spread Freemasonry throughout the world, to the extent that all regular Grand Lodges throughout the world, whatever the immediate means of their formation, ultimately trace their origins back to one, or a combination, of the Grand Lodges within the British Isles.” (http://www.mastermason.com/jjcrowder/ history/history.html)

That’s a pretty good overview of the history of Masonry. I don’t really have much to add. It used to be taught that the Masons began with the stonemasons working on Solomon’s Temple, but history has not born that out. We can only trace it back as far as the late 1300s. Could it be somewhat older than that? Sure, yeah. Does it date back thousands of years? That’s highly doubtful.

However, that doesn’t mean that certain elements of Freemasonry can’t stretch back that far into the past. Certain signs and symbols could predate the Freemasons by quite some time.

Church leaders claim that the connection between Masons and Mormons date back to the stonemasons who built Solomon’s temple in the Old Testament.

That’s not exactly true. Certainly no contemporary leaders are making any such claims. Additionally, Faulk reads more into their statements than they actually said.

“Modern Masonry is a fragmentary presentation of the ancient order established by King Solomon. From whom it is said to have been handed down through the centuries. …that he was not sorry there was such a similarity, because of the fact that the ordinances and rites revealed to Joseph Smith constituted a reintroduction upon the earth of the divine plan inaugurated in the Temple of Solomon in ancient days. Masonry is an apostasy from the ancient early order, just as so-called Christianity is an apostasy from the true Church of Christ” (Elder Melvin J. Ballard, The Salt Lake Herald, December 29, 1919)

This citation is impossible to corroborate online. Some of this information was found by me, and some by my friend, Reddit user WooperSlim. The long and short of it is, the Salt Lake Herald may or may not have existed in 1919. It was founded in 1870 and lasted until 1909, when it merged with the Inter-Mountain Republican to form the Salt Lake Herald Republican. That combined paper only lasted until 1918. It appears as though it potentially reverted back to the Salt Lake Herald from July of 1918 to July of 1920, but this is the only source I can find stating this and those archives are not online anywhere that I can find. Neither Newspapers.com nor Utah Digital Newspapers has the relevant dates. And the existing archives for the Salt Lake Herald show that in 1909, the paper ended in August, not December, so it’s not just a tiny typo in the year, either.

When googling the quote, every single citation I can find is copied from a book called Mormonism and Masonry: Origins, Connections and Coincidences Between Mason and Mormon Temple/Templar Ritual by S.H. Goodwin. No one has the primary source documents available. The archives may be available on microfilm somewhere, but again, this can’t be corroborated by any other source than the one cited above.

So, I can’t verify this quote at all, nor do I know what was removed by that ellipsis. I don’t even know for sure who that “he” was who was supposedly not sorry for any similarities. If anyone can locate the primary source document that this quote came from, please let us know.

As far as Masonry being a fragmentary part of the ancient order established King Solomon in the temple, the Lord did confirm ancient Hebrew origins of the Endowment rites and rituals. As Matthew B. Brown explains in his book, Exploring the Connections Between Mormons and Masons:

The nature of the Nauvoo Temple ordinances was plainly spelled out by the Lord before they were introduced among the Saints and before Joseph Smith was received into the Masonic fraternity. At the beginning of 1841, the Lord said that Nauvoo Temple activities would be a restoration of rituals once practiced in the Tabernacle built by the prophet Moses and the temple constructed by King Solomon (seeD&C 124:37–39). In other words, they would be Hebrew in their basis and content, not Masonic. And this points to another historical fact that needs to be remembered. The Kirtland Temple rituals were a precursor of the Nauvoo Temple ordinances. The Kirtland washing and anointing ceremonies predated Joseph Smith’s Masonic membership by six years and four months, and they were specifically, and contemporaneously, linked—by the Saints themselves—to the initiation rites experienced by the priests of ancient Israel. Again, the basis and content of these ceremonies was Hebrew, not Masonic.

And if you follow that link to the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord explains that those ordinances are “from before the world was.” So, the ordinance—the endowment and covenants and teachings—is older than the foundations of the world. But the rites and rituals may not be that old. At the very least, they have some origins in ancient Israel, but we don’t know exactly when they were created or what those elements were that are taken from those old rituals.

“We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.” (Heber C. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball and Family, The Nauvoo Years. Brigham Young University Studies. 1975, p.458)

This is a quote I can verify, because this is a great paper that I have cited many times myself.

As we can see from these words, Heber C. Kimball believed—as was common in his day—that Masonry was handed down from the days of Solomon. He believed that our Endowment ceremony was the perfected version, while the Masons had a corrupted version. We know now that he was wrong, at least in the belief that Masonry is that ancient.

However, at no point did Kimball ever say that the connections between the Mormons and the Masons extended back to the days of Solomon. He believed, as we all do, that this Church was restored to the Earth after a long absence. He also believed that apostate groups had been around since the days when the real temple rites were being performed in Solomon’s Temple, and that those apostates handed down those rites and rituals over the centuries. During that time, those rituals became just as corrupted as the rest of the doctrines of the true and living Church of Christ had become. In short, he believed that those connections between true temple rites and apostate ones were severed back in the days of Solomon and not restored until the days of Joseph Smith.

We don’t know when those temple rituals were last performed with true authority. We can’t trace them from the beginning of recorded history down until today. We don’t know where the Masons really learned them. There are ancient Christian practices that are similar to Masonic ceremonies, such as some signs and symbols of the Catholic liturgy. There is some evidence that early Christians had the Endowment. And Masonic tradition was rooted in early Christianity before becoming a completely secular organization.

But if Christ did teach true temple ordinances to the early Christians (and they did worship in temples for decades after the Resurrection, until the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem), there’s still a gap of about 1200 years where we don’t know for sure how those signs and symbols were passed down. Aside from the ones that are similar to Catholic tradition, of course.

The thing we need to take away from Kimball’s comments, however, is that long before he became a Mason, Joseph Smith knew that he was being allowed to restore very, very ancient ordinances, going back to the days of Adam. Even more than that, the Lord Himself declared that those ordinances, and the way in which they are performed, have existed since “before the foundation of the world.”

We don’t know which elements of the temple ceremony are ancient and which are purely Masonic inventions. But we do know that Joseph received knowledge of the temple ordinances well before he ever became a Mason. As Brian Hales explains, “Freemasonry in Nauvoo offers too little, too late to serve as the starting point and principal source of inspiration for the major doctrines and teachings relating to priesthood and temple ordinances. … Given Joseph Smith’s reluctance to share the details of the most sacred events and doctrines publicly, it is certainly possible he received specific knowledge about some temple matters even earlier than can be now documented. These matters include: 1) the narrative backbone, clothing, and covenants of the modern temple endowment, especially as described in the book of Moses (1830-1831); 2) the sequence of blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood described in D&C 84 (1832); and 3) priesthood keys and symbols expressed in keywords, names, signs, and tokens (from 1829).”

Matthew Brown elaborates on all of this in his book:

The theory that Joseph Smith took ritual elements from the Freemasons in order to create the LDS temple ceremony is principally founded upon the concept of time. Supporters of this theory argue that since the Prophet joined the Masonic fraternity shortly before he introduced the Nauvoo endowment among the Saints—and because there are similarities between the two sets of ceremonies—the leader of the Mormons must have been guilty of unacknowledged borrowing from the Masons….

In the years 1829 and 1830, Joseph Smith produced two scriptural texts containing numerous ritual elements that would become familiar to recipients of the Nauvoo endowment. Chapters 2–6 in the book of Mosiah, chapters 11–18 in the book of 3 Nephi, and chapters 2 and 3 in the book of Ether should all be compared with each other in order to see the relevant repeating pattern in the Book of Mormon. Then this same pattern should be sought for in chapter 1 of the book of Moses while chapters 2–6 of the same volume can be examined for other patterns that were employed in Nauvoo. In 1834 some portions of the book of Moses that were later incorporated into the Nauvoo-era temple liturgy were interwoven into Lecture on Faith #2 (cf. D&C 29:34–45)….

In mid March 1839, the Prophet wrote in a letter, “I never have had [the] opportunity to give [the Saints] the plan that God has revealed to me,” and later that year he taught one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “many great and glorious principles concerning God and the heavenly order of eternity,” including the concepts of the “eternal union” of marriage and “eternal family organization.”

In September 1840, the First Presidency of the Church issued an epistle wherein they declared that the dispensation of the fullness of times would be an era when “all things” would be restored and the promises made to the fathers would be fulfilled. They said that they had been “given the pattern and design” for upbuilding God’s kingdom on the earth and announced that the time had arrived for “establishing the Priesthood in their fullness and glory.” They also indicated that it was time to build a temple in Nauvoo, and it would serve as a house of worship, prayer, and divinely established “ordinances.” At the October 1840 general conference of the Church, the Prophet discoursed on baptism for the dead one day and on the “plan of ordinances” that had been revealed to Adam or the “Ancient of Days” or “Michael” the next day. Some of the themes of this second sermon included premortal time, the creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall; the “keys” and “covenants” and power and glory with which God blessed Adam; the instructions, revelations, and commandments that the Lord gave to the first man; “the priesthood [being] restored with all its authority, power, and blessings” (i.e., in all its fullness) in the dispensation of the fullness of times, “every ordinance belonging to the priesthood” in “ancient days” being practiced within the Nauvoo Temple; priesthood “keys” that have been kept hidden; the mysteries of godliness; and certain kinds of sacrifice being made at an altar by latter-day sons of Levi (i.e., temple officiators) but after a pre-Mosaic or Melchizedekian type. All of this, said the Prophet, was “the order from the beginning” or the “order which [God] established … whereby He sent forth power, revelations, and glory.”

Jeffrey Bradshaw and K-Lynn Paul trace much of that early history prior to 1836 in this fantastic paper for the Interpreter Foundation. From their research, it’s pretty clear that Joseph had a wealth of knowledge about temple ordinances before the Kirtland Temple was finished, well before he became a Mason in Nauvoo in March of 1842.

Moreover, the temple covenants themselves have ancient origins that greatly predate the Masons, and so do many of the symbols and tokens we learn inside the temple. LDS Living also mentioned a few symbols that were described before Joseph became a Mason. Additionally, Greg Kearney gave a list of apparent similarities between Latter-day Saints and Masons, and explained why they aren’t as striking as they might seem.

So, in my mind, there’s not really much here backing up Thomas Faulk’s assertions.

He continues:

Unfortunately for the Church, Freemason historians cite its origins to the late 14th to early 15th century in Scotland as a trade guild, not 950 BC in Jerusalem.

That’s not “[unfortunate] for the Church.” The Church doesn’t base any of its history, doctrines, or temple ordinances off of the history of Freemasonry.

President Kimball and Elder Ballard appear to be mistaken about the origins of masonry and thus the Church’s historical connection for the endowment ceremony.

No. Heber C. Kimball was mistaken about the origins of masonry, that’s true. But he wasn’t wrong about the Church’s “historical connection for the Endowment ceremony.” Knowledge of the Endowment and of everlasting marriage were both known to Joseph, who was teaching the principles of at least some of those ordinances to the people well before 1842. We don’t know exactly when it was all unfolded to him, but he was learning portions of the doctrine at least as far back as 1829.

What it appears that Joseph did do, since we’re pretty far into this post and it hasn’t come up naturally yet, is adapt portions of a Masonic ritual he was familiar with into an aide for teaching the Endowment to the Saints.

Joseph was tasked by God to write the Endowment ceremony, apparently without much instruction on how to write it or teach the concepts and principles, and include the signs and tokens and symbols he needed to include. He seems to have used the ritual drama he saw in Masonic ceremonies as a jumping-off point to tell the narrative of eternal progression during the Endowment ceremony. They are not identical, and they are used in completely different ways to teach completely different things. That’s important to understand. But it does appear that he saw the ritual drama and believed he could alter and repurpose it to fit what he needed to achieve for the Endowment:

There are some short word phrases and actions used in the temple ceremony that are similar to word phrases and actions used in masonry, but the masonic word phrases and actions are not related to the themes, teachings, or covenants made in the temple. Even those places where actions are similar, they have completely different meanings. Joseph seems to have taken some of the actions and completely repurposed them. It is also interesting to note that the similar short phrases that are currently used are not critical phrases in the endowment ceremony. When the endowment ceremony was first performed in Nauvoo, it was much longer. As it has been shortened over the years, the Masonic-like phrases have been almost entirely removed.

At this point we have to stop and talk about the nature of revelation. Brigham Young said “When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. …Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.”

Revelation comes from God, but comes through men. Too often we think that whatever comes out of the mouth of an apostle or prophet must be exactly what God said, word for word. But, if that were true, we wouldn’t have so many wonderful airplane analogies coming out in General Conference. Our language becomes filtered by our experience. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many members of the Church in Nauvoo were familiar with the language of Masonry. So one would be very surprised if it didn’t crop up in their writings and teachings.

Those ritual aspects of the Endowment can and do change fairly often. There was a change earlier this year, even. That ritual is not the important, ancient part that’s been around since before the foundations of the world. The ritual is just the wrapping paper, and you can unwrap your gift and rewrap it in a variety of different wrappings without changing the gift, i.e., the ordinance/covenant/endowment of power.

So, to me, it doesn’t really matter what Joseph was inspired by when he was creating the ritual, because the ritual is just the teaching method. It’s just the packaging. It was his way of using a familiar vehicle that many of the Saints were accustomed to as a means for introducing the concepts found in the Endowment.

As Steven Harper explains:

So, here’s what it all really boils down to: yes, there are some elements of Masonic ceremony in the endowment. But those elements link back at least to early Christianity, and some are far older than that. Additionally, those elements are small things, like signs, tokens, symbols, minor phrasing, and the fact that there’s a ritual drama to teach us important lessons. They do not include the lessons themselves or the ordinances and covenants.

Joseph had been receiving revelations concerning the endowment since at least 1829 and parts of it were instituted in Kirtland, well before his arrival in Nauvoo. He said back in 1839 that he’d never had the chance to teach the Saints all that had been revealed to him. It seems to me as though the endowment had been revealed to him, but that the time was not ready to reveal it to the Saints at large until they were in Nauvoo. Once there, he didn’t know how to teach it to them until he attended some Mason meetings and realized what a valuable teaching method it could be. He adapted some elements and used others he recognized were of ancient origin, and an early form of our modern endowment was created.

God speaks to each of us in ways we’ll understand. Sometimes, that’s done through adapting things we’re already familiar with to teach us divine concepts. That’s precisely what He did with Joseph’s seer stones—He used something Joseph was familiar with to teach him how to receive revelation.

Is it really so surprising that Joseph would then adopt that same method to teach the eternal principles of the Endowment to the Saints by using Masonic elements they were already familiar with?

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 14: The Early Church – The Endowment [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This week, we’re continuing with the Word of Wisdom discussion. There were some important concepts introduced in last week’s post: the need for ongoing revelation, the Word of Wisdom as a mark to set us apart from the rest of the world, that there are differences between the revelation found in D&C 89 and the version we follow today, and that it was not meant just for physical health, but also for spiritual health. These are things to keep in mind this week, too.

The LFMW picks up:

Additionally, the Lord’s Law of Health seems to lack real health considerations.

This is a bit of an odd statement to me. The Word of Wisdom was not meant to be an all-encompassing list of everything that was healthy or unhealthy. It doesn’t cover every single individual circumstance. It makes very few definitive health statements, and mostly just says whether things are good or not good according to the Lord’s definition.

This is similar to the Creation account we find in Genesis 1, where God saw that His creations were good. We read in the Book of Abraham (chapters 4 and 5) that this meant that those things obeyed the council of the Gods. Meaning, they functioned as they were intended to.

This suggests to me—and this is entirely my opinion, so take it with a big ol’ grain of salt—that the things the Lord labels as “not good for man” and “not good for the body” are things that alter the body’s natural state.

Alcohol gets you drunk and can have serious effects on your liver and other organs over time. Coffee and tea contain caffeine, and while that is not against the Word of Wisdom in and of itself, it causes your blood pressure to rise and your heart to speed up. It can overstimulate your brain and cause withdrawal symptoms. Illegal drugs can have mind-altering effects as well as increase your heart rate to the point where it can sometimes be fatal. That’s in addition to being incredibly addictive. Smoking tobacco causes your lungs to fill with chemicals, which leads to heart and lung disease, diabetes, stroke, emphysema, COPD, and more. Chewing it causes those same chemicals to eat through your gums and destroy the enamel on your teeth. Both forms can lead to at least 14 different types of cancer: lung, mouth, throat, voice box, esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, liver, bladder, cervix, colon, rectum, and a certain type of leukemia. Eating too much meat can lead to all kinds of health issues. Red meat, as many of us might know, is linked to numerous cancers. But processed meat of any kind, including poultry, can also lead to “ischaemic heart disease, pneumonia, diverticular disease, colon polyps and diabetes … gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, gastritis and duodenitis, … [and] gallbladder disease…” if you over-indulge. These all cause our bodies to function in ways that it wasn’t originally intended to.

Following the Word of Wisdom won’t keep your body completely free from any outside influences, as that is impossible to do. But it does cut down on some of the biggest things that can negatively alter the processes of your mind and body.

And guess what? At least one notable study conducted by UCLA over 25 years showed that following the counsel in the Word of Wisdom leads to longer life expectancies compared to people who don’t follow its counsel.

Currently, extremely obese members are given temple recommends, while active, healthy, and fit members who drink coffee and tea would not qualify.

I mentioned this last week, as it’s something I’ve seen come up occasionally on Reddit. While we’re charged with caring for our earthly bodies, there is no commandment against being obese. That’s because there are a lot of things that could cause someone to become overweight, and many of them have nothing to do with that person’s diet. Injury, illness, prescription medication, mental health issues, etc., can all lead to sometimes serious weight gain, as well as prevent that weight from coming back off. Individual circumstances vary too much for us to say that someone is sinning by being overweight.

That doesn’t give us free rein to abuse our bodies, but calling to spiritually punish someone for something that is not a commandment and that is so individualized is also not okay.

Overweight people are still given temple recommends because they’re not willfully violating a commandment. Just because Thomas Faulk thinks it should be a commandment does not mean that it isone.

Active, healthy, physically fit members who drink coffee and tea are breaking a commandment they covenanted with God to keep. So no, they do not qualify for a temple recommend.

It seems that if God really wanted to give the saints a code of health that would have prevented pioneer deaths due to a long list of illnesses including scarlet fever, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, influenza, pneumonia, cholera, malaria and small pox, he would have added things like the need for sanitizing water by boiling, increased personal hygiene and quarantining of sick persons.

Where does it say that the Word of Wisdom is meant to prevent pioneer deaths due to grave illnesses? It doesn’t even say it’ll ward against illnesses at all. It only says that: A) it was given to avoid the conspiracies of evil men (such as those in the cigarette industry who knew that their products caused cancer and hid the information while touting supposed health benefits in order to make money); B) that they would be generally healthy and strong, which does not mean they would never again get sick; C) that they would gain great knowledge; and D) that they would be marked as the covenant people of God so that the destroying angel would pass by them the way he did during the Passover.

This is just a silly straw man that has nothing to do with the text or intent of the Word of Wisdom.

In fact, the Church has long taught that coffee and tea were unhealthy; however, this reputation appears to be mistaken. Studies involving over 1.5 million participants who consumed 3-5 cups of coffee a day were at the lowest risk for cardiovascular diseases, stroke, prostate, breast and lung cancers, compared with those who drank none. Similar research show that polyphenol, a powerful antioxidant found in black, green and white teas, combat free-radicals that contribute to cancer, heart disease, kidney damage, diabetes, and helps lower cholesterol. (http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/tea-types-and-their-healthbenefits#1) and (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/upshot/more-consensus-on-coffees-benefits-than-you-might-think.html)

Yep, that’s because early studies did show that coffee and tea were unhealthy. Church leaders were repeating scientific consensus at the time. Scientific consensus changes as more information comes to light. That’s exactly what happened here, and it’s why Church leaders no longer make that claim.

However, just because black coffee and green tea have some health benefits, it doesn’t mean that drinking multiple cups daily loaded with sugar, milk, or creamer is good for you. We all know the negative effects of too much sugar, but milk and creamer both also have high levels of potassium. Combined with the potassium already in coffee, for example, 3-4 cups of that per day, every single day, can lead to too much potassium in your diet. Too much potassium leads to kidney disease.

Even things that are supposedly healthy come with caveats and restrictions. Black coffee is not the same as a mocha latte. All of the extra sugar and milk in it makes the mocha far less healthy than the black coffee.

Additionally, look at the wording of D&C 89:9:

9And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

That’s literally all it says. It doesn’t say whether they’re good or bad for you, just that the Lord didn’t approve of them for drinking or using on injuries. But compare that to the admonition against tobacco in verse 8:

8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

It specifically says that tobacco is not good for man to ingest or use, but is only to cure bruises or sick cattle. Clearly, sometimes the Word of Wisdom did say that things were bad for us. But it never actually says that coffee or tea or “hot drinks” are bad for us, just that we’re not supposed to drink them.

So, it doesn’t matter if they’re good for us or not, that’s not why we were prohibited from drinking them. The answer is essentially just, “Because God told us to.” That’s it, that’s the entire reason we avoid coffee and tea.

Possible Influences
Popular Misconceptions Regarding “Hot Drinks”

One common misconceptions in this era said that hot liquids were not good for the body.

A popular book titled, “Wholesome Advice against the Abuse of Hot Liquors,” particularly targeted tea, coffee and hot chocolate labeling them as unhealthy. This book argued that an excess consumption of hot drinks caused the blood and insides to heat up and that “Excess of heat is the most common cause of sickness and death.” Medical science at the time was so basic that the evidence presented in the book was based largely upon crude anatomical knowledge and references to classical Greek and Roman texts.

I didn’t read this entire book, personally. I kind of doubt Thomas Faulk did either, since the info he provided is mostly pulled from the full title. The quoted line is from page 91, about 1/3 of the way through. And frankly, the book is really boring.

Regardless of whether he read the entire thing or not, it was published in 1706, 127 years before the Word of Wisdom was introduced. Just to put that in perspective, that’s the same time difference between today and 1896, when Utah became a state. The world was very different in 1706 than it was in 1833, just like it was very different in 1896 than today. Science has grown by leaps and bounds since then.

Prior to the 19th Century, it was true that both excessively hot and cold drinks were thought to cause illness and even death. However, it was precisely because of the popularity of coffee, tea, and hot chocolate that those old ideas began to change. People were drinking a lot of each of them—remember, coffee in particular was pushed as a substitute for whiskey, because tea was seen as unpatriotic after the Boston Tea Party. It was over the course of the 19th Century that things began to change in earnest, as new medical discoveries were being made and deeper knowledge about the body became known. By the turn of the century, this idea of hot and cold liquids being bad for you was almost completely gone.

More curious is what’s not in the Word of Wisdom. Paul Hoskisson gave a presentation at the 2008 Sperry Symposium that discussed this very topic. While everything in the Word of Wisdom could be found in the thoughts of the day if you looked at the broader society, there were a lot of other things included in those thoughts than made it into the Word of Wisdom. For example, when Joseph and Hyrum both defined “hot drinks” as being “coffee and tea,” they didn’t mention cider, hot chocolate, herbal tea, or hot milk, which had to be drank after boiling it to rid of its impurities. There was also no mention of common medicinal cures like laudanum or calomel, which is especially surprising since an overdose of calomel is what killed Joseph’s brother Alvin. There was nothing about hygiene, and no admonition against eating vegetables with the skin on, which something you’d see during that time period. Even “too much thinking” was considered to be bad for your health. Etc. According to this Deseret News article by Michael De Groote:

While it is true that all of the items in the Word of Wisdom were at least mentioned in contemporary literature of Joseph Smith’s time, “clearly the Word of Wisdom contains none of the stupid and strange ideas that were rampant in the Prophet’s day,” Hoskisson said. “Neither does it include all the reliable and good stuff in his day.”

It’s something entirely different than that: a revelation from God, stating what was and was not acceptable according to Him.

A few decades later, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was arguing for complete abstinence from tea, on the grounds that it gave rise to “numberless disorders, particularly those of a nervous kind”. He placed emphasis on the religious importance of self-denial. (http://www.tea.co.uk/a-social-history#temperance)

Interestingly, Joseph Smith became very familiar with Methodist teachings when in June 1828 he became a member of minister Nathanial Lewis’ Harmony, Pennsylvania congregation. It is important to note that Joseph became a member after the First Vision where he was told that all religions were incorrect.

Nope, Joseph did not “become a member” of this congregation. Testimony of hostile witnesses (two of Emma’s cousins) states that at most, his name was on the roll for three days. To join the Methodists at that time, it was a six-month probationary period, which Joseph did not engage in. Their account is also not backed up by any other source at all. We only have the words of two men, coming decades later in 1879, who hated Joseph.

There are, however, multiple witnesses stating that he did not join any other church.

The Temperance Movement

Alcohol had been socially acceptable during the colonial era, but a social shift in the early 19th century initiated the belief that drinking was no longer acceptable.

It was more than “socially acceptable.” As we discussed last week, drinking hard liquor at every meal was a mainstay of most families in the Americas during the time period. Though that slowly started to change in the early 1800s, abstinence from alcohol is a belief that never fully took hold. Even during Prohibition, bootlegging was a common and profitable venture. If you wanted to drink alcohol during that time period (1920-1933), you could easily find a way.

Faulk words this in a way that insinuates that that drinking alcohol is not considered acceptable in the United States, but that is not accurate. Though there are a few dry counties in the South, this is not the norm for the vast majority of the country.

The temperance movement was an organized effort to encourage moderation in the consumption of alcohol or press for complete abstinence.

Marcus Morton founded the American Temperance Society in 1826 and it benefited from a renewed interest in religion and morality in America. The movement began to grow exponentially. Within 12 years it claimed more than 8,000 local groups and over 1.5 million members. By 1839, 18 temperance journals were being published. Some groups took positions on moral issues and advocated temperance with alcohol rather than abstinence. The movement split along two lines: moderates who allowed some drinking and relied on moral persuasion alone, and radicals who demanded prohibition laws to restrict or ban alcohol. Prohibitionists dominated many of the largest temperance organizations after the 1830’s, and temperance eventually became synonymous with prohibition.

“On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members…. This society at Kirtland was a most active one…. it revolutionized the social customs of the neighborhood. The Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time.” (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40)

Yep, the temperance movement happened, and yes, the Kirtland Temperance Society was an active one. But just because temperance was an idea in place, doesn’t mean that that Joseph stole the idea from them. Like the Revelations in Context article points out, the Lord was preparing the people to receive the law.

And Faulk did not show any link between the Kirtland Temperance Society and the membership of the Church. How many of those 239 members were also Latter-day Saints? All of them? Any of them? I don’t know, and Faulk didn’t provide any evidence either way.

Many members of the Church during the Kirtland years were former Campbellites, and there were many more current Campbellites in the area during those same years. Alexander Campbell taught that alcohol should be avoided except during the Sacrament. Campbellites were clearly comfortable with the idea of prohibitions on alcohol, and a large number of people in the Kirtland Temperance Society surely had a Campbellite background.

Emma Smith

Joseph Smith started a training school called the School of the Prophets for the elders of the Church, which opened in Kirtland on the second floor of the Newel K. Whitney mercantile store in January 1833. Brigham Young stated that the Word of Wisdom was given in response to problems encountered while conducting those meetings:

“I think I am as well acquainted with the circumstances which led to the giving of the Word of Wisdom…When they assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet [Joseph Smith] entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.12, p.158)

Yep, I think most of us are familiar with this story. It sounded like a disgusting atmosphere, so I’m not surprised Emma complained about it. I would’ve complained, too.

As I said last week, revelation rarely happens in a vacuum. It usually comes in response to our sincere questions. If Emma’s distaste for the practices led to Joseph asking the Lord what He felt about those things, I have no problem with that. That’s exactly how most revelation comes about: something occurs to us, we ask, and the Lord reveals His will to us.

Timeline
- 1826 – American Temperance Society founded.
- 1828 – Joseph Smith becomes a member of the Methodist church that discouraged
- hot drinks.

Where is any evidence whatsoever that Joseph became a member of a Methodist church? Can Thomas Faulk provide the rolls for the church, showing Joseph on them for longer than the six months necessary to become a member? Or even a roll with his name on it at all? Because he certainly didn’t cite them for us.

- 1830 – Kirtland Temperance Society founded.
- 1833 – (Jan) Joseph Smith hears complaints from Emma about tobacco.
- 1833 – (Feb. 1) The Kirtland Temperance Society eliminates the distillery in Kirtland.
- 1833 – (Feb. 27) Joseph writes the Word of Wisdom limiting hot drinks, tobacco and strong drinks.

Again, Joseph did not “write” the Word of Wisdom. He received the revelation and dictated it to someone else, who wrote it down.

Even after all that, the History of the Church records that Joseph taught the Word of Wisdom but did not practice it. If the Lord really gave this revelation to Joseph, one would think he would at least follow it himself.

It wasn’t a commandment, it was a guide, and in Joseph’s day, wine and mild drinks were allowed under certain circumstances, particularly if the wine was of their own making. It was hard, distilled liquor that was forbidden.

And, as Paul H. Peterson says in his Master’s thesis, “An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom”:

[I]t appears clear that Joseph Smith never interpreted the revelation as demanding total abstinence, but stressed moderation and self-control. His opposition to intemperance is evidenced by earlier statements which referred to intemperance as a “monster” and “the bane of humanity.” The Prophet almost never used tobacco, although it is recorded that once at Nauvoo he tried the faith of the Saints by smoking a cigar after having preached a discourse on the Word of Wisdom. He had no objections to using tobacco for medicinal purposes. With regard to wine and “strong drink” possibly the most accurate index to the Prophet’s position was expressed by Benjamin F. Johnson, who personally knew Joseph: “As a companion, socially, he was highly endowed; was kind, generous, mirth-loving, and at times even convivial. He was partial to a well-supplied table and he did not always refuse the win that maketh the heart glad….”

Moreover, there is some evidence that Joseph sought to avoid needless dissension among the Saints by urging moderation and charity. It would appear that some Mormons had been influenced by the fanaticism that characterized sermons of some of the radical temperance reformers, and tended to be intolerant of those with professed Word of Wisdom weaknesses. The Prophet, recognizing that the revelation must be seen in perspective with other matters and doctrines pertaining to the growth of the “Kingdom,” urged them to be slow to judge or condemn others.

So, if his aim was to teach charity and moderation while the Saints built up to living the law as a commandment, I don’t fault him for that.

We then partook of some refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine. This is according to the pattern set by our Savior Himself, and we feel disposed to patronize all the institutions of heaven.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, January 14, 1836, vol.2, p.369)

Again, wine was not completely forbidden by the Word of Wisdom during Joseph’s day. And again, his goal—especially so soon after the revelation was given—was to urge moderation and a gradual building-up of obedience to the law.

Ordinance on the Personal Sale of Liquors – Section 1. Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo, that the Mayor of the city be and is hereby authorized to see 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. Passed December 12, 1843. Joseph Smith, Mayor. Willard Richards, Recorder.” (History of the Church, December 12, 1843, vol.6, p.111)

Certain alcohols, such as brandy, were seen to have medicinal purposes, and to warm and heal people who were exposed to cold temperatures. This was an ordinance giving Joseph, as the Mayor of Nauvoo, the ability to care for travelers who arrived in poor shape.

“Before the jailor came in, his boy brought in some water, and said the guard wanted some wine. Joseph gave Dr. Richards two dollars to give the guard; but the guard said one was enough, and would take no more. The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail soon after the jailor went out. Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor and the doctor, and the bottle was then given to the guard, who turned to go out.” (History of the Church, June 27, 1844, vol.6, p.616)

Again, wine was not completely forbidden. And honestly, if Joseph needed a drink while he was waiting for death in Carthage jail, I don’t personally have much problem with that.

I have never been taught in Church that abstinence from alcohol and other hot drinks were already popular concepts of time leading up to the revelation.

I am genuinely baffled by this comment. Church is for fellowshipping and learning how to draw closer to Christ. Why would anyone expect to be taught secular US history in Sunday School? We don’t even learn about the parts of US history that entwine with the Restoration, such as Manifest Destiny or the history of the First Amendment.

Why on earth would we use our limited time at Church to learn about the temperance movement in the United States? And why would any member expect that we would? That’s what high school is for.

It appears that the Word of Wisdom may not be unique instruction, but well within the context of 19th century assumptions.

My response to this comment is twofold.

First, I’m not aware of any source that claims that the counsel given in the Word of Wisdom was wholly unique and had never been suggested before. The intent wasn’t to declare counsel that nobody had ever heard before. It was to declare counsel that God recommended for physical and spiritual health, a starting point to ramp up to living the commandment.

Second, the Word of Wisdom was somewhat unique as written in D&C 89, as we discussed last week. The warnings against indulging in those substances were given in a completely different way than they were given in organizations like temperance societies. They would try to frighten people by claiming that alcohol use would lead to an entire host of diseases, among other things. The Word of Wisdom does not do that. It’s not comparable in tone or consequence to any kind of abstinence literature from that day and age.

Perhaps it was spurned by Emma’s complaints, added to by Methodist teachings and pressured by the local Kirtland Temperance Society.

If that was true, there would be evidence of it. Yet, Faulk hasn’t provided any. All he has provided are insinuations, accusations, and misrepresentations. If you’re going to accuse a prophet of being a liar and a fraud, you have to provide evidence of that if you expect me to believe you. Faulk hasn’t said anything here that’s alarming when you actually look at the evidence behind the accusations.

But, as always, the surest way to know whether or not the Word of Wisdom was revelation from the Lord is to get on your knees and ask. The Spirit will tell you, because the Spirit confirms the truth of all things. Despite what people like Thomas Faulk and Jeremy Runnells claim, that is a witness you can trust.

Remember, the Lord has graven us on the palms of His hands so that He would always remember us. In turn, we promise each week during the Sacrament to always remember Him. We are His, and He has ransomed us. As long as we remember that and follow His path, we will not be lost. His Spirit will not lie to us nor lead us astray.

The entire intent of these letters is to make you lose your trust in God. Do not let that happen. We are His children. He loves us and He wants us to learn to hear His voice and to recognize His hand in our lives. He’s there, waiting to give us shelter and guidance, but we have to ask for it. He won’t barge into our lives. We have to invite Him in. Please do. While you study these things, open the door and let Him in. Ask Him your questions, and let Him guide you to the answers. He will.

And as He does, we will “grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth.”

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 13: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

One of the things about the online Latter-day Saint community that has always surprised me is just how often people try to argue the Word of Wisdom. As someone who was born in the covenant and raised mostly in Utah with a lot of friends who shared my beliefs, I’ve never felt the desire to drink alcohol, coffee, or tea, or to do drugs. I have my share fair of other temptations, but breaking the Word of Wisdom has never been one of them. Because of that, it’s hard for me to understand the very large focus on this topic that so many people have.

We don’t abstain from coffee, tea, or alcohol because those things are inherently sinful on their own. The Savior drank wine, after all. In fact, He was even accused of being a “winebibber,” or a drunkard. Obviously, this was an exaggerated accusation by people looking for ways to discredit His teachings, but He did still occasionally partake of wine.

That would suggest that drinking small amounts of alcohol on occasion is not necessarily a sin it and of itself. It’s not like premeditated murder, which is inherently immoral even if you don’t know there’s a commandment against it. If you don’t know that there’s a commandment against drinking alcohol and you haven’t made any covenants with God, you aren’t committing an immoral act by drinking it. However, it is a commandment to avoid it, and we promised in our baptismal covenants to obey the commandments. So, if we voluntarily break that covenant and commandment, at that point we are sinning. We’re breaking our promise to God.

That’s why it can be so hard for those who convert to the Church to obey the Word of Wisdom. Until they learned it was a commandment, they didn’t know there was anything wrong in drinking those things. That would not be an easy thing to get used to, and I certainly don’t blame anyone for struggling with it. Retraining your thought processes is a difficult thing.

So, I’m not trying to criticize those who do struggle with this topic. I’m just saying that I don’t personally struggle with it, and I’m not sure why it’s such a large focus in the online LDS community.

Over the years, I’ve seen people look for loopholes, argue that we aren’t following it as written, try to invent new and bigger restrictions, use it as a weapon against those they don’t believe are following it according to their own standards, try to argue the validity of its health benefits, try to undermine the commandment because of its history, etc. It comes up constantly on Reddit and other online forums.

If you’re busy looking for loopholes, trying to justify your use of substances you promised to forgo, that means that your heart’s not really in it. That’s something you need to work through with Heavenly Father, not by rationalizing your decisions with strangers on the internet.

We don’t follow the Word of Wisdom exactly as written in the Doctrine and Covenants because we aren’t living in 1833 anymore. We have modern revelation given to us by modern prophets who help us interpret the commandments for our day and age. What’s even the point of having modern prophets if we’re just going to shun their counsel?

The Word of Wisdom covers a lot of topics and already includes a fair number of dietary restrictions we’re commanded to live by. We don’t need to add additional restrictions to it that God hasn’t seen the need to add. If someone drinks energy drinks while working the graveyard shift at work, it’s not our job to police their behavior. Or, I’ve seen people suggest that anyone who is overweight shouldn’t be allowed into the temple. There are a lot of reasons someone might be overweight. Maybe they were in an accident and attempts to exercise leave them in excruciating pain. Or maybe they have depression that caused them to gain weight, and maybe their antidepressants are preventing them from losing the weight. Maybe it’s a side effect of their birth control or other medication. Maybe they recently gave birth. Certain autoimmune disorders and thyroid problems can also lead to weight gain. Do we really want to start spiritually punishing people because they’re following the counsel of their doctors? Or because they suffered an injury, health disorder, or a mental health crisis? Unless we’re their bishop or stake president, it’s not our job to judge someone else’s spiritual worthiness to enter the temple.

If your personal interpretation of the Word of Wisdom tells you that you need to cut sugar out of your diet, for example, that’s great. Do whatever the Holy Ghost tells you that you need to do. But you also can’t expect others to follow your interpretation. Unless you’re the prophet following the revelation of the Spirit, you don’t get to set the standards of worthiness for temple attendance. All you can do is live your life according to your own personal revelation. But that revelation is personal for a reason: it only applies to your person. The Lord will not justify us in berating someone else for not following an interpretation of the law He has not given to His prophets. They are His official mouthpieces. We are not.

A lot of people will argue the health benefits of a single glass of wine with dinner, or of drinking green tea or coffee. They suggest that drinking coffee is healthier than drinking caffeinated soda. While that may be true, health is not the only reason for obeying the Word of Wisdom. Yes, it’s a law of health. But as Elder Uchtdorf pointed out, those blessings aren’t always immediate, and they aren’t solely about physical health—they’re also about spiritual health:

I remember when I was preparing to be trained as a fighter pilot. We spent a great deal of our preliminary military training in physical exercise. I’m still not exactly sure why endless running was considered such an essential preparatory part of becoming a pilot. Nevertheless, we ran and we ran and we ran some more.

As I was running I began to notice something that, frankly, troubled me. Time and again I was being passed by men who smoked, drank, and did all manner of things that were contrary to the gospel and, in particular, to the Word of Wisdom.

I remember thinking, “Wait a minute! Aren’t I supposed to be able to run and not be weary?” But I wasweary, and I was overtaken by people who were definitely not following the Word of Wisdom. I confess, it troubled me at the time. I asked myself, was the promise true or was it not?

The answer didn’t come immediately. But eventually I learned that God’s promises are not always fulfilled as quickly as or in the way we might hope; they come according to His timing and in His ways. Years later I could see clear evidence of the temporal blessings that come to those who obey the Word of Wisdom—in addition to the spiritual blessings that come immediately from obedience to any of God’s laws. Looking back, I know for sure that the promises of the Lord, if perhaps not always swift, are always certain.

It’s also about obedience, and about standing apart from the rest of the world.

Remember, we’re constantly being taught to “be in the world, not of the world.” Abstaining from coffee and alcohol in particular set us apart from the rest of our society. There are entire cultures built around needing coffee before you can be considered awake and human in the morning, and in needing to have a few drinks in order to have fun at night or at social gatherings. That we don’t engage in those cultures marks us as being different. It sets us apart as being a peculiar people. This is a label that President Nelson has defined as being “a compliment of the highest order.”

The final verse of D&C 89 states that, “I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.”

This is obviously an allusion to the Passover, when the destroying angel passed by those homes marked with lamb’s blood. It was a sign of their promise to obey Jehovah, designating the children of Israel as the covenant people of God. The Word of Wisdom is meant the same way, as a mark designating us as the covenant people of God today.

And, of course, the other large objection I regularly see has to do with the history of the Word of Wisdom. This looks like it’ll be Thomas Faulk’s main objection, as well.

In studying all aspects of early Church history, I often though about the Word of Wisdom and how much the revelation means in verifying Joseph Smith’s prophetic abilities.

Okay. I can’t say I’ve ever had that particular thought, because to me, verification of Joseph Smith’s prophetic abilities can only come from the Spirit. But to each his or her own, I guess. We each find different study topics interesting for our own reasons.

However, the more I researched the historical context of Word of Wisdom the more I learned that it was not unique in its instructions for health during that period. In fact, conventional ideas, movements, and additional influences likely shaped what we have come to know as “the Lord’s law of health.”

That’s not exactly true. There were certainly things like the temperance movement at play during the time period, but there were some big differences between the literature those organizations put out and the revelation that is today’s D&C 89.

When studying any of the revelations that come from the Doctrine and Covenants, it’s useful to go to the “Revelations in Context” portion of the Church’s website. In the article for D&C 89, Jed Woodworth explains:

Latter-day Saints who learn of the American health reform movements of the 1820s and 1830s may wonder how these movements relate to the Word of Wisdom. Did Joseph Smith simply draw upon ideas already existing in his environment and put them forward as revelation?

Such concerns are unwarranted. Remember that many early Latter-day Saints who took part in temperance societies viewed the Word of Wisdom as inspired counsel, “adapted to the Capacity of the weak & the weakest of Saints who are or can be called Saints.” Moreover, the revelation has no exact analog in the literature of its day. Temperance reformers often tried to frighten their hearers by linking alcohol consumption with a host of horrific diseases or social ills. The Word of Wisdom offered no such rationale. Strong drink, the revelation says simply, is “not good.” Similarly spare explanations are given for the injunctions against tobacco and hot drinks. The revelation can be understood more as an arbiter and less as a participant in the cultural debate.

Instead of arguing from a position of fear, the Word of Wisdom argues from a position of confidence and trust. The revelation invites hearers to trust in a God who has the power to deliver great rewards, spiritual and physical, in return for obedience to divine command. Those who adhere to the Word of Wisdom, the revelation says, shall “receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones & shall find wisdom & great treasures of wisdom & knowledge even hidden treasures.” These lines link body to spirit, elevating care for the body to the level of a religious principle.

In the end, some overlap between the Word of Wisdom and the health reform movement of the 19th century is to be expected. This was a time of “refreshing” (Acts 3:19), a moment in history where light and knowledge were pouring down from heaven. On the night Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni for the first time, in the fall of 1823, the angel quoted a line from the book of Joel and said it was about to be fulfilled: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh,” the passage read (Joel 2:28; emphasis added). Insofar as temperance reform made people less dependent on addictive substances, prompting humility and righteous action, the movement surely was inspired by God. “That which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually,” the Book of Mormon stated (Moroni 7:13). Rather than concerning themselves with cultural overlap, Latter-day Saints can joyously contemplate how God’s Spirit touched so many, so widely, and with such force.

I think that last point is an especially good one. We’ve talked before about how the Lord will often prepare the world for momentous Gospel moments, important historical events, and for important revelations from Heaven.

So, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that social and health reforms were happening at the same time this revelation came forth. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that multiple countries abolished the slave trade around the same time, or that there were numerous revolutions against tyrannical governments within a few decades of the American Revolution. God was inspiring men and women to act for the betterment of society.

Revelation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It often happens as an answer to a direction question asked of God. And why else would we ask a question unless something in our lives inspired us to ask it?

The Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom was written by Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio on February 27, 1833. It is currently published in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

According to the Historical Introduction at the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Joseph dictated this revelation; he did not write it. That may seem a little pedantic on my part, but Faulk is clearly trying to insinuate that this was not a revelation, but a document produced solely by Joseph Smith. I do not consider that to be an accurate statement.

To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint.
That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.
And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.
Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

The portions he chose to repeat and the words he chose to emphasize here are the blueprint for the rest of this section. These are the topics he’s going to bring up in more detail as we go along.

There are several things mentioned in The Word of Wisdom that aren’t commonly observed in modern LDS culture.

Yep, because interpretation of revelation is the responsibility of the prophets and apostles. If all revelation was exactly the same for every people, culture, language, time period, location, and society across history, Adam is the only prophet we ever would have needed. The Savior’s earthly ministry wouldn’t have needed to fulfill the Law of Moses, because the Law wouldn’t have changed after His crucifixion and resurrection.

But that’s clearly not true. Revelation—and its application and adaption across cultures, continents, and centuries—changes over time. That’s one of the primary reasons we have modern-day prophets, to give us revelation relevant to our day and our society.

We are a church that allows for an open canon and modern-day revelation. We shouldn’t be doing everything exactly the same way they did them 200 or 2000 years ago. That’s not a flaw, it’s literally God’s plan for us. That’s what’s supposed to happen.

The “Word of Wisdom” label covers three distinct things today: the historical revelation, the modern day commandment portion that must be strictly followed for temple worthiness, and the modern day commandment portion that is left to individual interpretation and personal revelation. They may all fall under the same umbrella title, but they are not identical.

The revelation found in D&C 89 is similar to, but not the same as, the commandment we follow today. There are portions that do not apply to us today, such as the portion about eating fruits and vegetables in season. Modern technology means that fruits and vegetables can be grown and preserved all year long, rather than in specific seasons. There are also things included in our version today that are not found in the Doctrine and Covenants, such as illegal drugs, prescription medication, and e-cigarettes.

Our modern commandment is further split into two sections: the one detailing the things we absolutely must or must not do in order to remain temple-worthy, such as abstaining from alcohol, and the one giving guidance that is open to personal interpretation. This includes things such as how to define eating meat “sparingly,” or whether or not eating mostly whole grains is wise considering your celiac or Crohn’s diseases. Our individual circumstances in life vary, so we don’t all eat an identical diet or exercise the exact same amount in the exact same way as one another.

Are some people falling short of the ideal? Of course. We will all always fall short of the standards the Lord has set for us. That’s why we need a Savior and the Atonement in the first place. That’s also why the Savior is our Judge: He knows our hearts and our minds, and He knows our individual circumstances. He knows where we fail and where we succeed.

Verse 2 – Clearly states that the Word of Wisdom is not a commandment; yet modern members are asked if they follow it during temple interviews and will not be issued a temple recommend if the interviewer feels that they do not properly adhere.

That’s because it was formally adopted as a canonized commandment by a unanimous vote during General Conference on September 9, 1851.

Initially, it was given as a way to build up to living the law. In 1830, American consumption of distilled alcohol was at the highest point in our nation’s history. Men, women, and children were drinking whiskey at every meal every single day because unpurified water was so dangerous to drink. The per capita rate of alcohol consumption is three times that of today’s rate, and that isn’t even counting things like beer or wine, just distilled spirits. That’s the entire reason why the temperance movement sprang up in the first place. People were being raised from childhood on hard liquor instead of water.

You don’t go from an entire country drinking whiskey at every meal to complete abstinence overnight. It’s something you have to work up to. Coffee was then pushed as the substitute to whiskey, and we haven’t even mentioned tobacco use yet. Each of those things were ingrained in American society in 1833.

As President Joseph F. Smith taught in 1913:

The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given—as not by “commandment or restraint” was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law.

There’s also some dispute over whether or not those first three verses of D&C 89 should even be part of the revelation or not. When the revelation was first written down, those verses were included as part of the revelation. But in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, they were given as the introduction to the revelation. It wasn’t changed until the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, under Brigham Young. Joseph Smith clearly did not feel the need to include those verses as part of the revelation itself.

All of those things means that this is a shaky point to hang your objection on.

Verse 6,7,9,17 – Makes the distinction between 4 different types of drinks: wine, strong, hot and mild. Wine = ok for the sacrament if you make it yourself. Strong drinks = not ok. Hot drinks = not ok. Mild drinks = ok.

Not exactly. “Pure wine” was unfermented grape juice:

The “pure wine” in Doctrine and Covenants 89:6 “is understood to mean new or unfermented grape juice, since the Word of Wisdom declares unequivocally against the internal use of alcohol in any form.

“This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that … water was early in the history of the Church substituted for wine, for sacramental purposes. The revelation reads:

“‘For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.’ [D&C 27:2].” (Widtsoe, Word of Wisdom, pp. 60–61.)

So, clearly, some of those verses didn’t mean what Faulk seems to think they meant.

And, again, the only interpretation of the Word of Wisdom that matters in our lives today is the one given by modern-day prophets and apostles.

Verse 9 – Mentions “hot drinks.” What exactly does “hot drinks” refer to? Apostle George Q. Cannon stated, “We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks – tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa and all drinks of this kind are not good for man.… We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious.” (George Q. Cannon, General Conference, April 7, 1868, Journal of Discourses, vol.12)

That was one man’s opinion, and not the opinion given by nearly every single other prophet and apostle over the years. Joseph and Hyrum Smith both defined “hot drinks” as coffee and tea, not cocoa, hot chocolate, or soup. That is the same definition repeated by multiple prophets and apostles ever since.

We have been taught repeatedly that doctrine is only considered binding when it is taught by multiple apostles and prophets across several years, not one opinion given one time by one person.

Verse 11 – Only eat produce in their proper season.

We addressed this already—it doesn’t make any sense in our day and age with modern refrigeration technology and agricultural developments.

Verse 12,13 – Meat should only be eaten in the winter or during a famine.

The Doctrine and Covenants student manual disagrees with this interpretation in today’s day and age:

This verse has caused some to ask if meat should be eaten in the summer. Meat has more calories than fruits and vegetables, which some individuals may need fewer of in summer than winter. Also, before fruits and vegetables could be preserved, people often did not have enough other food to eat in winter. Spoiled meat can be fatal if eaten, and in former times meat spoiled more readily in summer than winter. Modern methods of refrigeration now make it possible to preserve meat in any season. The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly.

Again, modern refrigeration technology means this section is obsolete, because we can safely keep meat fresh during the hot summer months.

Verse 17 – Mild drinks made from barley area ok. What drinks are made from barley? Beer.

Beer is not the only drink made from barley. Additionally, a popular drink in 18th and 19th Century America was something called “small beer,” which is beer with a very low alcohol content around 1-2%. That means it has about as much alcohol in it as kombucha does. This may be what was meant more than standard beer, but beer and wine also both have lower alcohol content than hard liquor does.

Either way, all alcohol is against the current Word of Wisdom.

It seems that the modern Church has settled on coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs as the new interpretation.

This is not “the new interpretation.” This has been the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom since Heber J. Grant spoke about it in 1922. That was over a century ago.

But according to the text of the Word of Wisdom, members should refrain from hot drinks of all kinds, chocolate and soups included.

That’s not what the text says at all. Can anyone find hot chocolate or soup mentioned anywhere in D&C 89?

Didn’t think so.

That was one man’s definition, and while you could probably find other leaders who agreed with him, this is not and never has been the standard definition of “hot drinks.” It has always been defined as “coffee and tea,” right from the beginning. Within just a few years of the revelation being given, both Joseph and Hyrum Smith defined the term as referring specifically to coffee and tea.

Alcohol is not outright banned, but only strong drinks (hard liquor).

In the original revelation, yes. But again, it was given in its original form as a way to ramp up to the modern form. The people had to be eased into it because otherwise, many early Saints would have been condemned. It takes time to change a society’s behavior.

In addition, according to the Word of Wisdom, all members should be vegetarian most of the year.

Nope. “Sparingly” does not mean “none at all.”

John A. Widtsoe specifically refutes this idea:

“The Word of Wisdom is not a system of vegetarianism. Clearly, meat is permitted. Naturally, that includes animal products, less subject than meat to putrefactive and other disturbances, such as eggs, milk, and cheese. These products cannot be excluded simply because they are not mentioned specifically. By that token most of our foodstuffs could not be eaten.”

And D&C 49:18-19 states plainly:

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

According to the Lord Himself, a leader who tells people that they should be vegetarian is a sign that that person is not ordained of God. Animals were put on this earth for our use.

Does this mean you should go the opposite route and eat tons of meat? Also no. Unless your doctor puts you on a high-protein diet to lose weight, you should prayerfully consider what eating meat “sparingly” means in today’s society, and adjust your diet accordingly.

We still need to be good stewards of the animals under our care. Despite what the internet constantly tells us, we don’t actually need to add bacon to everything.

These parts have been reinterpreted to change the original intent.

Again, this is what is supposed to happen in a church with ongoing revelation and an open canon. This is a feature of the Church, not a bug. Why would you want to belong to a church where the leaders don’t receive revelation from God?

Now that we’re able to fully live the Word of Wisdom without condemning the bulk of the membership, that’s what we’re expected to do. It’s the difference between living the lower law and the higher law.

Remember, by obeying the Word of Wisdom as outlined by our current leaders, we’re marked as the covenant children of God. We’re set apart from the world. What the world looked in like 1833 and what it looks like today are very different. We need to adjust accordingly, and our prophets have shown us the way to do that.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 12: The Early Church – The Word of Wisdom [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This past weekend, we were blessed to hear from the prophets and some of our other church leaders during General Conference, and Sunday is Easter. The messages to focus on our Savior, avoid contention, and increase our ability to receive personal revelation, including from our patriarchal blessings, hit me especially hard this year. The very nature of this series, and of the previous one I did, means that I am wallowing in contention and things that cause the Spirit to flee. Though the tone of this letter is less overtly hostile than that of the CES Letter, the intent and the manipulations behind the words are identical. Because I’m surrounding myself with this kind of thing, sometimes it does diminish my capacity for personal revelation. It also means that sometimes, I don’t react with as much compassion and empathy as I’d like to.

This kind of material stirs up ill feelings in me toward the authors and that has a tendency to spread to other situations. There was a notable example just this past week. I went through a difficult experience that left me very upset and stressed out. With my emotions heightened, I didn’t react with as much understanding and grace as I probably should have. Because I learned of it shortly after working on last week’s post, that fed into how I was feeling and made it worse than it otherwise would have been. Conference was the balm of Gilead that I needed.

More than that, I was reminded again just how important it is to have the Spirit with us, guiding us and testifying of the truth, during these difficult times. It’s even more vital to have His influence with you when you’re reading and studying this kind of material.

Today’s topic is a big, full-color illustration of this principle. There’s a perfectly rational explanation for everything we’re about to discuss, but the ability to hear the Spirit and discern fact from fiction is key.

I am, of course, talking about the Kinderhook Plates.

To give a brief overview, a group of men in Kinderhook, Illinois—a small town located about 70 miles south of Nauvoo—forged a set of six small, metal, bell-shaped plates and scratched images on them. They then buried them in the ground and staged a dig where they “found” them. The plates made the papers and generated a fair bit of interest. In the audience that day happened to be a few members of the Church who eventually took the plates up to Joseph to see if he could translate them.

Joseph examined them in the presence of several other people, consulted a few resources, and gave a few remarks about them and their possible meaning. There is no further mention of them in Latter-day Saint history for decades, until a short mention of them ended up in what eventually became B.H. Roberts’s History of the Church compilation.

A few of those involved admitted to it being a hoax, but this wasn’t definitively proven until 1980. Until that time, the plates were not well-known, though several critics did point to them and some past Church leaders and historians did defend them as being real. Since 1980, they’ve been a much more common source of attack against the Church. We’ll discuss everything in more detail as we go along, but that’s the gist of it.

The Kinderhook Plates are six brass plates engraved by men from Illinois for the purpose of exposing Joseph Smith as someone who could not divinely translate ancient writings. This chapter covers the background, Joseph’s translation, the forgery claim, the 1953 test results, and the 1980 test results.

Not exactly. That was the common thought for a long time, and in fact, I said something similar when I responded to the CES Letter on this topic. But Mark Ashurst-McGee reached out to share some additional research he’d done with Don Bradley for a book titled Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith’s Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity. Their chapter is titled “’President Joseph Has Translated a Portion’: Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates,” and is probably the best source of information about this subject to date.

As they explain:

…[W]hile Fugate proudly admitted to being involved in the forging and planting of the plates, he did not boast of any ruse to get to the plates delivered to Smith. Instead he recounted that “the Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go.” …One of Fugate’s sons, who related that the joke was well-known within his family, described the Kinderhook hoax not as an elaborate trap meant to ensnare the Mormon prophet upriver in Nauvoo, but rather “a little plan by which to startle the natives.” … The hoax was apparently only a community affair, not the well-laid trap for Joseph Smith that almost all historians, producers of anti-Mormon literature, Mormon apologists, and other writers have assumed. As Fugate explained, “the plates were made simply for a joke”—a little prank on the neighbors.

So, it was meant to be a prank, but not one made on Joseph. It had nothing to do with “exposing Joseph Smith as someone who could not divinely translate ancient writings.” They were just trying to play a joke on their community, and then it spiraled out to be a bigger issue than they’d anticipated.

Background

“On April 23, 1843, a group of men excavated an old earth mound just outside the town of Kinderhook, Illinois, and came up with a most interesting find. The excavation was headed by Robert Wiley, a local merchant. After digging down about twelve feet, they came upon “fire burned rock, charcoal, ashes, and badly decomposed human bones. Near the [corner] a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, a ring through them all and clasped with two clasps. The plates appeared to have some kind of writing on them but were so badly oxidized they could not be clearly distinguished until Dr. W. P. Harris, MD, treated them with a dilute solution of sulphuric acid which made them perfectly clear. They were completely covered with “hieroglyphics” on both sides. A certificate stating the facts of the find was drawn up and signed by nine of the men present and sent to nearby newspapers.” (Welby W. Ricks, The Kinderhook Plates, The Improvement Era, September 19, 1962)

This information is taken from an article from the old Improvement Era magazine, found on pages 636-637 and then continued on pages 656-660. Between B.H. Roberts defending the plates in the History of the Church and elsewhere, and when they were confirmed a hoax in 1980, this Improvement Era article from 1962 is the only defense of the plates in any official Church publication that I am aware of.

There were a few other mentions here and there. For example, Mark E. Peterson mentioned them briefly in a book in 1979, before they were confirmed a hoax, and just said that they were generally considered to be genuine due to the information contained in this Improvement Era article. However, none of these mentions were in official Church publications.

The article was written because two professional engravers examined the sole remaining plate and declared that the symbols were engraved, not etched with acid. Etching would prove them false, as that method was relatively new in 1843. Because they were confirmed engraved at that time, it was a sign that they were genuine, and the author clearly believed that they were.

Translation

This passage details Joseph’s experience with the plates.

“I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, May 1, 1843, vol.5 p.372)

Joseph claimed to translate the characters on the plates. He stated that the body they were found with was descended from Ham.

Nope. As I’ve mentioned before, the History of the Church was written to sound as though Joseph was speaking, when in reality, the comments were taken from multiple different sources and authors.

This bit was actually modified from William Clayton’s personal diary entry from May 1, 1843. Rather than saying “I have translated a portion,” it actually said, “President Joseph has translated a portion.”

Brigham Young was also with Joseph at the time he was studying the plates and recorded in his own journal:

“May 3rd 1843 I took this [sketch at right] at Joseph Smiths house found near Quincy.”

Yes, this one’s correct, aside from some typos. In addition to Brigham Young and William Clayton, we have several other contemporary mentions of the Kinderhook Plates. Notably, Willard Richards discussed it in Joseph’s own journal, though it only said that he sent for his Hebrew Bible and lexicon for research. The journal entry didn’t discuss any translation attempts.

Other contemporary mentions include: one from Nauvoo resident Charlotte Haven, who said that she heard from an anonymous friend that Joseph said the characters looked similar to those on the Book of Mormon, and that with God’s help he might be able to translate them; a letter from Parley P. Pratt to his cousin John Van Cott, in which he said that the writing was Egyptian and that Joseph had compared them to the papyrus rolls; a letter from the editor of the Times and Seasons (at that time, John Taylor) in which it was said that Joseph saw the plates and “what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained”; and an anonymous letter to the New York Herald thought to be from Sylvester Emmons in which it says that Joseph compared the symbols to his Egyptian Alphabet papers. Other accounts can be found at FAIR.

There is no record of Joseph ever having personally said that the Kinderhook Plates were genuine or that he was able to translate them.

But what we do have is much more interesting: multiple sources saying that Joseph consulted various resources such as his Egyptian Alphabet papers, the papyrus rolls, and his Hebrew Bible and lexicon while he examined the plates.

You see, what it actually appears Joseph did was not to translate the plates by the gift and power of God, the way he did with the golden plates or the Egyptian papyri. Joseph, an avid but not fluent student of ancient languages, pulled out some of his books and papers and compared the symbols on the Kinderhook Plates to them.

He found one image on one plate that looked a bit like a deconstructed image in the GAEL (the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language book found among the Kirtland Egyptian Papers), and described what it would mean if the definition was accurate. Mormonr has a handy image showing this, which you can see here.

The definition given beside the dish symbol in the GAEL says it means “honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth, one who reigns upon his throne universally — possessor of heaven and earth and of the blessings of the earth.”

This fits in with Abraham 1:21, which says:

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.

What did the definition supposedly given by Joseph say? That the owner of the plates seemed to be:

“a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.”

That is word-for-word what you get when you combine the GAEL definition with Abraham 1:21. That was Joseph’s great translation effort. He compared the symbols to the ones he’d already copied down, found one that looked kind of similar, and simply read off the definition he’d come up with from the GAEL. He never claimed divine revelation for the translation, he never said it came by the power of God, he simply compared the symbols to ones he already had on hand.

The Forgery Claim

In a letter, Wilbur Fugate, one of the men present during the excavation, claimed to have helped craft the plates.

“I received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that they are a humbug, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself…None of the nine persons who signed the certificate knew the secret, except, Wiley and I. We read in Pratt’s prophecy that “Truth is yet to spring up out of the earth.” We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them, Bridge Whitton cut them out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust.

Our plans worked admirably. A certain Sunday was appointed for digging. The night before, Wiley went to the Mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock that sounded hollow beneath, and put them under it. On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to assist in the search, there being two Mormon elders present (Marsh and Sharp). The rock was soon removed, but some time elapsed before the plates were discovered. I finally picked them up and exclaimed, “A piece of pot metal!” Fayette Grubb snatched them from me and struck them against the rock and they fell to pieces. Dr. Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust and they were soon out on exhibition.” (Letter of Wilbur Fugate to James T. Cobb, 8 April 1878, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI)

While this does appear to be the official date of the letter, it’s commonly attributed to June 30, 1879, when Fugate was deposed. If you see the two different dates and get confused, that’s why. The date is the least interesting thing about it, though. It goes through all of the details of how the hoax was perpetrated and is a short but fascinating read.

After the publication of this letter in W.W. Wyl’s anti-LDs Mormon Portraits, the Kinderhook Plates and Joseph’s examination of them became a subject of controversy. It wasn’t a common avenue of attack, but it was a persistent one until 1980. That’s when the criticisms really began to take off.

Faithful LDS members disregarded Fulgate’s story and held to Joseph’s translation of the plates and maintained that the plates were in fact ancient artifacts.

Yeah, some definitely did, especially after the engravers mistakenly confirmed that they were genuine. But even among Latter-day Saints, they weren’t really a topic of much knowledge or interest during the 20th Century.

1953 Test Results

Addressing the forgery claim of Wilbur Fugate, the Church used two professional engravers to examine the Kinderhook plates. The Improvement Era article goes on to state:

“Mr. Fugate said Wiley and he had etched the plates. Yet two professional engraves were invited to view the plates in 1953 and give their unbiased opinion about them – which they did freely and without charge. They stated clearly that the plate was engraved with a pointed instrument.”

“The plates are now back in their original category of genuine. What scholars may learn from this ancient record in future years or what may be translated by divine power is an exciting thought to contemplate. This much remains. Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.” (Welby W. Ricks, The Kinderhook Plates, The Improvement Era. September 19, 1962)

The assessment was that the plates were authentic and Joseph was a true prophet. As late as the printing of this 1962 article, every prophet from Joseph Smith to David O. McKay believed the plates to be authentic.

I think it’s a stretch to say that “every prophet from Joseph Smith to David O. McKay believed the plates to be authentic.” We can’t confirm that at all. Most of the prophets never mentioned them. Only about 3-4 of them ever did. Even Joseph himself apparently asked that the plates be authenticated before he continued to try to translate them.

But even if they all did, it doesn’t matter much to me. I don’t expect my leaders to be perfect. They’re human beings, not divine ones, and as such, they make mistakes just like I do. Sometimes, they’re wrong. That doesn’t change their calling from God. It just means that I need to cut them some slack occasionally and, like it says in the Doctrine and Covenants, receive their words in all patience and faith.

1980 Test Results

It wasn’t until 1980, that LDS professor Stanley P. Kimball was able to secure permission to perform more scientific testing on the plates. In the August 1981 Ensign, the Church published an article detailing the processes, results and conclusion.

Yes. It’s an interesting article, though more research has since been done and some parts of it are badly out of date.

“These tests, involving some very sophisticated analytical techniques, were performed by Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University.

Dr. Johnson used a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to examine the grooves that form the characters on the plate to determine whether they were cut or scratched with a tool or whether they were etched with acid. A scanning Auger microprobe (SAM) was used to detect any nitrogen residues that might have been left in the grooves as a result of etching with nitric acid.

The irregular, grainy texture characteristic of acid etching is evident, not a striated surface that would have been produced by an engraving tool. A thorough SEM examination of the characters on the plate brought Dr. Johnson to the conclusion that the characters on the plate were indeed prepared by acid etching, not by any form of tooling, scratching, or cutting.

It became apparent during the SEM study that a residue of some kind was present in some of the grooves. The scanning Auger microprobe (SAM) was used to analyze these residues. A clear indication of nitrogen was detected, which would be consistent with a copper nitrate residue and could indicate that nitric acid was used in the etching, as those who reportedly originated the deception had claimed.”

“A recent electronic and chemical analysis of a metal plate (one of six original plates) brought in 1843 to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois, appears to solve a previously unanswered question in Church history, helping to further evidence that the plate is what its producers later said it was—a nineteenth-century attempt to lure Joseph Smith into making a translation of ancient-looking characters that had been etched into the plates. (Stanley P. Kimball, Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax, Ensign, 1981)

Like I said, interesting stuff! Science is cool, you guys. Though, again, that line about it being a hoax directed squarely at Joseph instead of at the community or members of the Church at large has since been shown to likely be incorrect.

Context
Wilbur Fugate, Robert Wiley, and Bridge Whitton fashioned fake ancient plates out of copper and iron. Using acid, they etched counterfeit hieroglyphics.

Yep. This is true.

The plates were taken to Joseph Smith where he pronounced them genuine and translated the “ancient characters.”

Not exactly. There’s no actual evidence he “pronounced them genuine” or that he ever personally described what he did as “translating.” It’s also clear that it was an attempted translation of only one “ancient character.”

The entire body of the Church believed in the authenticity of the plates.

Eh, again, I think that’s a stretch. Some certainly did, including some noted historical members and leaders. But I’m pretty sure that most of that “entire body of the Church” had never heard of them and didn’t have any idea whether they were authentic or not. Even today, there are many members who have never heard of them, particularly those outside of the United States.

And, frankly, I don’t know that the “entire body of the Church” has ever unanimously agreed on anything.

Wilbur Fugate claimed he, Wiley and Whitton made the plates as a joke.

Yep. He wasn’t the only one. Fugate’s son also spoke out at one point, and allegedly so did Bridge Whitten, one of the conspirators. That one can’t be confirmed because it was found in a letter by one of the witnesses at the dig, a W.P. Harris. Harris claimed in an 1855 letter that Whitten had confessed to him that it was a hoax, but that letter wasn’t found until 1912.

A 1953 observation claims the plates are genuine; reinforcing the Church’s position.

True—and the two engravers who made that observation were not LDS and had nothing to gain by lying about the matter.

After further scientific testing, it was concluded that the Kinderhook Plates were absolutely not genuine.

Also true, as we went over.

The fraudulent Kinderhook plates raise several troubling concerns. How could the prophet Joseph Smith believe they were authentic and claim to have translated the symbols as an account of a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt?

There is no evidence that Joseph ever claimed they were genuine, and in fact, according to Fugate’s own letter, there is evidence to suggest that he wanted them authenticated:

“We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.”

I’m not sure how those six tiny plates were supposed to create a book of 1200 pages, but that was probably local rumor and not anything official. So, again, we can’t corroborate this, but it is a secondhand account of Joseph’s intentions by one of the guys who fabricated the plates.

This also puts into question Joseph’s translations of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham characters.

No, it doesn’t. Joseph never claimed to translate the Kinderhook Plates by any revelatory means. We don’t even have record of him claiming to have translated them at all. All evidence shows that Joseph spent a week or two looking over them curiously, and then never mentioned them again. He never gave an explanation for that, so it’s unclear why he dropped them. According to the Church History Topic page on this topic:

Whether Joseph suspected the forgery, thought of attempting a revelatory translation but experienced a “stupor of thought,” or merely took a scholarly interest in the purported ancient writings (like other amateur linguists of the time) remains unconfirmed by historical accounts. Whatever he thought of the plates, he quickly lost interest in them.

We don’t know why he lost interest in them. But we do know that there is no account at all of Joseph ever trying to translate the Kinderhook Plates by the gift and power of God. No firsthand accounts, and no second- or thirdhand accounts, either. All of the accounts only say that he consulted other resources while examining the plates. There is no doubt he was interested in them, and there’s no doubt he made a preliminary examination of them. There is no doubt that he found a symbol that looked similar and said “Hey, this might be what this means.” But we don’t have his exact words on that occasion, and he never took it any farther than that.

Joseph, though trying to learn ancient languages, could not translate by ordinary means. He did not have that ability. He didn’t speak the languages he was translating from. He had to translate through the Spirit and through the power of God, because he did not have that ability on his own.

But when he looked at the Kinderhook Plates, he didn’t attempt a revelatory translation. He attempted a secular one, and then quickly abandoned it. As it says at Book of Mormon Central:

Joseph took preliminary steps toward an ordinary **translation by comparing the squiggles on these plates to other ancient writings he was familiar with. This apparently produced no findings of any significance. If he ever sought out a revelatory translation, he evidently never received or claimed to have received one.

The evidence from Joseph Smith’s journal for early May 1843 indicates that, “whatever JS initially thought about the plates, he soon lost interest in them.” The numerous entries in Joseph’s journal indicate that Joseph was busy entertaining several guests, holding court, attending business and religious meetings, overseeing economic transactions, and much more—but only one brief mention of the Kinderhook Plates is made. Some evidence even suggests Joseph wanted them examined by the Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, so perhaps Joseph even suspected their fraudulence or had concluded that they were not religiously significant….

While some critics try to use this story as evidence that everything about Joseph Smith was a fraud, the historical evidence suggests that Joseph ultimately did not fall for the hoax—he never tried to purchase the plates, hire scribes, and go into translation mode, like he did with the ancient Egyptian papyri he had purchased in Ohio. He never produced a “Book of Kinderhook.” Whatever Joseph Smith may have thought of the Kinderhook plates, the Lord could not be fooled. God would not and did not reveal a translation of these bogus artifacts.

The more universal message from the Kinderhook incident is that Joseph’s ability to translate … was a gift from God, and only worked when God enabled him to do His will.

I also think this episode speaks volumes in another way: as an evidence of the Book of Mormon.

If Joseph was faking it all along, why didn’t he come up with a fake translation? They were tiny plates and there were only a handful of them. All he needed to do was invent a simple two-page letter or history supposedly from the author. It would’ve been easy if he’d also faked the entire Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. But he didn’t. Why not?

And, more importantly, if Joseph perpetrated his own hoax with the Book of Mormon, why did he initially believe he could attempt a translation of the Kinderhook Plates? To me, that actually says that he didn’t fake the gold plates. He genuinely believed that it was possible that metal plates found buried in the ground in a strange language could be translated into scripture because it had happened to him before.

This incident is not the smoking gun critics seem to think it is. In fact, to me, it’s a strong testament of the truthfulness and historicity of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph’s divine call as the prophet of the Restoration. Those are things that the Holy Ghost continually reaffirms to me. And when I study and ponder this incident, the Spirit whispers to me that this is not evidence of Joseph being a fraud. It’s evidence that he’s not one.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 11: The Early Church – The Kinderhook Plates appeared first on FAIR.

Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity

View Details

Before we get started, I need to make a quick correction on last week’s post. I misread something and gave you guys some inaccurate information. Regarding a John Whitmer interview that was published after his death, I said that his brother David disputed the interview. David Whitmer actually disputed the contents of his own interview given that same year to the same person. Sorry for the mix-up!

However, John’s interview does still conflict with every other account given on how the Eight Witnesses saw the plates. Therefore, it should still be taken with a grain of salt—particularly since David claimed his interviewer reported things he never actually said. We’ll be discussing this disputed interview shortly.

The two topics at the end of this Witnesses section have nothing at all to do with one another. To be honest, I don’t even know why Faulk placed either of them under the “Witnesses” subtopic. So, my apologies if this post comes across as disjointed. I’m not sure yet how to transition from one topic to the next, so we’ll just run with it and see what happens.

The first topic on the agenda today is what happened to the plates after the translation was complete:

Where Are The Plates Now?

After completing the Book of Mormon Joseph had no more use of the plates and he gave up possession of them.

It’s a small thing to nitpick, but I don’t know that I’d have personally phrased in it quite that way. I’m sure Joseph still had plenty of use for them, and they would’ve been a handy evidence of what he was saying. But the plates did bring him great hardship, so I can also see why he may have been relieved to hand them back over once and for all.

Wilford Woodruff records,

“President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the plates of the Book of Mormon, that he did not return them to the box from where he had received them. But he went into a cave in the Hill Cumorah with Oliver Cowdery and deposited those plates upon a table.” (Wilford Woodruff, Leaves From My Journal, December 11, 1869)

Before discussing this journal entry, there are some sourcing issues here. Leaves From My Journal is not organized by date, but by topic. A search of the full text from Project Gutenberg shows that the words “Hill Cumorah” do not appear anywhere in this book, so this is not the source where this quote was taken from. It does come from Wilford Woodruff’s journal from December of 1869, but it’s unclear where Faulk lifted this quote from.

The full quote actually reads as follows:

President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not returne them to the Box from where He had Received But He went im a cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf & in that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall & when they last visited it, the sword was drawn from the scabbard & lew upon da table & a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard untill the Kingdom of God was Esstablished upon the Earth & untill it reigned triumphant over Evry Enemy Joseph Smith said that Cave contained tons of choice Treaas~~s~~ures & records [sic]

There are numerous such accounts from early Saints, and Faulk follows this excerpt with one from that disputed David Whitmer interview given in 1878:

In an interview, David Whitmer recalls:

“Interviewer – Where are the plates now?

Whitmer – In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.

Interviewer – Where is that cave?

Whitmer – In the State of New York.” (David Whitmer, Deseret Evening News, August 16, 1878)

The original letter asking David questions about this interview has been lost to time. All we have is his response, so it’s not clear which facts are in dispute:

“As to what you Say about the correspondence published by P Wilhelm Poulson M.D. August 20th, 1878. I surely did not make the Statement which you Say he reports me to have made, for it is not according to the facts. And I have always in the fear of God, tried to give a true statement to the best of my recollection in regard to all matters which I have attempted to Explain. And I do not now remember of talking to Mr Poulson on the subject referred to.”

What that subject is, we don’t know. There’s a bit in the interview about Martin Harris that conflicts with every other account of the Three Witnesses, so I assume it’s probably that portion, but Whitmer never said so directly. It’s just a guess.

Because we don’t know what he disputed, we need to treat this entire interview with caution. And since Poulson’s interview with David’s brother John also has discrepancies with every other known account, it’s probably safe to say that Poulson is not a reliable source.

According to Wilford Woodruff and David Whitmer, it seems as though they are still here on the Earth in a cave in the Hill Cumorah.

Clearly, Faulk did not actually read this account, because—assuming the account is accurate the way Faulk does—David Whitmer directly contradicts this statement immediately following the quoted portion of the interview:

I—Where is that cave?

He—In the State of New York.

I—In the Hill of Cumorah?

He—No, but not far from that place….

David very clearly says that the plates are not in the Hill Cumorah.

However, again, this account has been disputed, and there are multiple other accounts declaring the same thing—that the Hill Cumorah opened up, and Joseph and Oliver walked in and deposited the plates inside a room filled with a ton of other records, as well as the sword of Laban.

Brigham Young stated it in the Journal of Discourses, for example:

…This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take. I tell these things to you, and I have a motive for doing so. I want to carry them to the ears of my brethren and sisters, and to the children also, that they may grow to an understanding of some things that seem to be entirely hidden from the human family. Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: “This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.” I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting, enjoying the day, and by and by we separate and go away, forgetting most of what is said, but remembering some things. So is it with other circumstances in life. I relate this to you, and I want you to understand it. I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost….

And again, remember that we need to take the JoD with a grain of salt, because much of it was altered from the speakers’ original words by the reporters.

But this story was repeated by W.W. Phelps, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, and others in addition to David Whitmer, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young. Some said they heard it directly from Oliver Cowdery, one from Hyrum Smith, one from Don Carlos Smith, etc. Because there are so many accounts from so many reputable sources, we do have to consider this story as possible.

Joseph himself merely had this to say in the Joseph Smith—History:

…But by the wisdom of God, [the plates] remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

The Manuscript History of the Church skips straight from the translation “drawing to a close” in June of 1829 to a revelation from March of 1830, ignoring the return of the plates altogether.

And, according to Lucy Mack Smith:

After these [Eight] witnesses returned to the house, the angel again made his appearance to Joseph, at which time Joseph delivered up the plates into the angel’s hands.

So, from Joseph’s own words, all he says is that he returned the plates to Moroni. But from multiple second- and thirdhand sources, the story emerges of Joseph and Oliver returning the plates to the cave in the Hill Cumorah, sometimes with Hyrum and others joining them, and sometimes alone.

Surely the Church must be in possession of the plates as there is a visitor’s center at the Hill Cumorah.

Well, no. The Hill Cumorah in New York is almost certainly not the Hill Cumorah/Ramah from the Book of Mormon. Because the hill in New York is a drumlin made of gravel and dirt, it’s geologically impossible for it to hold a cave of the size needed to hold all of the Nephite records. Any cave of that size would collapse in on itself.

Mormon makes it clear that he buried all of the other Nephite records at Cumorah, not the golden plates. Moroni wandered for more than 30 years after losing the battle at Cumorah. Why would he go back just to bury the plates, when he could have buried them anywhere? It makes far more sense than he eventually made his way to New York by the direction of the Spirit and buried them in the hill in New York, where they waited for Joseph to be led to them.

And just because the Church has a visitor’s center at the hill we call Cumorah doesn’t mean they’ve done full excavations of the hill and have everything from inside it in their possession. What a silly argument. Besides, the Book of Mormon prophesies that the plates will be returned after they’re translated, and after the witnesses come forth to testify of its truthfulness:

Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesseswhich I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men.

As far as the cave itself goes, it’s an interesting set of questions. Did that event happen the way the second- and thirdhand sources claim, or was it simply a hand-off to Moroni? If it did happen, where is the cave? What else is in there? And most importantly, when will we have access to the records and other artifacts inside?

Personally, I believe that the cave does exist and that Joseph and Oliver did place the plates inside when they returned them to Moroni. I believe, due to the composition of the hill in New York, that this event was one of two things: either a purely visionary, symbolic experience, or, much more interestingly, a literal, physical transportation to the original Cumorah.

1 Nephi 11:1 says:

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat ponderingin mine heart I was caught away*in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain*, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

Maybe Joseph and Oliver were also “caught away in the Spirit of the Lord” and went somewhere they never had before seen, and upon which they never had before set their feet. The cave repository they stepped into seems to be the original Cumorah, and it seems to still be intact. We don’t know where that hill is, and that is probably with very good reason. The Lord is keeping it hidden from the knowledge of man until the time is right to bring the contents forth, as He promised He would.

And to me, that is just such a cool idea. That’s probably why I lean toward it, if I’m being honest, but it is what I believe likely happened. To me, it accounts for all of the evidence.

Switching topics now, we’re going to move on to the succession crisis after Joseph’s death. I told you there was no easy way to segue between the two!

Here’s what Faulk had to say about this topic:

The Succession Crisis

For roughly six months after Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s deaths, several people competed to assume the role as prophet and leader of the Church. Claiming to be the new rightful successor were: Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, James Strang, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Joseph Smith III and others.

Just to clarify, Joseph Smith III was a child and did not make this claim in the months after Joseph Jr.’s death. Some of his family members felt the position should be reserved for him until he was old enough, however. And he did obviously believe that the position had been given to him when he was an adult, but he did not publicly vie for the position as an 11-year-old boy.

After several hours of searching, I also can’t locate any instance where Samuel Smith put himself forward as the successor to Joseph or Hyrum. He was the one who retrieved their bodies from Carthage, and he had to evade a violent mob in order to arrive there. He wounded his side during the melee, and upon his return to Nauvoo, became very ill. He died about three weeks after Joseph and Hyrum did. The closest I can come to corroborating him as a potential successor is a note copied from William Clayton’s Nauvoo diaries and eventually published by who was then a BYU grad student named Andrew Ehat. According to Ehat’s Master’s thesis, when discussing who might take over as leader of the Church:

That [Newell K.] Whitney did not have in mind either of the two surviving members of the First Presidency, he made perfectly clear to Clayton, for he concluded his interview by saying that “Joseph…said that if he and Hyrum were taken away, Samuel H. Smith [the Prophet’s brother] would be his successor.” The week before, however, Lucy Mack Smith wanted Samuel to be the Patriarch.

I can’t corroborate this further with Clayton’s Nauvoo diaries, because while the Church Historian’s Press has announced that they will be published and transcribed, this has not yet happened.

And, just so we’re all clear how murky this information is, Newell K. Whitney reported it to Clayton, who recorded it in his journal. From the notes and comments about the Clayton diaries on the By Common Consent blog, it appears that historians James B. Allen and Dean Jessee transcribed the diaries either independently at the same time, or while working together on the project. Ehat apparently took his notes from the Allen/Jessee transcripts, not from the diaries themselves.

So, this one little nugget of information is coming to us at least fourth-hand, possibly fifth-hand if Ehat went through both Allen and Jessee to get the information. At this point, be cautious in taking that declaration of Joseph’s to be anything more than just a rumor. But even if he did say it, Joseph named several people as his successor at different times, and it was not his decision to make. It was the Lord’s.

Brigham Young also didn’t present himself as the next leader of the Church. Instead, he put forward the combined efforts of the Quorum of the Twelve, because together, they held all of the Priesthood keys necessary to lead the Church. In his journal, he wrote:

The first thing which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth; brother Orson Pratt sat on my left; we were both leaning back on our chairs. Bringing my hand down on my knee, I said the keys of the kingdom are right here with the Church.

The others on Faulk’s list, however, did indeed make a claim to Joseph’s now-vacated role.

Sidney Rigdon, first counselor in the First Presidency to Joseph Smith, argued that by virtue of revelation from the Prophet himself, he should be rightful heir to Joseph’s position.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:6:

And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom.

Um. Not exactly. D&C 20:6 actually says:

But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenancewas as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

It’s about Joseph Smith and Moroni, not Sidney Rigdon. Faulk apparently meant to cite D&C 90:6 instead.

This revelation was given in March of 1833, 11 years before Joseph’s death. While Sidney was a member of the First Presidency all that time, Joseph did try to remove him but was outvoted. The historical record of Joseph’s reaction to this outcome is in dispute. The Times and Seasons reported that Joseph was glad of the outcome and hopeful that Sidney would rise up again to his calling. The History of the Church, however, says that Joseph washed his hands of the situation and of Sidney. It’s unclear which is the most accurate description or why the record was changed.

The other details, though, are correct. Sidney did use that revelation, as well as several others, in his attempts to wrest control of the Church away from the Twelve. He was obviously unsuccessful in this attempt.

James Strang asserted that, unlike the others, he had physical proof of his prophetic calling. He produced a 3-page letter, supposedly written by Joseph Smith, naming Strang as successor. While the wording of the letter is somewhat ambiguous and the handwriting does not match Joseph’s, it still convinced many members of the Church to follow Strang. Included were all the members of the 3 and 8 witnesses, and all members of the Smith family including Emma, except Samuel, and Joseph Sr.

Again, this is not very accurate. Yes, James Strang did indeed produce this letter and make those claims. However, there were also two exposés written by people who claimed to help him perpetrate his hoaxes.

It would have been pretty difficult for Samuel or Joseph Sr. to join Strang’s church, since both of them were dead by that point. And Oliver Cowdery never joined Strang’s church, either. There is only actual evidence of three of the Witnesses or Smith family members believing any of his claims: Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and William Smith—and all of them were short-lived. David Whitmer was listed as an antagonist by Strang himself. Katharine Smith Salisbury later disputed that any of the female members of her family ever followed Strang either, and any evidence to the contrary was manufactured during a time when they were consumed by grief. Emma also rejected Strang’s claims, as she initially favored Sidney taking over until her son was old enough to do it himself. After Sidney backed out of the fight, she remained religiously unaffiliated until her son joined the Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints.

Fighting between individual competitors lasted 3 years until the most senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Brigham Young, was voted “President of the whole Church of Latter Day Saints” by the remaining members of the Twelve.

Three years? Not exactly, no. That vote took place on April 7th, 1845, 10 months after Joseph’s death. And on February 4th of that same year, they’d already voted Brigham “president of the Kingdom of God” and “legal successor of president Joseph as our head.” It wasn’t publicly known yet, but that’s when it happened.

While Joseph Smith and five others were imprisoned at Liberty Jail in Missouri, his young son, Joseph III, was brought to visit on several occasions. Imprisoned with Joseph was apostle Lyman Wight. Lyman did not agree with Brigham’s new position as leader of the Church because he witnessed Joseph Smith ordain his oldest son, Joseph III, to be his successor.

“Joseph called on me shortly after we came out of [Liberty] jail to lay hands with him on the head of a youth and heard him cry aloud, ‘You are my successor when I depart,’ and heard the blessings poured on his head. (Lyman Wight, Saints Advocate, Vol.7, September 1884) Who was the youth Lyman referred to? “The fifties assembled should have called on all the authorities of the church down to the lay members from all the face of the earth, and then have called on young Joseph, and held him up before the congregation of Israel to take his father’s place in the flesh!” (Lyman Wight, Gospel Herald, Voree, WI, August 31, 1848)

Yes, Lyman Wight did claim that he’d witnessed this blessing take place. Joseph III did also remember receiving a blessing when he visited his father in Liberty Jail, but was too young to remember its contents. The issue is, however, that Lyman Wight had a habit of reading his own wishes into revelations, according to Wilford Woodruff. He ignored conditional blessings and misremembered the wording of other blessings. That makes it impossible to know whether he was interpreting the blessing correctly or not. It may have been something of a patriarchal blessing or a father’s blessing, and not the Priesthood ordination Wight claimed it was. Because we don’t know what was said, and because Heavenly Father made His wishes known as to the identity of Joseph’s successor, we know we can’t accept the naming of Joseph III as Joseph’s successor as being valid.

None of the 3 scribes of the Book of Mormon, Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery, wanted to be affiliated with the new Brigham Young-led Church. None of the 3 Witnesses wanted to be part of Brigham’s Church and none of the 8 Witnesses did either. While Samuel Smith and Joseph Sr. did not end up leaving the Church like the rest, it is important to note that the Church was financially supported them at the time. While Samuel Smith and Joseph Sr. did not end up leaving the Church like the rest, it is important to note that the Church was financially supported them at the time.

There were at least seven scribes for the Book of Mormon, as we covered a few weeks ago, and Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, both scribes, were also both rebaptized into the Brigham-led Church. Of the Eight Witnesses, all three Smith family Witnesses were dead by the time Brigham and the Twelve took over after Joseph’s death. So were Christian Whitmer and Peter Whitmer, Jr. That leaves a grand total of four Witnesses who were alive at the time of Joseph’s death and who never returned to the Church.

As for the claim that the Smith family members were being financially supported by the Church, I searched for an hour and didn’t find anything to support that claim. Thomas Faulk certainly didn’t present any evidence to back up his words.

Samuel Smith was an industrious farmer and a Nauvoo city alderman, among other things. Joseph Smith, Sr., was both financially devasted by the fall of the Kirtland Safety Society and in declining health for several years before he passed, so it’s entirely possible that the Church did support him financially for a time. But, whether true or not, I personally suspect that Joseph being their family member had a lot more to do with them supporting his calling as a prophet than anything else did.

Context
No scribe was allowed to see the plates.

Sure, unless you count Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Christian Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Samuel Smith, all of whom were Book of Mormon Witnesses as well as scribes during the translation.

All of the witnesses saw the plates spiritually, not physically.

Sure, if you discount every firsthand account any of them ever made.

Signatures of the witnesses are the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

Sure, because the only full manuscript that still exists today is the printer’s manuscript, which was a copy made by Oliver and delivered to the printer in order to keep the original manuscript safe.

All witnesses of the plates left the Church; save 2 members of the Smith family.

Sure, unless you also count Hyrum Smith, who was a Witness and who didn’t leave the Church. Peter Whitmer, Jr. and his brother Christian both died as faithful members before the rest of their family left the Church, too. And let’s not forget that Oliver and Martin both later returned to the Church despite leaving for a time. Only four of the eleven Witnesses left and never returned in this lifetime, and none of them ever recanted their testimonies despite their differences with Joseph. They each continued to testify of the truthfulness of the statements they signed until the day they died.

How much credibility can we give the testimonies of those that have claimed to see the plates when the records show that it was seen in visions, not physically as the Church teaches? How much trust can we put in the statements of these witnesses when all of them that weren’t being financially supported by the Church ended up leaving?

Well, since none of those objections are true, I personally happen to think they have a lot of credibility. When I think about all that those men endured—the beatings, the near-death experiences, personal and professional blows, the loss of their reputations, in some cases the loss of their families and even their lives—the fact that they stood by their testimonies through everything tells me that they are men of integrity who were telling the truth about the things they saw and experienced. I find them to be entirely credible.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 10: The Early Church – The Witnesses [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Last week, I briefly mentioned some of the insults and ill-treatment that have come my way because of writing these posts. One of the primary accusations made against me was that I was trying to make a name for myself. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

I have personally advertised these posts a grand total of six times: when I made my first Reddit post regarding the CES Letter, I went to a private LDS-related sub with about 30 active members and asked that if anyone had anything further they’d found, to share it in the comments of the post; when FAIR asked if they could repost them, I linked to the first one on my Facebook account and told my friends for the first time what I’d been doing for the past six months; I also mentioned when FAIR and Jennifer Roach each graciously invited me onto their podcasts; I announced this current series on Facebook; and I thanked FAIR for giving me an award at last year’s Conference, as well as all of the people who had been so supportive of me to that point. That’s it.

While I’m incredibly grateful to FAIR for giving me a wider platform and I’m very proud of the work I’ve put out, my goal was never to get attention for myself. I haven’t been searching out ways to put myself in the spotlight. I wasn’t even the one who approached FAIR; it was the other way around. In my offline life, I’m pretty shy and introverted, and attention actually makes me uncomfortable. It’s been an adjustment these past few years, with people suddenly knowing my name and recognizing my face. I don’t regret putting my real name to my writing and numerous blessings have come my way because of it. I’ve made a lot of friends, and the FAIR audience is generous and amazing and inspiring. But honestly, it hasn’t been easy and it wasn’t my intention.

I had five goals when writing the original CES Letter series:

To say that yes, these questions actually have been answered, and to share a few of those answers;
To offer up a bunch of resources people could use to investigate the truth for themselves and find their own answers;
To teach people how to evaluate sources and rank them according to their reliability and trustworthiness;
To teach people how to study with the Spirit by their side; and
To point out manipulation tactics and fallacies commonly used by critics in their attacks

Ultimately, my intent was always to teach people how to maintain and grow their faith in Christ and in His restored gospel.

And you know what? Intention matters. It’s why I spent time at the beginning of each of these blog series delving into the background and prior statements of the authors whose documents we’re discussing. It’s why I give background information on some of the notable figures that come up. It’s why we need to learn how to evaluate sources in the first place.

A hostile source has a bias and an agenda. So does a friendly source, and so does a neutral source. Jeremy Runnells and Thomas Faulk have a bias and an agenda against the Church. I have a bias and an agenda in favor of the Church. You need to know that going into this material. Their intention is to tear down your faith. Mine is to build up your faith. I’ve been upfront about that right from the beginning. Have they? Because that’s information that you can use while evaluating our reliability and trustworthiness. Which of us is hiding information from you? Which of us is cutting quotes out of all context to give a false impression? Which of us is telling you to trust them, and which is telling you to trust God, the ultimate source of truth?

I’m bringing this all up because today’s topic involves accounts written by sources that need to be treated with caution. However, Thomas Faulk presents them as being completely truthful. Understanding how to evaluate sources is critical, and it’s only going to become more so as the years go by.

We all know that we can’t trust everything we read on the internet. Or, at least, we should know that. But for some reason, a lot of otherwise very smart, capable people don’t hold history books to the same standard. They need to. People make mistakes, and people have biases that aren’t always immediately clear.

You know the saying, “History was written by the winners”? That’s true. Historians have agendas, too. For a prime example of this, you don’t need to look any farther than D. Michael Quinn’s thoroughly debunked Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example.

In today’s chunk of the LFMW, Faulk picks up with a discussion about the Eight Witnesses:

The 8 Witnesses

On March 25, 1838, Martin Harris testified in public that none of the 3 or 8 witnesses saw or handled the physical plates.

That’s a mischaracterization of what we know.

After the fall of the Kirtland Safety Society bank in 1837, most of the Saints left Kirtland in early 1838. By the time this meeting occurred, a faction led by Warren Parrish had taken control of the temple with the intent, according to George A. Smith, “to renounce the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and take the ‘Mormon’ doctrines to overthrow all the religions in the world, and unite all the Christian churches in one general band, and they to be its great leaders.” He also said, “One of them told me that Moses was a rascal and the Prophets were tyrants, and that Jesus Christ was a despot, Paul a base liar and all religion a fudge. And Parrish said he agreed with him in principle.”

Eventually, a growing division between the members of the faction came to a head, and they held a meeting to determine the validity of the Book of Mormon and other revelations Joseph received. This is the meeting referred to in Burnett’s letter.

I’m going to briefly skip ahead in the LFMW, just so the rest of this explanation makes sense:

A letter on Josephsmithpapers.org dated April 15, 1838, Stephen Burnett wrote the following to Lyman Johnson:

“I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church and weighed the evidence for and against it — loth to give it up — but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] and also that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped and the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins, … I was followed by W. [Warren] Parish, Luke Johnson and John Boynton, all of who concurred with me. After we were done speaking, M[artin] Harris arose and said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of air but should have let it passed as it was.” (http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letterbook-2?p=69)

Burnett was a member of Parrish’s band of dissenters, and believed that Martin Harris recanted his testimony during this speech. Parrish agreed with his assessment, though George A. Smith, who was in town during the meeting, reported the opposite. He said that Harris testified in favor of the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness, and said that anyone who rejected it would be damned.

According to a Church Institute Manual handout, “Martin Harris strongly objected to how Burnett described his testimony and ‘remained a convinced Book of Mormon believer.’”

The quote is taken from Richard L. Anderson’s fantastic book, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses:

We are of course seeing Harris through the mind of a frustrated intermediary, one who thinks Mormonism presents a “whole scene of lying and deception.” He thinks that Martin Harris has not really seen the plates. If “only in vision,” then Burnett (not Harris) says it was really just “imagination.” If the Three Witnesses “only saw them spiritually,” then Burnett (not Harris) can explain it as essentially “in vision with their eyes shut.” But Martin Harris felt misrepresented, or he would not have stood up in the Kirtland Temple to challenge the explanations of Burnett and his disaffected associates. Note that there are two distinct experiences of Harris: (1) “he said that he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them,onlyas he saw a city through a mountain”; (2) “he never saw the plates with his natural eyes,onlyin vision.” Getting at the real Martin Harris requires subtracting Burnett’s sarcasm that seeps into the above wording. … In other words, Burnett heard Martin say that he had seen the plates in vision, and when Burnett uses “only” four times to ridicule the experience, that shows his disbelief, not Martin’s speech.Martin’s candid denial of seeing the plates while translating was sometimes exaggerated into a denial of ever seeing the plates, but even Burnett reports Martin claiming two types of contact with the plates: lifting them thinly covered, plus later seeing them in the hands of the angel. So Burnett paraphrased Martin Harris with the evident rationalizations of a skeptic. But Martin knew his own experience and remained a convinced Book of Mormon believer. Study of his interviews shows how strongly he insisted that the sight of the angel and plates was as real as the sight of the physical objects around him….

In fact, Burnett’s own letter says that when Harris realized how Burnett and others interpreted his testimony, he stood back up and testified of the Book of Mormon, then said that his previous comments had been “picked out” of him under duress.

Now, there is a slight discrepancy on what this letter actually says. The Joseph Smith Papers Project transcribes this line as “picked out of air.” However, in his Early Mormon Documents, Volume 5, Dan Vogel transcribes it as “picked out of [h]im.” When you zoom in on the text, it’s hard to tell exactly what it says. Either way, though, the point is clear that in Burnett’s own words, Harris felt like he’d been forced into making whatever statement he may have made about the Eight Witnesses.

So, since none of these are firsthand accounts from Harris himself, we have to try to judge the sources on their merits. Burnett and Parrish claim Harris said one thing, Smith felt he said something else. And, as was just pointed out, Burnett’s letter later shows Harris agreeing with Smith.

Personally, to me, it sounds like Burnett and Parrish mischaracterized the situation. Regardless of where you land on that, however, it’s obvious that the actual situation is a lot more questionable than Faulk’s proclamation makes it seem.

The following sentence actually comes in between the first sentence I quoted from Faulk and the letter:

This statement caused apostles Luke S. Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson, John F. Boynton, high priest Stephen Burnett and LDS Seventy Warren Parish to leave the church.

This is factually untrue. They left the Church because of the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. As most of the people listed in that sentence were apostles at the time, their departures from the Church are well-documented.

Alongside Warren Parrish and many others, Luke Johnson denounced Joseph in late 1837 and at that point resigned from the Church. It appears that he was formally excommunicated alongside his brother Lyman E. Johnson and David Whitmer on April 13, 1838.

That denunciation took place shortly after December 10, 1837. All of those listed by Faulk were among those who participated in this event. The History of the Church had this to say about it:

I returned to Kirtland on or about the 10th of December. During my absence in Missouri Warren Parrish, John F. Boynton, Luke S. Johnson, Joseph Coe, and some others united together for the overthrow of the Church. Soon after my return this dissenting band openly and publicly renounced the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints and claimed themselves to be the old standard, calling themselves the Church of Christ, excluding the word “Saints,” and set me at naught, and the whole Church, denouncing us as heretics, not considering that the Saints shall possess the kingdom according to the Prophet Daniel.

Remember, The History of the Church was written to sound like it was Joseph speaking, but there’s no guarantee this paragraph was actually taken from his own words. It may have been the recollection of someone else entirely that was rewritten to sound like Joseph’s voice.

John F. Boynton was excommunicated in 1837. So was Warren Parrish. In fact, between July and August of 1837, Parrish was the one who led the armed riot inside the Kirtland Temple, an incident in which Boynton participated. They were well out of the Church before that letter of Burnett’s was ever written.

The only one whose timeline of apostasy is at all murky is Stephen Burnett. Most sources just say that he apostatized “by 1838.” He was one who participated in that denunciation of Joseph in December of 1837, but it’s unclear whether he actually left the Church at this point or within the next few months of early 1838.

There was no love lost between Burnett and Joseph. In the Elder’s Journal from August 1838, Joseph described Burnett as a “little ignorant blockhead … whose heart was so set on money that he would, at any time, sell his soul for fifty dollars and then think he had made an excellent bargain; and who had got wearied of the restraints of religion, and could not bear to have his purse taxed.”

So, clearly, by the time April 1838 rolled around, Burnett and Parrish were both incredibly hostile toward the Church and particularly toward Joseph Smith. That bias has bearing on how we should view their characterization of the meeting featuring Martin Harris, just like Richard L. Anderson explained above.

We should also remember that George A. Smith was Joseph’s cousin and had a bias of his own. So, we need to ask ourselves, which bias leads to a more accurate description of the event?

On April 5, 1839 member of the Church, Theodore Turley, challenged John Whitmer, one of the 8 witnesses, to either affirm or deny his testimony regarding the gold plates. Whitmer responded by saying “I now say, I handled those plates … they were shown to me by a supernatural power.” (History of the Church, vol.3 p307).

According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, “supernatural” was synonymous with “miraculous” in Joseph’s day. The Witnesses appeared at various times to use the word to mean “by the power of God.”

As FAIR explains, three years before this report by Turley, John Whitmer said:

I desire to testify unto all … that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon [was] translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.

Then, in 1839, Turley reports Whitmer as making this statement:

Whitmer replied: ‘I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them;’ and he described how they were hung [on rings], and [said] ‘they were shown to me by a supernatural power;’ he acknowledged all.

And in late 1877 or early 1878, Myron Bond reported Whitmer as saying:

John Whitmer told me last winter … [that he] ‘saw and handled’ [the plates and] … helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or [A]lmighty power.

In each of these three statements, he declared that he both physically saw and handled the plates. Then he closed each statement by also testifying of the miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon. In the Turley incident, if it was reported accurately, he wasn’t saying that he didn’t literally see and handle the plates. He was saying that the plates themselves were miraculous. It was miraculous that Joseph received them, that he was able to translate them, and that Whitmer was allowed to see them for himself.

Again, situations like this are why we need to research these questions. If we only looked at one quote presented in a slanted manner, we wouldn’t know that this was a common pattern of Whitmer’s, and that he didn’t mean what Faulk implies he meant.

Why would a supernatural power be necessary if the plates actually existed? Couldn’t Joseph just invite the men he wanted to be witnesses over to his house, take the plates out of the box where he kept them and pass them around?

That’s exactly what was done when the Eight Witnesses saw the plates. They went into the woods to do it, but Joseph is the one who handed the plates over to them and let them hold them and turn the leaves.

The Three Witnesses were a different story, but there’s a reason why they were shown the plates by an angel. If their testimony was exactly the same as that of the Eight Witnesses, critics could claim that Joseph just manufactured the plates himself and there was nothing miraculous about it. And if all of the testimonies were like that of the Three Witnesses, they could claim that the plates never actually existed and that Joseph made the entire thing up. But this way, it’s a lot harder to account for the two different types of testimony.

Why are visions and supernatural means necessary to see these plates?

They weren’t. They are now, because the plates were returned to the Angel Moroni, but that wasn’t the case in 1829. They needed to pray for permission to see the plates, but they didn’t need to be shown them through miraculous means. The Three Witnesses were shown the plates by an angel to prove as true the Lord’s revelation that they had to see them by faith.

However, the two different types of testimony, one spiritual and one practical, make it that much harder to dismiss their testimonies:

It is to be observed that what may be called two kinds of testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormonis found in the statements of the three and eight witnesses respectively; viz: what men would call miraculous testimony, and ordinary testimony. Had there been but one kind of testimony the matter would have been much simplified for the objector. Had the testimony of the three witnesses been the only kind given; that is, if the plates had been exhibited to the eight witnesses in the same manner as they had been revealed to the three, then, perhaps, mental hallucination might have been urged with more show of reason. Or, if the three witnesses had seen the plates in the same manner as the eight did, in a plain, matter-of-fact way, without display of the divine power, then the theory of pure fabrication, with collusion on the part of all those who assisted in bringing forth the work, would have more standing. But with the two kinds of testimony to deal with it is extremely difficult for objectors to dispose of the matter.

It is just at this point that the two kinds of testimony — the testimony of the three witnesses and the eight, respectively, act and react upon each other in a manner quite remarkable. The “mental mirage” theory might offer a possible solution for the vision of the three witnesses, but what of the testimony of the eight witnesses — all so plain, matter-of-fact, straightforward and real? How shall that be accounted for? Here all the miraculous is absent. It is a man to man transaction. Neither superstition, nor expectation of the supernatural can play any part in working up an illusion or “mental mirage” respecting what the eight witnesses saw and handled. Their testimony must be accounted for on some other hypothesis than that of hallucination. And indeed it is. Some regard it as a mere fabrication of interested parties to the general scheme of deception. This, however, is an arbitrary proceeding, not warranted by a just treatment of the facts involved. Others, being impressed with the evident honesty of the witnesses, or not being able to account for the matter in any other way, admit that Joseph Smith must have had plates which he exhibited to the eight witnesses, but deceived them as to the manner in which he came in possession of them. … The net result then of the anti-“Mormon” speculations in relation to the testimony of the three witnesses and the eight is the theory of hallucination to account for the testimony of the three witnesses, and pure fabrication, with the possibility of deception by Joseph Smith as to the existence of some kind of plates lurking in the background, to account for the testimony of the eight witnesses.

But the testimony of the three and the eight witnesses, respectively, stands or falls together. If the pure fabrication theory is adopted to explain away the testimony of the eight witnesses, there is no reason why it should not be adopted to explain away the testimony of the three. But every circumstance connected with the testimony of all these witnesses … cries out against the theory of “pure fabrication.” It is in recognition of the evident honesty of the three witnesses that the theory of mental hallucination is invented to account for their testimony; as it is also the evident honesty of the eight witnesses that leads to the admission by many anti-“Mormon” writers that Joseph Smith must have had some kind of plates which he exhibited to the eight witnesses, though he may not have obtained them through supernatural means.

I have no doubt this was all done by design.

Published on Josephsmithpapers.org are the signed statements by the 3 and 8 witnesses. JosephSmithPapers reveals that both statements and all signatures are in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. The official statements printed in the Book of Mormon are not signed with original signatures, dated or given a specific location where the events occurred.

The only surviving full copy of the Book of Mormon manuscript is the printer’s manuscript. It’s in Oliver’s handwriting because he copied it from the original manuscript so that they’d have two copies available.

In October of 1841, Joseph put the original copy in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. More than 40 years later, Emma’s second husband, Lewis Bidamon, made some renovations to the house and rediscovered it. It was badly damaged by water seepage and mold, and the Witness statements were some of the most damaged because they were at the back of the original Book of Mormon, not the front. Bidamon displayed the pages and gave many away to visitors to the house. Today, only about 28% of it is still intact, and even many of those pages and fragments are damaged. Extensive efforts to conserve them have been undertaken by both the Church and the Wilford Woodruff Museum, the two places where the bulk of the remaining pages survive. Private collectors have other additional fragments.

We have one statement from John Whitmer saying he signed the original copy, and three accounts of Joseph F. Smith saying that David Whitmer said he signed it as well (here, here, and here). There’s also a fourth David Whitmer account saying that Oliver copied their names onto the printer’s manuscript. Whitmer initially believed he had the original manuscript, which had previously been in Oliver’s possession until his death, but later came to accept that he had the printer’s copy.

Aside from the John Whitmer account, these are all secondhand reports, some given several decades later. As such, they should be treated with some caution. But, as most of them come from a prophet, I do personally lend them some weight and consider them to be solid sources.

It’s true the Witness statements are not dated, but we know approximately when the experiences happened (in June of 1829) and where they happened. The Three Witnesses were shown the plates by the angel in the woods near the Whitmer home, while a few days later, the Eight Witnesses were shown them in the woods near the Smith home in Palmyra.

It should be noted that in John Whitmer’s final interview, published after his death, the details differ from the other accounts. He’s quoted as saying that they were shown the plates inside Joseph’s home, in two groups of four rather than all at once. However, this does conflict with other accounts, and David Whitmer publicly disputed the accuracy of the interview when it was published.

These are not 11 legally sworn statements; rather it seems possible that they are simple accounts pre-written, pre-signed and agreed upon at some later time.

This is a comment ripped straight out of the CES Letter. No, these are not legally sworn statements, but who on earth ever claimed that they were? Why would anyone think that? There’s no notary information on the statement.

And obviously, the printer’s manuscript was pre-written and pre-signed, since it’s not the original manuscript. But nothing other than the content of the statement was agreed upon at a later time. They all declared repeatedly, until the end of their lives, that they experienced the things they testified in those statements that they experienced.

In addition, consider the statement by Martin Harris (one of the 3 witnesses): “…and also that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it.”

As we covered in the beginning of this post, that statement is suspect. It’s not a direct quote, it’s a summary from a hostile source’s letter—and that same letter said that Harris disavowed this statement.

Let’s not forget the words of Martin Harris himself:

[N]o man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith Jun., the prophet the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. The Lord has shown me these things by his Spirit–by the administration of holy angels–and confirmed the same with signs following….

A similar point was made by John Whitmer:

I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. There are only two of the witnesses to that book now living, to wit., David Whitmer, one of the three, and John Wh[itmer], one of the eight. Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.

These men were firm in their testimonies. Each one of the Witnesses died still declaring their testimonies to the world.

Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Martin Harris was not present when the Eight Witnesses handled the plates. He didn’t know what they experienced any more than we do. All any of us can go on is their signed statement and the other comments they made about their experiences over the years. It’s not our place, nor is it Harris’s place, to redefine their experiences for them.

Reportedly this source document is printer’s manuscript and the original was only partially ruined, however the Church has never been able to produce the original.

Oh, good heavens. Yes, this is the printer’s manuscript, as we went over, and yes, the original was mostly damaged. The Church has produced the original on the Joseph Smith Papers Project website. However, they did not obtain it until 2017. Prior to that, it was owned by the RLDS/Community of Christ Church, and the Church could not publish it in full color due to copyright reasons. However, there was a black and white copy copyrighted to the Community of Christ available on the website before that point.

So, in wrapping this all up, there was a clear, consistent theme running throughout this entire post. Vet your sources, guys. People lie, they twist the facts, and they have agendas. Be aware of that, and do your homework. Yeah, it can take a long time to do that, I get it. But the truth is important. When we hear slanted rhetoric like this, it’s not always obvious what the truth really is. We have to put in the work to figure it out. The Lord rewards us when we do. Remember, it’s after the trial of our faith that the witness of the truth comes to us.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 9: The Early Church – The Witnesses [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Jennifer Ann Mackley

Willing to Sacrifice

On August 7, 1839, a very ill Wilford Woodruff prepared to leave his pregnant wife, Phebe, and his one-year-old daughter, Sarah Emma, to serve a mission with other members of the Quorum of the Twelve in the British Isles. He wrote, “I make a sacrifice of my all for Christ’s sake to do his work. It is no small trial of faith.”

In November 1839, he was still recovering from his illness and preaching the gospel in New York while awaiting the departure of their ship to England. Over the course of three weeks, he recorded three dreams about his wife and child. On November 8, he wrote, “I saw Mrs. Woodruff in deep affliction in a dream at Montrose. I did not see Sarah Emma.” Three days later he noted, “I had a dream during the night and had an interview with Mrs. Woodruff, but did not see Sarah Emma.”

On November 28 he recorded the third dream, “I saw Mrs. Woodruff & notwithstanding we rejoiced much at having an interview with each other, yet our embraces were mixed with sorrow, for after conversing a while about her domestic affairs, I asked where Sarah Emma was (our only child). She says weeping, and kissing me, she is dead. … Is this dream true? Time must determine.”

Eight months later, July 14, 1840, Wilford Woodruff, recorded the occasion of Sarah Emma’s second birthday in his journal and added, “May the Lord preserve my wife and children from sickness and death until my return.” He then added, “O Lord, I commit them into thy hands; feed, clothe, and comfort them, and thine shall be the glory.”

Sarah Emma died on July 17, 1840 and a grief stricken Phebe wrote a letter to her husband the following day expressing her feelings: “Yesterday I was called to witness the departure of our little Sarah Emma from this world — yes she is gone — the relentless hand of death has snatched her from my embrace.” Phebe did not think she could bear losing her sweet child while also enduring Wilford’s absence, but shared her faith that “the Lord has taken her to himself for some wise purpose.” She then added “the Lord has stood by me in a wonderful manner.”

Her knowledge of the resurrection and eternal life sustained her, “I can see and feel that he has taken her home and will take better care of her than I possibly could for a little while until I shall go and meet her — Yes Willford we have one little angel in heaven.”

Wilford Woodruff did not receive Phebe’s letter for three months. It was accompanied by a poem written by Margaret Smoot. The closing stanza read:

“Yes, little Sarah, lovely one, sleep on sleep on, ‘till Christ shall come.

Then thou wilt rise shake off thy dust, And be numbered with the just.”

The Gospel Brings Life and Light

In addition to Sarah Emma, four of Wilford and Phebe Woodruff’s nine children died as infants, two sons within a month of each other in Winter Quarters. The heartbreak they faced, the loss they endured could have shattered their faith in a loving God. Instead they put their faith in God’s revealed truths. Wilford taught, “The resurrection of the dead presents itself before the enlightened mind of man, and he has a foundation for his spirit to rest upon. That is the position of the Latter-day Saints today. We do know for ourselves, we are not in the dark with regard to this matter; God has revealed it to us and we do understand the principle of the resurrection of the dead, and that the gospel brings life and immortality to light.”[1]

Wilford and Phebe Woodruff with Phebe’s father Ezra Carter and their daughters Phoebe and Susan in 1849Records of Divine Truth

After the loss of thirteen of his own children, and so many other children of the early pioneers, Wilford reminded them that, “Children are innocent before the Lord; as to their death and the cause thereof, that is in the hands of God, and we should not complain of the Lord or his dispensations any more than Job did. … There is this consolation connected with the matter—they are innocent, they are not in transgression. … They will come forth out of their graves in the morning of the resurrection, … clothed with glory, immortality and eternal life . . . This, to Latter-day Saints, who believe in the resurrection, should be a source of comfort and consolation. … we have to put our trust in the Lord in these afflictions, we have to lean upon his arm and to look to him for comfort and consolation. We do not mourn under these afflictions as those who have no hope; we do not mourn the loss of our children as though we were never going to see them again, because we know better. The Lord has taught us better, and so has the gospel.”[2]

He acknowledged that “through Adam all have died, that death through the fall must pass upon the whole human family . . . . It is a law that is unchangeable and irrevocable.” But he was grateful for his understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and testified that our Savior “died to redeem the world; . . . He was the first fruit of the resurrection.” He then testified, “Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all children who die before arriving at the years of accountability will inherit celestial glory. There is no infant or child that has died before arriving at the years of accountability, but what is redeemed, and is therefore entirely beyond the torments of hell. … I will defy any man to find in any of the records of divine truth any ordinance instituted for the salvation of little innocent children; it would be unnecessary on the face of it, and the only thing that can be found is where Jesus took the little ones in his arms and blessed them, which is and would be perfectly right to do according to the order of God. … They are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.”[3]

Wilford and Sarah Brown Woodruff with three of their children in 1868Enlightened by Inspiration

Wilford Woodruff’s mother died when he was only 15 months old. Five of his six half siblings died when they were young, and only one lived long enough to embrace the gospel and marry. He stated that “Without the gospel of Christ the separation by death is one of the most gloomy subjects it is possible to contemplate; but just as soon as we obtain the gospel and learn the principle of the resurrection the gloom, sorrow and suffering occasioned by death are, in a great measure, taken away. I have often thought that, to see a dead body, and to see that body laid in the grave and covered with earth, is one of the most gloomy things on earth; without the gospel it is like taking a leap in the dark. But as quick as we obtain the gospel, as soon as the spirit of man is enlightened by the inspiration of the Almighty, he can exclaim with one of old—’Oh grave, where is thy victory, Oh death, where is thy sting?’ The sting of death is sin, and the gift of God is eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”[4]

He Lives by Simon DeweyWilford Woodruff didn’t think it necessary to mourn the death of any one who had been true and faithful to God and to their covenants. Because, he said, “There is an eternal reality—which the whole world will find out—in life. There is an eternal reality in death. There is an eternal reality in the resurrection, and in the future judgments, and in God’s dealing with all men in the future according to the deeds done in the body; and when a man or a woman who has entered into covenant with the Lord, who has received the Gospel and the ordinances thereof, and been true and faithful in his or her day and generation, has been called home into the spirit world, where is the man who comprehends these principles that can mourn for that brother or sister? . . . Such men and women have filled their mission here upon earth with honor, with labor, with love, until they have been called home.”[5]

In Every Death There is a Birth

He expressed his firm belief “that in every death there is a birth; the spirit leaves the body dead to us, and passes to the other side of the veil alive to that great and noble company that are also working for the accomplishment of the purposes of God, in the redemption and salvation of a fallen world.”[6]

Wilford Woodruff’s most powerful message about death was to the living. He repeated Matthew 24:48, “Be ye also ready” and asked the Saints “to labor in the cause of God, while we are permitted to tarry; living up to the light and knowledge that we have been blessed with.”[7] Echoing Alma’s admonition in Alma 34:32, “this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God.” Wilford promised, “Put your trust in God and rely on His promises, living up to the light and knowledge you possess; and all will be well with you whether living or dying.”[8]

[1] Discourse given by Wilford Woodruff on June 27, 1875, at the funeral service of 6-year-old John and 4-year-old Willie, sons of William and Ann Wheeler.
[2] Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, June 27, 1875.
[3] Discourse given by Wilford Woodruff, May 14, 1882.
[4] Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, June 27, 1875 at the funeral service for John and Willie Wheeler.
[5] General Conference Address by President Wilford Woodruff, October 9, 1887.
[6] Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, January 29, 1882, at the funeral service of Elizabeth H. Cannon.
[7] Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, January 29, 1882, at the funeral service of Elizabeth H. Cannon.
[8] Discourse by Wilford Woodruff, January 27, 1883.

Jennifer Ann Mackley is the Executive Director of the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation. The mission of the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation is to digitally preserve and publish Wilford Woodruff’s eyewitness account of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thousands of documents are available at wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents, including Wilford’s journals, missionary records, dreams and visions, autobiographies, and histories. The individuals, places, and topics contained in the documents are linked for searchability and all the contextual information is free and universally accessible.

The post The Gospel Brings Life and Immortality to Light appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Maddie Christensen and Kristy Wheelwright Taylor

Wilford Woodruff kept a journal from the time of his baptism at the close of 1833 until his death in 1898, saying, “I have ever been impressed . . . of the deep importance of keeping a journal and record of the dealings of God with his people.”1 His sixty-plus years of records comprise over 115,000 written pages (26,000 of which have been located), left to us as journals, letters, discourses, autobiographies, and personal papers. These records document a large part of the early Restoration of the gospel. Three years ago, Jennifer Mackley and Don Parry created the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation, whose mission is to digitally preserve and publish Wilford Woodruff’s eyewitness account of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seeks to make Wilford Woodruff’s records universally accessible to inspire all people, especially the rising generation, to study and to increase their faith in Jesus Christ. In celebration of these newly published documents, the Foundation hosted its first conference, Building Latter-day Faith. The conference was held at the Hinckley Center on the campus of Brigham Young University on Saturday, March 4, 2023, with over 350 people in attendance.

Journal excerpt from April 15, 1837In the three years since the Project’s beginning, we have published more than 10,000 pages on our open website, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org. These pages are indexed with tags for the people Wilford Woodruff encountered, the places he visited, and the topics he wrote about. Making these documents and these features available to all has introduced a valuable research tool for those who are interested in expanding their personal study, writing a talk for sacrament meeting, working on a lesson for church, or writing an academic paper for a religion class or journal. Publishing these records expands Wilford Woodruff’s reach to a broad range of searchers of the truth. The conference was aimed at these seekers of truth who want to be instructed, inspired, and motivated by Wilford Woodruff’s witness of the Restoration.

Laurel Thatcher-UlrichThe event began with lunch and an introduction from the Foundation’s Executive Director and Co-Founder, Jennifer Mackley, author of Wilford Woodruff’s Witness: The Development of Temple Doctrine. After studying Wilford Woodruff for the last twenty-five years, Jennifer says, “He not only recorded the daily process of revelation and the Restoration, but the strength it took to find joy when enduring loneliness, separation, and heartache. His testimony of God’s love and forgiveness is timeless.” Following Jennifer’s remarks, we heard from our keynote speaker, Pulitzer Prize–winning author and historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, known for the quote, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” In Laurel’s book A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835–1870, she describes the strength and influence of Latter-day Saint women, relying heavily on Wilford Woodruff’s journals and letters as primary source material. She spoke to us on the depth of Wilford’s records and what we in the twenty-first century can take from them.

The afternoon session included presentations from the student winners of the Carol Sorenson Smith awards, Ellie Hancock and Hovan Lawton. Both are recent college graduates who have studied and researched Wilford Woodruff’s life. Ellie spoke on the topic of missionary faith in persecution. Before the conference, she commented, “I feel like this is a topic that’s not often talked about in Church history and I’m really excited to talk about it!” Hovan Lawton discussed the sacrifices of those called to serve. Hovan shares, “One thing that struck me about the mission acceptance letters was the variety in challenges and obstacles of those nineteenth-century missionaries.”

After the student presentations, we were privileged to hear from Josh Matson, a religious educator and decoding expert. He gave a presentation called “Decoding Wilford Woodruff’s Journals.” Dr. Matson shares, “Participating in a conference dedicated to the Papers of Wilford Woodruff is a dream come true for me. I have been fascinated with Woodruff’s Papers since I was an undergraduate at BYU and many of the resources to study his life were inaccessible at the time. Today these papers are becoming more accessible by the day and re-introducing them to the public through this conference is a magnificent opportunity and privilege to be a part of.”

Amy Harris, BYU history professor and Director of the Family History Program at BYU, then offered insights related to the world of British converts. Dr. Harris found inspiration in her extensive study of British families during the period young Elder Woodruff served in England, saying, “The most rewarding part about studying history and genealogy is the sense of the humanity of people in the past, that they’re real people making real choices in their time.”2

Steven C. WheelwrightSteven C. Wheelwright, former president of BYU–Hawaii and an advisor to the Foundation, was the final speaker. He discussed how Wilford Woodruff’s missionary service aided in preparing Wilford to become the future prophet. Dr. Wheelwright shares, “The more we get to know Wilford Woodruff as a husband, father, priesthood leader, all of the things that he was, the more we admire him, the more we think other people need to know this because they will get the blessings from knowing him and knowing how he lived his life.”

Steven C. HarperHistorian, BYU professor, volume editor of The Joseph Smith Papers, and Executive Editor of the Wilford Woodruff Papers, Steven C. Harper gave the conclusion of the conference and moderated a Q&A session with some of the speakers. Of Wilford Woodruff’s contribution to Church history, Steve has said, “Wilford Woodruff largely made the glasses through which we see the [Latter-day Saint] past.” The Wilford Woodruff Papers Project has been blessed by Dr. Harper’s insightful leadership, and we were richly fed by his participation at the conference.

In conjunction with the conference, the Foundation hosted an arts contest with submissions in visual art, literature, dance, digital art, and music from high school students, college students, and pre-professionals. All art pieces were on display at the conference and the winner received the Carol Sorensen Smith Award. In addition to student art, works by artists Kendra Burton3 and Vicki Walker4 were also showcased at the conference.

Watching by Vickie WalkerThe Foundation commissioned two artists to create pieces specifically for the conference. Julie Rogers contributed two works, “The Dawning of a Brighter Day” and “Language of Inspiration.” She shares, “I love to record the simple things people do each day and capture the emotion of the moment. I love to paint light as it dances around a subject, especially the human figure. It is my desire to not only paint the physical being, but the personality and sense of the soul.”5 To see more of Julie’s work, visit her website, julierogersart.com.

The Dawning of a Brighter Day by Julie RogersLanguage of Inspiration by Julie RogersThe second artist commissioned for the conference, Sam Day, created a piece inspired by Wilford’s baptism, sharing that his work is “a declaration of [his] faith.”6 The piece he created was called “I did not feel the cold,” and it depicts the historically accurate scene of Wilford being baptized in a frozen river. For more information on Sam Day, visit his website, samday.com. Some of the artwork was available for sale in an online auction, with all proceeds benefiting the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation.

I Did Not Feel the Cold by Sam DayWe were also blessed to have a few of Wilford Woodruff’s personal items on display from various collections, including the trunk discovered by Foundation advisor and Woodruff descendant, Stephen Woodruff Owen, which contained a treasure trove of Wilford Woodruff’s possessions.7 The Church History Library also allowed the Foundation to display items like Wilford Woodruff’s fly-fishing rod, his glasses, his revolver, a door plate, and many paintings of the Woodruff family. Additionally, many items were on display from the private collection of Brent Ashworth, including Wilford Woodruff’s saddle, a letter to his wife Phebe, and a silk cover.

Wilford Woodruff’s fly-fishing rodWilford Woodruff’s saddleBetween sessions of the conference, attendees had the opportunity to browse various booths of partners of the Foundation, including FAIR, the Church History Museum, the Church History Library, the Joseph Smith Papers, FamilySearch, Meridian Magazine, Book of Mormon Central, Mormonr, The Interpreter Foundation, and the Come, Follow Me Foundation. To learn more about partners associated with the Foundation, visit wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/about/partners.

Wilford Woodruff shared that “as wickedness increases in the world, we should increase in righteousness, in faith, and in knowledge.” The research and scholarship presented at the conference through the speakers and displays gave us that opportunity.

All conference presentations will soon be available for all to read and learn from on this page: 2023.wilfordwoodruffpapers.org. To learn more about the Foundation, visit wilfordwoodruffpapers.org.

1 “Autobiography 1857-1858 Draft 1,” p. 39, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/autobiography/draft-one.
2 Interview with Fiona Fitzsimons, “Interview: Professor Amy Harris of Brigham Young University,” irishfamilyhistorycentre.com/article/interview-professor-amy-harris-of-brigham-young-university/.
3 To learn more about Kendra Burton, visit her website at kendraburton.com.
4 To learn more about Vickie Walker, visit her website at vickiwalkerart.com.
5 To learn more about Julie, visit her website at julierogersart.com.
6 To learn more about Sam Day, visit his website at samday.com.
7 “Treasure Box,” filmed by James Dalrymple, featuring Stephen Woodruff Owen, Carolyn Woodruff Owen, and Wilford Woodruff, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/treasure-box.

Maddie is the Public Relations Manager for the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation. She is currently a student at Brigham Young University working towards a degree in Public Relations with a minor in Global Studies. She will graduate in December of 2023. She is originally from Missouri and enjoys cooking, traveling, reading, and spending time with friends and family. Maddie has always loved learning about Church history and loves to read the words of Wilford Woodruff. She is passionate about sharing those words with everyone and is grateful to be part of such an incredible work.

Kristy Wheelwright Taylor is the Board Secretary for the Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation. She has a master’s degree in Humanities from Brigham Young University. She spends much of her time in volunteer work, Church service, and writing for various websites and publications. Along with serving on the Board and working with the team and our donors, Kristy volunteers as a transcriptionist of the Wilford Woodruff Papers. She has loved getting to know Wilford Woodruff better through his writings and is always inspired and surprised by his dedication, tenacity, personality, hard work, and faith.

The post History Came to Life in First Ever Wilford Woodruff Papers Foundation Conference appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

I have deep respect for all of the Book of Mormon witnesses. The things they went through because of their testimonies are, in parts, both devastating and galvanizing. Putting their names onto those documents truly became a trial by fire. And, as is usually the case with lifelong trials, sometimes they rose to the occasion and sometimes they didn’t. That makes them relatable and human, but it also makes them inspiring examples that we can follow in our own difficult situations.

Over the past two years, I’ve learned something about standing by your testimony in the face of vicious opposition. Since I first started my CES Letter series, and especially since I put my real name and face to it, I’ve had people attack my intelligence, my character, my writing ability, and my appearance. I’ve had people call my testimony, sincerity, and integrity into question. I recently compiled a list of more than 60 personal insults directed at me on a fairly large LDS-related subreddit that still stand today, despite direct appeals to moderators that I consider friendly acquaintances. I’ve had Jeremy Runnells and John Dehlin sic their followers on me in attempts to flood my social media accounts with abuse. I’ve had people attempt to dox me and publish my private information. I’ve had people call me the vilest names you can think of. I’ve even had someone spit on me because I was willing to stand up for my testimony.

And my experiences are nothing compared to what the Witnesses had to endure for their testimonies.

We’re going to spend the next few weeks talking about those Witnesses and their experiences. The Letter For My Wife spends the next six pages on this topic, and though I haven’t read them in detail yet, I did skim over them in preparation for this post. From what I saw when I did, we’re in for quite a ride.

Faulk begins:

Losing confidence in the truthfulness of Joseph’s claims made me think of the witnesses to the plates and how their testimonies lend credibility to the entire narrative; however, research turns up issues of their own.

The Witnesses do lend credibility to Joseph’s account, that’s true. That isn’t their only purpose, but it’s a big one. I’m curious to see exactly what that “research” entails, though, because by now, Faulk has already given us numerous incorrect assertions as fact. Either he’s been blatantly lying, or his research up to this point has failed him.

These included the fact that no scribe ever saw the plates, the 3 and 8 witnesses only saw the plates with their spiritual eyes, the printed testimony did not reflect literal events, and nearly all the witnesses left the Church.

Okay, I guess we’re starting early on the inaccuracies. Everything in this sentence is incorrect. Several of the scribes eventually saw the plates in person; the Witnesses saw the plates with their actual eyes; the printed testimony absolutely reflected literal events; and only about half the witnesses fully left the Church, though none of them ever recanted their testimonies despite their disagreements with Joseph Smith. I’m sure we’ll delve into all of those points in more detail as we go on.

The Scribes

During the translation process, Joseph was either behind a curtain or the plates sat underneath a cloth in a box in another room. No scribe to the translation process (Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris or Emma Smith) was ever allowed to see the plates.

Um. So, at this point, I have to ask: does Faulk actually know who the Witnesses were? Because both Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery did see the plates. It didn’t happen during the translation process, granted, but they did see them.

There were other scribes, as well. John Whitmer was another Witness who served as a scribe at some point during the translation and also saw the plates. According to Emma Smith, her brother Reuben Hale was another of the early scribes. Reuben was not one of the Witnesses. And according to Evidence Central, Samuel Smith and Christian Whitmer, both Witnesses, also served as scribes.

So, there are seven scribes that I’m aware of, and of those, five physically saw the plates at some point.

Emma only felt the plates through a cloth on the table.

This is true. According to her final testimony, however, she also never asked to see them:

Q. Are you sure that he [Joseph] had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

A. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book…

Q. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

A. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so.

Major Bidamon [Emma’s second husband] here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

A. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

In her own words, she knew he had them, but she wasn’t very curious and didn’t need to see them. I personally would have been dying to see them, but apparently, we are very different women!

It’s interesting to me that she doesn’t remember Joseph ever forbidding her from looking at them, though. According to her father, Isaac Hale, Joseph did forbid him from seeing them, and that’s why he wouldn’t allow the plates into his home:

Soon after this [Joseph and Emma moving to Harmony], I was informed they had brought a wonderful book of Plates down with them. I was shown a box in which it is said they were contained, which had, to all appearances, been used as a glass box of the common sized window glass. I was allowed to feel the weight of the box, and they gave me to understand that the book of plates was then in the box—into which, however, I was not allowed to look.

I inquired of Joseph Smith Jr., who was to be the first who would be allowed to see the Book of Plates? He said it was a young child. After this, I became dissatisfied, and informed him that if there was anything in my house of that description which I could not be allowed to see, he must take it away; if he did not, I was determined to see it. After that, the Plates were said to be hid in the woods.

As soon as they were able, Joseph and Emma moved out of Hale’s home and into a smaller cabin elsewhere on his property. This cabin is where they kept the plates and where most of the translation happened.

Emma’s statement is interesting for another reason. In the famous revelation given to her in which she’s called an elect lady, verse 4 says:

Murmurnot because of the thingswhich thou hast not seen, for they are withheldfrom thee and from the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come.

I always assumed this was regarding the plates and her desire to see them. But maybe it was about something else entirely. It was a personal revelation given to her, and only she and the Lord can really know what was in her heart and mind during that time. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I’m more than happy to take Emma at her word. As strange as the idea is to me personally, maybe she honestly didn’t care whether she ever saw the plates or not. Different people have different wishes and desires.

Why wouldn’t Joseph want anybody to see the plates?

Because he was commanded not to show them to anyone who wasn’t authorized to see them. It wasn’t his decision. Joseph wasn’t shy about explaining that. It’s even in our scriptures:

Again, he [Moroni] told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed.

I mean, that’s a pretty good reason, don’t you think? If an angel of the Lord told me not to do something or else I’d be destroyed, I wouldn’t do it either.

Faulk then lists his sources for the information so far:

(By the Gift and Power of God, Elder Neal A. Maxwell January 1997 Ensign quoting David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness*, ed. Lyndon W. Cook, [1991], p173) and (Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” pp289–90).*

I find these sources to be very curious. I’ve already linked to Emma’s testimony twice and quoted a portion of it. It conveniently answered the question he had about Emma not seeing the plates, but he neglected to quote from that part.

I don’t know if he didn’t actually read it and is pulling his words from a different source entirely, or if he’s deliberately misconstruing his actual sources. The third option is that he didn’t understand what his sources were saying. Personally, though, I think Faulk has shown that he’s smart enough to understand a simple Q&A without difficulty, which only leaves the other two options.

As for the other source listed, I’m a big fan of Elder Maxwell. Again, Faulk seems to be citing things he hasn’t fully read, or is deliberately lying about what he read. The part of the article where the David Whitmer interviews was cited gives further clarification on this point:

With regard to the physical circumstances of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his scribe, Martin Harris was quoted as saying there was a blanket or curtain hung between himself and Joseph during the translation process. If Martin is accurately quoted, perhaps this occurred when the Prophet was copying characters directly from the plates in the sample to be taken to Professor Charles Anthon, since the dates mentioned are several months before Martin Harris’s brief scribal duties began. I say this because although David Whitmer mentions a blanket being used—it was only to partition off the living area in order to keep both the translator and scribe from the eyes of visitors (see David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, ed. Lyndon W. Cook, [1991], 173).

In fact, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery, Oliver’s wife, said, “Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe” (quoted in John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon: Basic Historical Information,” F.A.R.M.S. report WRR–86, p. 25). Emma likewise said of her days as scribe, early on, that Joseph dictated “hour after hour with nothing between us” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” 289).

Maxwell said specifically that there was nothing between Joseph and his scribes during the translation process, even if the plates were covered by a cloth. Faulk appears to take this to mean that the scribes never saw the places, which is demonstrably untrue for five of the seven listed above. One of the other two testified that she was not specifically forbidden from seeing them, though she never asked if she could.

So, that only leaves one of the seven scribes who definitely did not have the opportunity to see the plates uncovered. That is very different from Faulk’s claim that “no scribe ever saw the plates.”

The 3 Witnesses

The History of the Church records the event where Martin Harris, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery became the first witnesses to the gold plates after Joseph Smith. Joseph describes how the men gained their witness of the plates in a purely visionary setting.

Again, this statement is somewhat misleading, in more ways than one. For one thing, The History of the Church was written by scribes and compiled from multiple different sources. Those sources included dictation by Joseph, but also other documentation like letters, journal entries, meeting minutes, etc. It was written in Joseph’s voice as if he was the one speaking, but often, he wasn’t. This particular section probably was dictated and approved by Joseph, but it’s difficult to know that for certain.

As the Joseph Smith Papers Project explains:

JS dictated or supplied information for much of A-1 [this notebook], and he personally corrected the first forty-two pages before his death. As planned, his historian-scribes maintained the first-person, chronological narrative format initially established in the volume. When various third-person accounts were drawn upon, they were generally converted to the first person, as if JS were directly relating the account. After JS’s death, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith, and others modified and corrected the manuscript as they reviewed material before its eventual publication….

Aside from the material dictated or supplied by JS prior to his death, the texts for A-1 and for the history’s subsequent volumes were drawn from a variety of primary and secondary sources including JS’s diaries and letters, minutes of meetings, the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, church and other periodicals, reports of JS’s discourses, and the reminiscences and recollections of church members. … While it remains difficult to distinguish JS’s own contributions from composition of his historian-scribes, the narrative trenchantly captures the poignancy and intensity of his life while offering an enlightening account of the birth of the church he labored to establish.

So, just bear in mind, while the following quotation is probably from Joseph’s own words, there’s the possibility that it was taken from elsewhere and rewritten to sound like Joseph speaking. This is within the first 42 pages of the notebook, so he definitely approved it, but it’s unclear whether or not he actually said it.

The other and more important way that Faulk’s sentence is misleading is his characterization of the following account as being a “purely visionary setting.” That is not what any of the witnesses ever claimed. We’ll go into that in detail a bit later in this post, but this is not an honest claim by Faulk.

“Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation—that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer’s house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises.

According to previous arrangement, I commenced by vocal prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before.

Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly. He then addressed himself to David Whitmer, and said, ‘David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps His commandments;’ when, immediately afterwards, we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, ‘These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.1, pp.54–55)

Nowhere in this quote does Joseph say this wasn’t a real experience, or that it was “purely visionary.” Look at the language he does use. He describes it as a literal, physical event that they both saw and heard.

Joseph Smith, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery saw an angel and the plates after Martin Harris withdrew from the group. Joseph goes on to tells how he, “…left David and Oliver and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance fervently engaged in prayer.” Then they both joined in prayer, and according to Joseph, “the same vision was opened to our view.” Remember, the word “vision” means dream not reality.

No, the word “vision” does not always mean “dream.” It can mean that, but it can also mean a bunch of other things. According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, in Joseph’s day it also meant, among other things, “the act of seeing external objects” or “actual sight.” It also has a definition that says, “In Scripture, a revelation from God; an appearance or exhibition of something supernaturally presented to the minds of the prophets, by which they were informed of future events.” Revelation can occur in your mind, as this particular definition says, but it can also occur in front of your eyes, as one of the other definitions says.

As the book of Ether explains, the things we see with the eye of faith are things we also see with our physical eyes:

And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

When Christ appeared to Mary and His apostles after His death, or His appearances on the Mount of Transfiguration, or Joseph’s experience in the Sacred Grove, it was both a spiritual and a physical experience. Particularly in the case of Christ appearing to the Apostles, where they touched the nail wounds in His hands and thrust their hands into the spear wound on His side, it was not a dream. He was physically there in front of them.

However, in each of those experiences transfiguration was necessary. Moses explains:

But now mine own eyes have beheldGod; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

By this definition, seeing something with your spiritual eyes doesn’t mean seeing it in a dream. It simply means being transfigured.

That it’s not an experience any of them can easily describe makes perfect sense to me. I doubt I’d have the vocabulary to explain what that truly feels like, either. Would you?

It is important to note that Joseph never claimed to have carried the plates into the woods where they prayed.

Faulk doesn’t quote anyone suggesting otherwise, so I’m not sure what the point of this statement is. We already knew Joseph didn’t carry the plates into the woods with him when he knelt with the Three Witnesses in prayer.

Praying to see the plates in the woods seems rather odd if Joseph actually possessed physical plates.

No, it doesn’t. One of the conditions of seeing the plates was that they had to demonstrate faith. What better way to do that than by praying?

Why was prayer necessary to see the plates if they were in fact, a physical object?

Joseph tells us exactly why in that same account quoted above:

Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation—that they should have a view of the plates.

They were praying for permission. “The above revelation” states that it’d be by their faith that they could obtain a view of the plates, the sword of Laban, the interpreters, the breastplate, and the Liahona. It also says that after they’ve obtained that faith, they’ll see them with their eyes, not in a dream. The prayer was to demonstrate that faith.

Martin Harris’ behavior also seems strange if the plates actually existed.

Without any elaboration on what he means here, this is difficult to respond to. Martin Harris’s behavior doesn’t come across as odd to me at all, so it’s unclear what Faulk actually means. Is he talking to the secondhand statements from decades later claimed to be by Martin? Or his actual firsthand statements, and if so, which ones? Is he talking about his behavior in the time period leading up to this miraculous experience? Or the behavior immediately afterward, or years later? Is he talking about Martin leaving the Church for a time, or his returning? Or the activity he got up to in the interim?

Faulk doesn’t clarify. That’s something I’ve noticed he does a lot. He’ll make a statement and then not elaborate on it, leaving us to guess what the issue is and what he thinks about it. Because these things aren’t personally controversial to me, I have to take time to figure out what might be considered controversial about them, and then respond to that. It’d all be a lot easier if Faulk just explained why he thinks something is controversial.

The Testimony of The 3 Witnesses is Not Accurate

Printed in the Book of Mormon is the Testimony of the Three Witnesses. It is not an accurate account of the events, but a reconstruction of multiple experiences.

It’s actually both an accurate account of the events and a reconstruction of the experience of Joseph and Martin, as well as that of Joseph, David Whitmer, and Oliver Cowdery.

“And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates… And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true.” (Testimony of the Three Witnesses, The Book of Mormon)

Yeah, that’s an accurate retelling of the events. Read their full testimony:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

At no point does it say that they all saw those things at the exact same time and place. It just says that they all had those experiences. Martin had the same experience as David and Oliver did; he just had it a short time later.

It was a brief summary of the events, but it was an honest one. Nothing in that testimony was a lie or a distortion of the truth. They were bearing their testimonies of the things they’d seen, not giving a moment-by-moment account of every single thing that happened in those woods.

The language in this statement makes it seem as if all four men experienced this event together.

Where does it say anything of the kind? I just quoted the entire thing, and it doesn’t say or even imply that anywhere. It simply says that it happened.

However, the History of the Church passage clearly shows that the Martin Harris’ vision happened separately.

Right, so does every Church history book or manual on the topic. This isn’t something the Church ever tried to hide. This was the story told right from the very beginning, in the very first history they ever tried to write of the organization of the Church. At no point did anyone ever claim that Martin had his vision at the same time that David and Oliver had theirs. This is just Thomas Faulk inventing controversy out of nothing.

Not only that, but later statements made by David Whitmer and Martin Harris show that the angel brought additional objects for them to see. This is curiously left out of the signed Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

Yep. The revelation stating that there would be witnesses to the plates said that too, in the very same History of the Church passage that Faulk quoted from above. This revelation is today’s D&C 17:

1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.

2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.

3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;

4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work.

5 And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

6 And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.

7 Wherefore, you have received the same power, and the same faith, and the same gift like unto him;

8 And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.

9 And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it unto you, that I might bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men. Amen.

Again, this is not obscure or buried information. It’s in the D&C for everyone to read. In their Witness statement, they testified of the Book of Mormon and the reality of the golden plates, shown to them by an angel of the Lord. Did they need to say that the angel also showed them other objects at the same time?

I don’t personally think so, especially when people were already trying to physically harm Joseph in order to steal the plates. If they knew he also had a sword and a golden ball and ancient armor, wouldn’t they try even harder to get them?

You might disagree and feel that they needed to list all of those things. That’s okay; you’re entitled to your opinions. But it seems clear to me that between the Witness statement and the revelation in the D&C, we know what happened that day. The accounts given by those involved backed this information up in its entirety, as well as added additional detail. Again, it’s not hidden information.

“We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon but also the brass plates, the plates of the Book of Ether, the plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved, and many other plates … there appeared as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the Sword of Laban, the Directors i.e., the ball which Lehi had-and the Interpreters [Urim and Thummim].” (David Whitmer, interview by Orson Pratt, Book of Mormon Compendium, 1878, pp.55-56)

Why fail to mention the other plates and important Nephite artifacts?

I gave one possible reason already—the persecution they were already enduring from those trying to steal the plates. Maybe they didn’t want to draw further attention to them and risk putting their lives in danger.

Or perhaps they didn’t feel it was necessary, since the golden plates were the truly important part. The others, while cool objects to see, were not vital, essential parts of the translation process. You could make a solid case for the interpreters being vital, of course. However, Joseph’s use of his own personal seer stone for part of the translation process tells us that, while important, they weren’t necessary.

I don’t know why they didn’t include them in the Witness statement. I didn’t write it, and neither did any of you. Maybe we would have phrased it differently in their place; who knows? But we know what happened, and the Witness statement covers the essential parts of their experiences. As I said, it was a brief summary of what happened, not a moment-by-moment recounting of the details. Maybe I just don’t expect as much from other flawed human beings as Thomas Faulk seems to. I don’t know.

I do know that the Witnesses saw what they said they saw. The Holy Ghost has confirmed this to me many times over. He’ll confirm it to you too, if you only ask. Remember, we have to ask before it’ll be given to us. We have to seek before we’ll find. We have to knock before the door will be opened unto us. We have to do our part, and then the Holy Ghost will do His.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 8: The Early Church – The Witnesses [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Most of us are familiar with Joseph Smith’s well-documented stay in Liberty Jail, and the later criminal charges at Carthage that led to his murder. Many of us also know about the different lawsuits for debt collection, particularly concerning the Kirtland Safety Society. Church history geeks will be familiar with two back-to-back sham trials in 1830 while Joseph was still in New York, in which his enemies scoured the countryside for anyone willing to testify against him with any ridiculous story they could invent. After he was acquitted at the first trial, he was immediately handcuffed and re-arrested for the second trial. It lasted well into the early hours of the morning before he was acquitted a second time.

However, those weren’t the only legal trials in Joseph’s life. In fact, Joseph was involved in over 200 court cases, whether as a defendant, plaintiff, witness, or judge. Brigham Young once estimated that Joseph had been the defendant in about 48 of those cases. According to Joseph Bentley at the previous link, that estimate appears to be pretty accurate. He was found liable for some incurred debts over the years. In none of those criminal cases, however, was he ever confirmed to have been found guilty.

The case being discussed today is Joseph’s 1826 trial for “glass-looking,” another term for using a seer stone. Not much is known of this trial, and several of the records conflict in different ways. The basic gist, though, is that Joseph went to work for Josiah Stowell in November of 1825, trying to locate buried treasure. After about a month, he convinced Stowell to give up the venture, but stayed on with him as a farmhand for several months. In March of 1826, one of Stowell’s relatives brought charges against Joseph, claiming he was scamming Stowell. The outcome of this trial is one of those details that conflict across the different records.

So, what does the LFMW have to say about this trial?

Trouble With the Law

Between 21-25 years old, Joseph Smith was arrested 4 separate times for fraud.

Sort of. He was arrested four times, but he wasn’t charged with fraud four times. There were the two 1830 cases mentioned above in which he was charged with being “a disorderly person,” which was the corresponding charge in New York for using a seer stone. There was this 1826 case in which he was charged with “glass-looking” as well as being “a disorderly person.” And the fourth case came in 1829, in which Lucy Harris, the wife of Martin, claimed Joseph defrauded her husband. So, he was only charged with fraud once.

The two 1830 cases were dismissed for lack of valid evidence against him, as was the 1829 case. In fact, Lucy Mack Smith recounts that in the 1829 fraud case, the testimony against Joseph was so absurd the judge “told them that they need not call any more of their witnesses but to bring that which had been recorded of the testimony that had been given. This he tore in pieces before their eyes and told them to go home about their business and trouble him no more with such ridiculous folly.”

There’s a reason critics don’t usually mention these three cases. When your evidence is so bad that even the judge calls your claims ridiculous, you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

The outcome of the 1826 case is more murky, though, as we’ll come to see.

Josephsmithpapers.org displays a trial bill for Justice Albert Neely where Josiah Stowell brought charges against Joseph for glass looking and was convicted of misdemeanor.

This sentence is incorrect. The Joseph Smith Papers Project does indeed have the bill for the justice’s trial fees. We also have a bill for the constable. However, that’s the only factual information in that sentence.

Josiah Stowell did not bring those charges against Joseph, and it is unknown whether he was convicted of the misdemeanor. It also doesn’t actually appear to be a trial, but a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not to bring a trial.

Though one account by William Purple states that Josiah’s sons brought the charges against Joseph, most accounts list Peter G. Bridgman as the accuser. Bridgman was Stowell’s nephew. Stowell actually testified on Joseph’s behalf. So did several of his family members. Stowell later joined the Church and remained a faithful member for the rest of his life. That’s not the behavior of someone who distrusted Joseph and tried to charge him with fraud.

As far as the judgment itself goes, the reports range from Charles Marshall’s purported transcript saying he was found guilty to Abram Benton and Joel King Noble both claiming he was convicted but allowed to escape and/or “took leg bail” to William Purple claiming he was discharged without penalty to Oliver Cowdery saying he was “honorably acquitted” in a letter to W.W. Phelps. You can see why there’s confusion over the outcome.

These are the accounts we have: the William Purple statement, three Pearsall statements, the two court bills, and Oliver Cowdery’s brief comments on the matter.

William Purple claimed to be a friend and associate of Albert Neely, the justice in this case. He says that he was asked to take notes during the hearing. This statement was produced from his note and his memory, though it’s important to note that it was published decades later and Purple had recounted his story many times. This means that inaccuracies were bound to have crept in over the years.

The Pearsall accounts are three purported transcripts of the docket entry of the case, originally provided by Emily Pearsall. However they all differ in places, the original source is missing, and it’s unclear whether the original transcript was altered. According to the Joseph Smith Papers Project:

Although Neely’s docket book is not extant, three documents purporting to be based on the docket entry for State of New York v. JS–A later appeared in print. The published docket entry includes the case name, the date of the proceedings, the name of the complainant—Peter G. Bridgman, Stowell’s nephew—and the charge that JS was a “disorderly person and an Imposter.” It also includes detailed summaries of testimonies by JS and five witnesses recounting JS’s use of a seer stone while in Stowell’s employment. The docket entry concludes with Neely’s purported verdict, “and therefore the court finds the defendant guilty,” as well as the justice’s itemized fee bill totaling $2.68. Several of these details are consistent with Neely’s and De Zeng’s 1826 bills, strongly suggesting that the published transcript was based on an authentic source.

Because of uncertain provenance, however, questions remain regarding the reliability of the printed document, and it is included here as an appendix item. According to later accounts, following Neely’s death the original docket book was inherited by his niece, Emily Pearsall, who served as a Methodist missionary in Utah in the early 1870s. At some point, Pearsall reportedly “tore the leaves” pertaining to the case “out of the record.” In 1872, British journalist Charles Marshall visited Utah, where Pearsall permitted him to copy the “original papers” of Neely’s “judicial proceedings,” which he published in Fraser’s Magazine in England. After Pearsall’s death in 1872, the excised pages passed to Episcopal bishop Daniel S. Tuttle, with whom she had lived in Utah. Unaware of Marshall’s earlier publication, in 1883 Tuttle published a transcript of the document in Philip Schaff’s Religious Encyclopaedia. Finally, in 1886 the anti-Mormon Utah Christian Advocate published a transcript of “the Manuscript” they had obtained from Tuttle. Although “the Manuscript” likely referred to the “original papers” torn from Neely’s docket, it is also possible that the term refers to a copy made by Tuttle. Each printing was apparently made independent of the others, as each contains unique omissions and errors. Without the original source, it remains unknown how accurately any of the published versions represents Neely’s original docket entry.

So, as you can see, it’s convoluted. That makes it difficult to ascertain the facts. I’m sure you’re asking the same question I did: what actually happened?

Well, according to Gordon A. Madsen, the leading expert in this case, 19th century New York courts presided over by a single justice like this in this instance were “on the bottom rung of the legal ladder.” They were called courts of special sessions. These justices weren’t trained lawyers or judges, but affluent men in the community who were tasked with presiding over matters that didn’t amount to serious crimes, but that upset the locals. For criminal cases, they had a few options. They could sentence someone to be held in the house of correction until the next general session of the court for an actual trial, up to a maximum of six months. They could also sentence someone to 60 days of hard labor at the house of corrections instead of a trial. The general session court could fine up to $25 and an additional six months of hard labor for a misdemeanor.

Joseph was not sentenced to any of those things. He was also not brought before a general session court. The bills were sent to the county government for court services, not to Joseph. There is no record of any fine against him, or of him serving any time in relation to this charge. His life is pretty well-documented, so if he served jail time for any length of time longer than about a week, we would be aware of it. There is also no conviction mentioned by any of his detractors from this time period, despite their affidavits being quoted in full in Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed. This all suggests that he was not found guilty.

Additionally, under the law at the time, only Josiah Stowell could bring a complaint against Joseph as the victim of the fraud, but he testified in favor of Joseph. As Madsen explains:

The pivotal testimony, in my view, was that of Josiah Stowell. Both accounts [the Purple and the Pearsall accounts] agree on the facts. The Pearsall account states: “[Joseph] had been employed by him [Stowell] to work on farm part of time; …that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone.” The Purple account states:

Justice Neely soberly looked at the witness and in a solemn, dignified voice said, “Deacon Stowell, do I understand you as swearing before God, under the solemn oath you have taken, that you believethe prisoner can see by the aid of the stone fifty feet below the surface of the earth, as plainly as you can see what is on my table?” “Do I believe it?” says Deacon Stowell, “do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief. I positively know it to be true.”

From the array of the other witnesses there was no testimony that any of them parted with any money or other thing of value to Joseph Smith. Only Josiah Stowell did so, and then for part-time work on his farm in addition to services rendered in pursuit of treasure. More to the point, he emphatically denied that he had been deceived or defrauded. On the contrary, he “positively” knew the accused could discern the whereabouts of subterranean objects. In short, only Josiah Stowell had any legal basis to complain, and he was not complaining. Hence Purple’s concluding comment: “It is hardly necessary to say that, as the testimony of Deacon Stowell could not be impeached, the prisoner was discharged, and in a few weeks he left the town.” Indeed Justice Neely had no other choice.

The Pearsall account he describes is the Marshall account found in Fraser’s Magazine. This same account is partially quoted by Thomas Faulk in the LFMW:

Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge … That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowell had been engaged in digging for them.

Josiah Stowell sworn: says that prisoner had … pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania [and] once for gold on Monument Hill.

Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was … Smith looked in his hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated…That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed.

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.” (Joseph Smith’s 1826 court transcript)

Again, there are issues with omitting part of the text and not showing it. Faulk at least added some editing marks this time around, so I’ll give him props for that, but he also cut out multiple paragraphs of text without indication.

Additionally, this is not the “court transcript.” There was no official court transcript made. Madsen explains:

What really happened? What can we draw from the statutory and case law, the bills, the admittedly incomplete and inconsistent reports of the notetakers, and the even more inconsistent conclusions of the commentators? Let us first resort to The Justice’s Manual as a basis for judging the reliability of the Pearsall and Purple notes and their pretensions at being official. Purple claimed that Justice Neely was his friend and asked him to make notes of the trial. He also admitted telling the story repeatedly over the more than forty years before he submitted his article to the Chenango Union in May 1877. Miss Pearsall, according to Tuttle, had torn her notes from her Uncle Albert Neely’s docket book. How close does either come to meeting the requirements of a transcript of testimony required of a justice of the peace at that time?

The statute provides that in all cases where any conviction shall be had before any court of special sessions, in pursuance of the act hereby amended, it shall be the duty of the justices holding such court of special sessions, to make a certificate of such conviction, under their hands and seals, in which shall be briefly stated the offence, conviction and judgment thereon; and the said justices shall within forty days after such conviction had, cause such certificate to be filed in the office of the clerk of the county in which the offender shall be convicted, and such certificate, under the hands and seals of such justices, or any two of them, and so filed, or the exemplification thereof by such clerk, under his seal of office, shall be good and legal evidence in any court in this state, to prove the facts contained in such certificate or exemplification….

So, if … a court of special sessions convened, and the Pearsall notes were “The Official Trial Record” (as he maintains), where is the certification “under their hands and seals” wherein is “briefly stated the offence, conviction and judgment thereon”? The Purple notes are equally lacking such certification. On the other hand, if (as I maintain) Justice Neely alone tried the matter, and if a conviction resulted, far more particularity would have been needed in such notes demonstrating jurisdiction, the regularity of the proceedings, the conviction, and the sentence. In either event, the record of conviction would have needed to be filed with the county clerk within forty days. No such record as to date been unearthed in the office of the Clerk of Chenango County.

The “he” in question is Reverend Wesley P. Walters, the man who apparently found the two court bills linked above. He wrote a few articles bundled together into a book titled Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y. Court Trials, which included an adjoining pamphlet titled “From Occult to Cult With Joseph Smith,” which Madsen was responding to.

This is almost certainly not an official court transcript that Faulk quoted, and neither is the other record. Both are lacking required elements to meet that designation, and neither of them were ever filed with the county. This suggests that, instead, these are simply the personal notes of Neely regarding the case.

It also needs to be remembered that the provenance of this account is in dispute. No one can confirm where it came from. Neely’s niece just showed up with them one day, and there’s no telling what was altered or where she got them. There’s also no telling what they actually said, because all three transcripts of the papers differ from one another in key points and the originals no longer exist to compare them to.

Those aren’t the only issues with this account. Let’s talk about the word “pretend” for a minute.

The Pearsall account claims that Josiah Stowell said that Joseph “pretended” to have the skill of using a seer stone. However, as we quoted above, in the same account Stowell says he “positively knew” it was true. Stowell did not use the word “pretend.” Neely or Pearsall—or whomever wrote those original papers—did.

Of the word “pretend,” religious anthropologist Manu Padro wrote:

[T]he use of the word “pretended” to describe supernatural claims of miraculous power is not a clear-cut statement about fraud. It is a recategorization of disparaged religious beliefs and practices to better police and penalize them. This is most commonly seen in skeptical English demonologists’ descriptions of non-Calvinist religious traditions from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. This understanding of the word “pretended” also appears in the Pearsall narrative’s depiction of the 1826 pre-trial.

The Pearsall narrative follows this tradition. It relies almost entirely upon “pretended” powers, claiming that Joseph Smith “had pretended to tell by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds.” Oddly, it depicts Josiah Stowell as claiming that Joseph Smith Jr. “pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone.” When compared to statements in both narratives that assert Stowell’s belief in Smith’s abilities, this statement seems to be an insertion or a scribal distortion. In the Pearsall narrative, Johnathon Thompson testified that Joseph Smith Jr. “pretended to know” where the treasure was buried and “pretending that he was alarmed” when they thought their shovels had hit a chest. The Pearsall narrative then claims that Johnathon Thompson believed “in the prisoner’s professed skill, that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest but on account of an enchantment, the trunk kept settling away from under them while digging.” This should be compared to the Purple narrative’s version of Johnathon Thompson’s testimony. There, Thompson never presents these alleged practices or beliefs as pretended. On the contrary, the Purple document’s version of the Johnathon Thompson testimony portrays Smith’s folk-Christian beliefs as genuine even if it later repackages them as delusional beliefs leading to unprofitable diabolical witchcraft. Thus, potential scribal distortion also appears in the Johnathon Thompson testimony. The Pearsall narrative’s consistent depiction of Smith’s activities as “pretended” also occurs in its presentation of the Horace Stowell and McMaster testimonies.

The two literary sources for the 1826 pretrial diverge strongly on their description of Smith’s activities as pretended witchcraft and diabolical witchcraft. Of these two accounts, the Purple narrative matches the allegations of diabolism that Smith’s neighbors claimed to have of his activities after 1824. However, the Pearsall account contains the justice’s itemized fee bill, which matches Justice Neeley’s and Constable De Zing’s bill of costs. This conundrum would suggest that the Pearsall account is not a faithful reproduction of the original trial notes. It would appear that working with the original notes, Emily Pearsall may have fabricated an account of the trial by removing elements of folk-Christian belief frequently associated with witchcraft and the allegations of diabolical witchcraft. For example, Joseph Smith Sr.’s and Joseph Smith Jr.’s testimonies, which explicitly characterize treasure seeking as a Christian act in the Purple narrative, are both completely omitted in the Pearsall narrative. These elements of Joseph Smith’s early life would have triggered the skepticism of a late nineteenth-century audience. Their absence in the Pearsall narrative reflects a later reframing of the events. … If the original trial notes included Smith’s confessions’ folk-Christian belief conflated with witchcraft or if it contained allegations of diabolical witchcraft, the recreation of these elements in the Pearsall articles from later in the century would have triggered skepticism among people from Emily Pearsall’s generation of Americans. William Purple, on the other hand, was from an antebellum generation of nineteenth-century Americans who had not internalized this understanding of Salem or skepticism about diabolical witchcraft. Hence, Purple’s account included the folk-Christian confessions from both Joseph Smiths. For William Purple and other believers in diabolical witchcraft, the conflation of folk-Christianity with witchcraft meant that the Smiths’ confessions of folk-Christian activity would have been seen as blasphemous confessions of implicit pacts, which believers imagined to be witchcraft. On the other hand, Emily Pearsall would have been motivated to modify an account of the 1826 pretrial by stripping the actual trial notes of inconvenient and embarrassing material, focusing instead on post-Enlightenment concerns with pretended witchcraft, painting it as fraud. … The Pearsall narrative’s scribal insertion portraying Josiah Stowell as describing Joseph Smith’s practices as pretended suggest that Emily Pearsall may have added and embellished material in her account. This is suggested by alleged accounts of deliberate deception in the Horace Stowell, Arad Stowell, and McMaster testimonies. These accounts of deliberate deception do not appear in the Purple narrative. Further evidence for selective distortion in the Pearsall account can be found in the Pearsall narrative’s guilty verdict, which strongly contradicts William Purple’s claims that the prisoner was discharged on Josiah Stowell’s testimony. The motive and the ways the Pearsall account do not match the larger body of evidence would strongly suggest that such a chain of events shaped the final document used to generate this account. The divergences in these narratives suggest that the allegations in the pre-trial as remembered by William Purple focused on diabolical witchcraft while Emily Pearsall heavily edited her account to create a narrative that focused on post-Enlightenment concerns with pretended powers.

Essentially, there is good evidence to suggest that Emily Pearsall heavily altered her uncle’s trial notes before allowing anyone to copy them. Her papers don’t match the other account’s testimonies, nor do they match the types of stories being told in the testimonies from the 1829 and 1830 trials. The Pearsall papers don’t match the rest of the evidence pointing to an acquittal/dismissal either, as outlined above. So, there’s valid reason to be skeptical of the account Faulk labels as the official “court transcript.”

He continues:

Context

BYU Professor, Ronald Walker, states that the events surrounding Joseph and the gold plates were very typical of early 19th century folk magic practitioners.

Oof. I’m a big fan of putting things back in context, but that context needs to be correct and this…isn’t. That isn’t what Walker said at all.

For this, we’re jumping back to one of the papers we discussed last week.

What Walker actually said was that Joseph Smith’s personal use of a seer stone was typical of early 19th century folk-magic practitioners. He also said, “I wish to make another point explicit. Nothing in my study should be taken as suggesting that Joseph Smith was merely a product of his folk culture environment. No English or American village adept ever produced a Book of Mormon. None produced a Vision of Moses, the Olive Leaf, the Three Degrees of Glory, or such magisterial ideas as sections 93 and 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. At every major point in his career, there were second and third witnesses for Joseph Smith’s work. And when he died, he left a church that dwarfed anything that might have been built by a run-of-the-mill village holy man.”

He literally said the opposite of what Faulk claims here. Things like that irritate me. If your position is so strong and your argument is so solid, why do you have to lie in order to make your claims? Why do you have to erase chunks from the quotes you choose, and blatantly twist what the papers you cite actually say? When you pull stunts like that, why do you think we’ll actually trust you over the Holy Ghost and the prophets? I just don’t get it.

Faulk then presents a little table to back up his assertion:

| Common folk magic themes in 19th century New England | Joseph Smith’s story also included | | Divine visitations | Visitation from the Lord during the First Vision | | Visions that recur 3 times | Visited by Moroni 3 times in one night | | The Devil | Overcome by the Devil when he went to the grove to pray | | Buried box of gold with spirit guardians, often Native Americans | Golden plates buried in a stone box protected by Moroni, a Native American | | Seer stones in hats | Used the seer stone in a hat to dictate the Book of Mormon |

These are again simplistic distortions of what Walker actually said. For example, Walker’s paper doesn’t discuss divine visitations, unless you consider attempts to conjure ghosts and other spirits as divine. There is no discussion of those spirits or ghosts ever actually appearing to anyone.

As explained in footnote 60 of the paper, the number three was seen as a signifier of completeness in the New Testament: the three gifts of the wise men to the baby Jesus; the three temptations of Christ in the wilderness; the three denials of Peter; the three falls on the road to Golgotha; the three days between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection; the three appearances of the risen Christ to His disciples; etc. It was long taught in Christian mythology that the number was symbolic of the Godhead/Trinity. We actually see the number three popping up all over our society in secular places as well, and it has been a prominent number for centuries. We see it in nursery rhymes such as “Three Blind Mice,” fairy tales such as “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” and idioms like “the third time’s the charm.” Ancient cultures prominently used triskelions, tridents, shamrocks, and other symbols with three prongs to also symbolize completeness, power, or unity. The number three pops up in multiple other incidents Walker lists, in a variety of ways. It’s not actually referred to as being involved with visions in Walker’s paper either, but rather with recurring dreams. Those dreams were not likened to visions, and the trend has scriptural backing. It wasn’t something Joseph just absorbed from his community.

Additionally, he never said he was overcome by “the Devil” when he went to pray, but that it was “thick darkness” in one account, and that his tongue felt swollen so that he could not speak and he heard someone walking behind him but saw no one in another account.

Moroni did not “protect” the golden plates the way a treasure guardian would. The extent of his protection was simply to bury the plates before he died where they would not be damaged or found until the time was right. God was the one protecting them, not Moroni. A treasure guardian’s job was not to lead a seeker to the treasure and to then teach him all about where it came from and the people it belonged to. It’s job was to stop anyone from ever finding the treasure, either by moving it whenever they got close or by inducing them to speak and break their silence, thereby destroying their ability to find the treasure a second time.

The only thing that actually aligns on that table is that seer stones worked best when put inside a hat to block out the light. In Joseph’s day, that was the best means of creating darkness black enough for it to work properly, without straining his eyes.

If Joseph was using the same stone to defraud people as he later used to write the Book of Mormon, then it speaks to the credibility of his claims.

If that were true, I’d agree. But there is no valid evidence whatsoever that Joseph ever committed fraud against anyone. Faulk certainly didn’t provide any, and neither has anyone else. The closest they can find is the Pearsall accounts, which appear to have been heavily altered and do not match the other existing evidence.

It appears that Joseph used a seer stone to sell treasure-hunting services and when that didn’t turn out well for him, he used the same stone to sell religious services.

One of the big points made by many of the papers cited is that Joseph wasn’t selling anything. He didn’t advertise his services. He didn’t seek out people who would hire him. They all approached him, not the other way around. And when it became clear it wasn’t working the way they hoped it would, Joseph was the one to call it off.

Using his personal seer stone sometimes for convenience’s sake instead of dealing with the spectacles that didn’t fit is not “selling religious services.” It’s using one of your spiritual gifts in the service of God, the way that you’re meant to use them. He wasn’t charging God money to translate the plates.

(“sell religious services” is both referring to collecting tithing and also to Joseph’s attempt to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon shortly after publication. He sent Oliver Cowdery, Hyram Page and Josiah Stowell to Toronto, Canada but they returned unsuccessful. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelationbook-1/15)

Well, that took an abrupt detour, didn’t it? Tithing has been a principle in place since before the time of Abraham. It is also not “selling religious services.” It is giving some of your blessings back to God because He is the one who gave them to you in the first place.

As for the copyright, that deserves more than a quick paragraph of explanation. However, I’m running short on room, so this will have to do for now. The copyright that Joseph attempted to sell was not the intellectual copyright over the contents of the Book of Mormon. It was the printing rights, because certain publishers have the right to publish certain books in certain countries. They were trying to find a publisher who would buy the Canadian publishing rights. Moreover, they were commanded to do so. We have a copy of the revelation at the Joseph Smith Papers Project. That’s a very big difference from what Faulk is trying to imply. Once again, he is incorrect in his statements.

Considering that Joseph did not even use the plates during the translation, considering that folk magic was common in the New England area, and he had been in trouble with the law for treasure hunting, it seems hard to feel confident in the authenticity of the official translation story.

Joseph absolutely used the plates during the translation. He couldn’t read them, but he never claimed to be able to do that. “Translate” is not the proper word for what Joseph did with the plates, though it’s the word that we frequently use. A better word might be “transmit,” and he was the receiver, not the one doing the transmitting. The Spirit was the transmitter.

But the plates were a tangible evidence that his story was true. Numerous people were aware that he had them. They saw them, they held them, they saw the corner peeking out from under a cloth, they rustled their edges, they carried them in a box, etc. There is no denying that Joseph had something that resembled the plates. Why do you think some of his neighbors tried so hard to steal them from him so many times if he didn’t have anything to back up his story?

He also didn’t have the money or the ability to fake them, and no stories ever emerged of anyone helping him create them, the way they did for similar hoaxes.

I don’t find Joseph Smith’s story of the translation of the Book of Mormon difficult to believe. It is not hard for me to feel confident in that. You know why? Because my testimony isn’t built on Rough Stone Rolling or any other history book about Joseph’s life. It’s not built on whichever instrument Joseph used to aid his revelatory process during that translation.

My testimony is built on the Spirit of Christ. That Spirit testifies of the truth, and He has testified to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He has testified to me that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be. He has testified to me that Christ’s Priesthood was restored to the Earth. He has testified to me that this belongs to Him. He has testified to me that His prophets still lead our church today.

And because He has testified of that to me, I don’t personally care what hobbies Joseph may have had that are a little on the weird side. He’d probably think my hobbies are weird, too.

None of that changes the truthfulness of his claims. None of it changes the facts that the Book of Mormon is both an ancient record of people who really lived and holy scripture. And none of it changes this church from being the true Church of Christ.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 7: The Early Church – The Translation [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Two topics that are often misunderstood in Latter-day Saint circles are those of folklore and what is sometimes termed “folk magic.” When we hear those words, as a people we tend to think of something negative or spiritually dangerous. We might think of examples such as Ouija boards or tarot cards. But the actual definitions are a lot more benign than that.

Folklore, for instance, is simply pieces of knowledge or stories that are passed down from one person to the next over the generations. Santa Claus; the Tooth Fairy; the Easter Bunny; vampires and werewolves; George Washington and the cherry tree; the seagulls eating the crickets in the Salt Lake Valley; the family stories you tell over and over again about how your brother microwaved a fork and fried the appliance or how your sister used to eat a single bite out of the center of a piece of bologna and discard the rest; or perhaps the oft-told story of how your friend once bit into an apple and found half a worm; these are all examples of folklore.

Folk magic is a little different. As Greg Smith points out, “folk” means “of the common people.” It was something the educated class looked down on, but that the common people engaged in. They often mixed these practices with Christianity, believing they were gifts and knowledge from God. Yes, Ouija boards and tarot cards fall under this umbrella. So does energy healing. Voodoo might also be considered an extreme example that falls under this category.

But it can also be equally as innocent as folklore. Examples can include your grandmother’s home remedy for colds; your co-worker’s favorite hangover cure; hanging mistletoe at Christmas to draw kisses; drinking sugar water to get rid of hiccups; the old man in your ward who can use his bad knee to predict the weather; singing to your plants while gardening to make them grow; using essential oils on your menstrual cramps; drinking ginger ale for an upset stomach; people who listen to their “gut instinct” or “mother’s intuition”; etc. Even things as innocent as painting Easter eggs or decorating Christmas trees can fall under this category.

Examples of divinely sanctioned “folk magic” also abound in the scriptures: Joseph of Egypt’s divining cup; Jacob’s rod of poplars that he used to make sheep bear more of the types of lambs Laban had given him; Moses’s staff; the ephod or Urim and Thummim the Levite priests used; the Ark of the Covenant; Oliver Cowdery’s divining rod; the lots the Apostles cast; the Liahona; the glowing stones that guided the Jaredites; Abraham’s Urim and Thummim; Christ spitting in the dirt to make clay to cure blindness; the words the Savior used to raise Jairus’s daughter from the dead being similar to a magic spell of the day; the use of consecrated oil; the brass serpent; and, of course, the Nephite interpreters.

We don’t think of those things as being “magic” or “occultish” or anything spiritually dangerous, because they’re not. The word “magic” in this sense is incorrect. Heavenly Father has a long history of using physical objects as well as the knowledge and beliefs of His followers to teach them lessons and help them receive revelation. If someone believes in the power of casting lots to receive direction from God, for example, He will sometimes give them direction through that means.

“Magic” doesn’t inherently equal “bad” or “wrong.” It just depends on how the word is being used. When it’s sanctioned by God, it’s an effective teaching tool. It’s simply a means to achieving His goals. That’s an important concept to understand before we dive into what the Letter For My Wife has to say about the topic.

President Oaks once clarified this difference:

It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seer stones, 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.

The use of these physical objects or unusual means has to be sanctioned by God, or it’s not appropriate. But when it is appropriate, there’s nothing wrong with it. It might be a little weird to us in our day and age to think about, for sure. It’s not common in our society, so it’s not something we’re used to. But “different” doesn’t mean “bad.” Remember, God works in mysterious ways, and those ways are not always our ways.

And because there was some confusion on Reddit over what I am trying to say, I am not defining “folk magic” as “the use of all tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance” the way that President Oaks told us not to do. I am saying that some people define it that way. Some people consider things like crystal balls or tarot cards, or perhaps people who claim to be psychic, as gifts from God. They conflate those things with spiritual gifts and mix the pagan with the divine. They use the same umbrella term of “folk magic” regardless of whether it was a spiritual gift or not.

The Church does not define it that way and states that only sanctioned use of physical objects to channel faith is legitimate and appropriate. In those cases, the common umbrella term of “folk magic” is incorrect. Because it’s confusing to use such a broad term to discuss such nebulous concepts, there is now a trend away from this term in religious scholarship. Even Joseph Smith separated his ability to use a seer stone for the mundane (like finding lost objects) and for the holy (like translating ancient records by the power of God) as being two different things. My intention was to show what was being implied by the “folk magic” label vs. what the reality actually is when it comes to divinely sanctioned objects and gifts. I hope that clarifies what I’m trying to say here.

So, with that said, what does Thomas Faulk think about all of this?

Folk Magic

Could Joseph Smith’s experiences actually be products of his family’s practice of local folk magic? BYU Studies Quarterly describes the Smith family culture when it stated, “In frontier America, seer stones or ‘peep stones’ were commonly used by lost object finders, people engaged in the widespread practice of lost treasure digging.” (BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol.55, No.1, 2016)

It took me a moment to hunt this paper down, since Faulk didn’t name it or link to it. I was pleasantly surprised when I did, though. I’d never read it before, but I found it fascinating and very helpful in explaining some things I’d had questions about.

Faulk positions this quote as though it’s casting doubt on Joseph’s prophetic calling, but in context, it’s not. The author, Eric Eliason, instead spends his time defending the use of seer stones against claims of “weirdness” or of its being “a troubling problem” in our Church’s history. Faulk actually cuts the quote off mid-sentence, again without any indication that the quote has been edited down. I still maintain that using a partial quote made to look like a full quote is dishonest behavior.

The actual quote, in context, reads:

In frontier America, seer stones or “peep stones” were commonly used by lost object finders, people engaged in the widespread practice of lost treasure digging, and sometimes by people seeking to uncover the kind of truths we might call a private or police detective for today. It is unclear how much of this kind of activity Joseph Smith was involved in, except for water divining and treasure digging, which are widely attested. The “seer” in seer stone is a biblically literate early American culture’s reference to the biblical term seer explained in 1 Samuel 9:9 as an earlier term for a prophet—more specifically one who saw visions, dreams, or scenes in the mind’s eye, or even with the natural eyes. Moreover, God gives the seer insight into the meaning of his or her visions (2 Sam. 24:11; 2 Chr. 9:29; Jer. 1:11–18). All of this fits quite nicely with how Joseph Smith saw himself.

To Bible scholars, the Urim and Thummim is one of several items similar to the ephod and lots used to determine the will of God or seek information from him. (The Liahona in the Book of Mormon follows this pattern.) It seems that early Mormons began to use the terms seer stone and Urim and Thummim interchangeably, with the latter convention winning the day. But both terms emerge from biblical practices and understandings.

As you can see, his point was actually that Joseph using a seer stone was perfectly in line with the Biblical patterns of “seers,” something that Joseph was specifically called to be.

In fact, there is a late, thirdhand account of the First Vision in which Joseph is described as saying that the Father touched Joseph’s eyes, which allowed him to see the Savior. Joseph apparently physically touched his eyes to show how this was done as he recounted the vision. (This account can be found in full at the link by scrolling to pages 755-756. It can also be found in Paul Cheesman’s infamous thesis, as well as in many of the following links.)

Now, this account was recorded in 1893 in the journal of a man named Charles Lowell Walker. Walker heard it from John Alger, the brother of Fanny Alger, who heard it from Joseph. The Algers were obviously quite close to Joseph, and this account was apparently given in an intimate gathering in Joseph Sr.’s home. This sets it apart from other second- and thirdhand accounts. However, it came very late and it is a thirdhand account, so we do need to treat it with the proper caution.

Scholars such as Matthew Brown and Dan Peterson don’t believe this was a literal, physical touch if the account is accurate, but a metaphorical one.

Conversely, historian Don Bradley argued passionately for its literalness in both a FAIR presentation and a paper published in the Journal of Mormon History, which can be downloaded here for free. A prominent reason he gives for taking the account literally is that it follows scriptural pattern. Isaiah describes his mouth being touched by a seraphim, allowing him to speak on the Lord’s behalf. The Savior cures one blind man by anointing his eyes with clay, and two more by simply touching their eyes. In the Book of Abraham, the Lord touched Abraham’s eyes, letting him see all of creation. In the Book of Moses, the Lord also had Enoch anoint his own eyes with clay, letting him see things that were not visible to the normal eye and calling him as a seer. And the Brother of Jared saw the Lord’s finger touching the stones to light the barges, as well as the interpreters given to him for the record he would later write.

Greg Smith also covered some of this in a fantastic fireside, seeming to agree with Bradley that it was a literal touch.

However, regardless of where we come down on the physical touch vs metaphorical touch issue, Bradley lays out some strong supporting evidence. In that light, I do think we need to at least consider the possibility that this thirdhand account is accurate. Again, it should be viewed skeptically, but I think there’s enough there to grant it hesitant legitimacy.

If true, it’s an absolutely beautiful detail that I wish was preserved in other accounts. Whether a literal touch or not, it follows the Lord’s pattern. And the Lord does love patterns. In each of those scriptural instances, the touch was a manifestation of the prophet’s call to see and to speak. When it was the Savior Himself doing the touching, it was as a manifestation of His own divine role. It would stand to reason, then, that Joseph also received a manifestation of his calling as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

Next in the letter comes a series of quotes. The first is a lengthy one from Ronald W. Walker:

Director of Center for Western Studies at BYU and president of the Mormon History Association, Ronald W. Walker, put the Smith family’s activities in historical context.

“From Colonial times to at least the age of Jackson [1776-1837] Americans dug for magical treasure. There were hundreds and probably thousands of these money diggers all seeking troves of fabled coins, mines, jewels and other valued prizes.

“The money diggers placed faith in conjuring elemental spirits, thrice spoken dreams, seeric gifts and enchanted treasure.”

“Clearly the ideas of hidden but guarded treasure with their secondary and accompanying motifs of ancient texts, animals, boxes, devils, caves, gold, incantations, mountains and even the ratifying number three, were an ancient bequest.”

“A treasure-finding device used by adepts was the “peep” or “seer” stone, whose acclaimed gifts excelled even those of the divining rod. Such stones seemed to be everywhere and were of every possible description. Joseph Smith’s various stones reportedly included a smooth, grey, egg-shaped rock found in a neighbor’s well, a second which he reportedly dug up near Lake Erie after espying it in his neighbor’s stone, and still others collected from the Mississippi River sands near Nauvoo, Illinois.”

“With most village seers requiring that the light be secluded, this stone-in-the-hat procedure was standard. By this method, an adept could see within the stone crystal a helpful spirit or the precise locality of the underground treasure.”

“While finding the right moment to dig was important, the need to circumvent the treasure’s guardian was crucial. Like its Old World antecedents, the American treasure keeper might be demonic or divine. Or it could be a cat, dog, snake or some other protecting animal. But generally the American treasure guardian was a murdered youth or man whose body had been left with the buried valuables to ensure their protection. Guardian Indians were a frequent motif while a murdered pirate protected Captain Kidd’s troves.”

“As Vermont’s early nineteenth century emigration swept into upstate New York the money digging frenzy came with it. Such superstition was frequent in the new settlements. The Palmyra Reflector labeled the New York money hunting mania, “Men and women without distinction of age or sex became marvelously wise in the occult sciences, many dreamed and others saw visions disclosing to them, deep in the bowels of the earth, rich and shining treasures (Palmyra Reflector, February 1, 1831).”

“Rumors constantly swirled about hunters’ smiling fortunes, which excited still others to further digging. Smith family reportedly found objects as a cannon ball, a cache of gold watches, and according to the viewpoint of some of their neighbors, the golden plates which produced the Book of Mormon. Indeed in ways that are yet to be explored, money digging may have influenced two of the nineteenth century’s major social and religious movements Mormonism and Spiritualism. Its touch on American society was not light.” (Ronald W. Walker, The Persistent Idea of Treasure Hunting in America. https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/ index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/5447/5097)

Before I dive into the actual quoted material, I do just want to point out that the paper in question begins with this caution, which Faulk appears to have ignored:

I wish to make another point explicit. Nothing in my study should be taken as suggesting that Joseph Smith was merely a product of his folk culture environment. No English or American village adept ever produced a Book of Mormon. None produced a Vision of Moses, the Olive Leaf, the Three Degrees of Glory, or such magisterial ideas as sections 93 and 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. At every major point in his career, there were second and third witnesses for Joseph Smith’s work. And when he died, he left a church that dwarfed anything that might have been built by a run-of-the-mill village holy man. Some may see this success as simply the work of a “religious genius.” My own conviction is that Joseph was a religious genius because of an active and guiding Providence.

Walker also states that this paper was written in an academic, neutral tone and advises the reader not to be thrown off by that. He confirms that he does believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet guided by the Lord. This paper was also not written to cast doubt on Joseph’s calling. It was merely to research the history of “money digging” in New York and New England during the 1800s, and to see what kind of affect that may have had on Joseph’s family and upbringing.

And again, there are huge chunks of omitted text from this quoted portion. Multiple paragraphs and even full pages were removed and there are more partial sentences, all without any indication that they were edited. I know I keep stressing how shady this practice is, but there’s a reason for that. It truly is dishonest to imply that you’re quoting the full material when you aren’t. I don’t have the space to quote the full thing here, and I don’t begrudge Faulk for not quoting the entire thing either. But you have to show omission marks when printing an edited quote. Please, don’t accept these quotes at face value because they are not complete.

For one notable example, the line, “Such superstition was frequent in the new settlements,” is actually a line by a fictional character from a James Fenimore Cooper novel, not Walker’s own words. Faulk completely cut out the attribution, as well as the acknowledgment that it was a quoted passage.

Also missing are several passages describing those who engaged in this practice as upstanding and respectable citizens who were honest, hard-working Christians. These people were not acting under any demonic influences, nor were they lazy men and women unwilling to work. Though in certain places and times, the practice was looked down on, in other times and places, it was highly regarded. It was commonplace and a well-accepted practice in Vermont, where the Smith family was from, as well as in upstate New York, where they eventually moved. Joseph wasn’t even the only “village seer” in and around Palmyra. As recounted last week, he found his first seer stone by looking in the stone of another Palmyra seer, Sally Chase.

However, by the early 19th Century, these practices were starting to fall out of favor in the Americas. Parts of the country shunned the practices on religious grounds. And, as stated, in many places the educated class, which often included the clergy, looked down on these folk practices as either superstition and nonsense, or as something evil or dangerous. Joseph, in particular, became a target of this religious wrath after his First Vision became publicly known.

As Mark Ashurst-McGee explained, “Joseph wrote that because he had claimed to see a vision the local ministers united against him and spoke against him to their congregations, but they did not speak against his visions. As Joseph had claimed that Jesus told him all current churches were false, he posed a threat to the clergy. By denouncing Joseph’s treasure dowsing, the minsters could undercut his visionary claims to any who might have heard it without informing any of the flock who had not.”

I know that’s straying a little far from the quoted sections Faulk cited, but I think it’s an important point to note. Joseph’s character and his practices of treasure hunting and using a seer stone were condemned while others engaging in the same practices in his town were not. A significant reason for this is because his claims threatened the beliefs and the livelihoods of the local clergy.

Faulk continues:

“Like many other New Englanders, they were familiar with searches for lost treasure by supernatural means. Joseph Smith’s father was reputed to be one of these treasureseekers, and Joseph Smith himself had found a stone, called a seer stone, which reportedly enabled him to find lost objects. Treasure-seekers wanted to employ him to help with their searches. One, a man named Josiah Stowell, hired Joseph and his father in 1825 to dig for a supposed Spanish treasure near harmony, Pennsylvania. The effort came to nothing, and the Smiths returned home, but the neighbors continued to think of the Smiths as part of the treasure-seeking company.” (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Smith,Joseph)

Again, this is an edited quote and an incorrect URL. The paragraph in question is as follows:

The discovery of gold plates in a hillside resonated strangely with other experiences of the Smith family. Like many other New Englanders, they were familiar with searches for lost treasure by supernatural means. Joseph Smith’s father was reputed to be one of these treasure-seekers, and Joseph Smith himself had found a stone, called a seer stone, which reportedly enabled him to find lost objects. Treasure-seekers wanted to employ him to help with their searches. One, a man named Josiah Stowell (sometimes spelled Stoal), hired Joseph and his father in 1825 to dig for a supposed Spanish treasure near Harmony, Pennsylvania. The effort came to nothing, and the Smiths returned home, but the neighbors continued to think of the Smiths as part of the treasure-seeking company. Joseph Smith had to learn, in his four years of waiting, to appreciate the plates solely for their religious worth and not for their monetary value. The angel forbade Joseph to remove the plates on his first viewing because thoughts of their commercial worth had crossed his mind. Joseph had to learn to focus on the religious purpose of the plates and put aside considerations of their value as gold.

The point of the paragraph was not to highlight the weirdness of Joseph engaging in treasure-hunting. It was to show that he ironically found the buried treasure he was looking for, but couldn’t use it for financial gain. He wasn’t allowed to obtain it until he could put aside those desires for money and seek instead to glorify God and help build His kingdom.

“By 1825, [19 yrs old – 5 years after the First Vision] young Joseph had a reputation in Manchester and Palmyra for his activities as a treasure seer, or someone who used a seer stone to locate gold or other valuable objects buried in the earth.” (Elder Steven E. Snow, Church Historian, Ensign, September 2015)

Yep. Putting this quote back in context, the article in question says:

Joseph Smith first arrived in Harmony in the autumn of 1825. Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, wrote that earlier that year “a man by the name of Josiah Stoal [Stowell] came from Chenango County, New York, to get Joseph to assist him in digging for a silver mine. He came for Joseph from having heard, that [Joseph] was in possession of certain means, by which he could discern things, that could not be seen by the natural eye.”

Stowell was a prominent resident of South Bainbridge, New York, and for a man of his standing to be searching for buried treasure was not at all unusual, since it was a common folk practice of the time. By 1825, young Joseph had a reputation in Manchester and Palmyra for his activities as a treasure seer, or someone who used a seer stone to locate gold or other valuable objects buried in the earth. Thus, it was no surprise that Stowell specifically sought out Joseph’s services.

What this article doesn’t say is that, during Joseph’s 1826 trial for “glass-looking,” which we’ll discuss next week, Stowell testified on Joseph’s behalf. During that testimony, he explained that while he was considering hiring Joseph, he tested his seeing ability. Joseph looked into one of his seer stones and perfectly described Stowell’s farm and buildings, as well as a tree that had a man’s hand painted on it. This is what convinced Stowell that Joseph really could see things in his stone.

“Yet on that visit there was an attempt to reconcile Joseph and his father-in-law, for an invitation was extended to Joseph and Emma to make their home in Harmony. Isaac, with evident paternal concern and with some compassion, indicated to Joseph that if he would move to Pennsylvania and work, giving up “his old practice of looking in the stone,” Isaac would assist him in getting into business. Isaac claims, “Smith stated to me he had given up what he called ‘glass-looking,’ and that he expected and was willing to work hard for a living.” (Isaac Hale, father of Emma Hale Smith, History of the Church, Vol.1. Ch.2)

This quote is not from The History of the Church, Volume 1, Chapter 2, as claimed. It’s from the notes of the Annotated History of the Church found at the Book of Abraham Project website. In turn, this footnote information was taken from Susan Easton Black’s chapter in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: New York, “Isaac Hale: Antagonist of Joseph Smith.” The ultimate source of this information is from an article titled “Mormonism,” containing several affidavits of the Hale family and others from Harmony. This article was published in the Susquehanna Register on May 1, 1834. The Isaac Hale affidavit is dated March 20, 1834, and claims to be taken largely from a letter Hale wrote to D.P. Hurlbut in December, 1833. The affidavits collected by Hurlbut comprised some of the material used in the creation of E.D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed. Howe paraphrased some of Hale’s affidavit in the text.

There’s some slight controversy over whether or not this affidavit was fake. Apparently, there were accusations that Hale had gone blind in his old age—he was in his 70s by this time—and was incapable of signing his name to the affidavit or of knowing what it truly said as written. However, most historians do accept it as accurate, as there is no record of Hale ever disputing its contents.

The following information was taken from Susan Easton Black’s chapter cited above.

Hale was openly hostile to Joseph by this time, and blamed Joseph for stealing away his daughter. He personally had engaged in treasure-hunting with his brother, and allowed Joseph and the other diggers working with Josiah Stowell to live on his property while they searched for the treasure. Ultimately, he had soured on the practice after no treasure was found. He seemed to hold Joseph personally responsible for this failure and refused him permission to marry Emma. Later, they eloped, which caused a lot of strain with the Hale family.

However, for a time, Hale was willing to let Joseph and Emma live in a house on his property and to defend them against the neighbors’ persecutions. This only extended so far, unfortunately. When his brother-in-law, Nathaniel Lewis, a local Methodist preacher, ramped up his own vitriol against Joseph, Hale unfortunately followed suit. The last time Emma ever saw her parents was in 1830. Things had grown so hostile between them all that she never returned to visit. By 1834, Hale was quite bitter against Joseph, and it showed in his affidavit.

Of course, he made no mention of his own history of treasure-seeking, and used it instead as an attack against Joseph. And by the point in time that Joseph allegedly made that promise, he was done with “glass-looking” for profit. He hadn’t yet figured out how to translate the plates, and was actively looking for someone else to do it for him. Though he shortly began translating through the Interpreters and his own seer stones, I don’t believe that Joseph was lying when he gave that promise to Hale. If he did indeed make the promise, I think that he considered using his stones in his calling as a prophet to be entirely different from using his stones to seek treasure and other lost objects. That was a hobby; translating the plates was a calling.

Faulk wraps up this topic with one last sentence:

The Smith family’s use of seer stones to find buried gold treasure was a common folk magic practice in New England.

Yes, it was—but the treasure Joseph ultimately found was far from common.

At this stage of my life, my testimony is pretty unflappable. I’ve read most of this stuff many times before. I’ve spent years studying Church history as a hobby. I read a lot, and I’ve taken the time to sort through how I really feel about all of these topics. These things simply don’t bother me.

But they might bother you, and that’s okay. It really is okay to take the time to sort through your feelings and to pray and study the information. It’s why I source as much as I can, and why I try to link to as many online resources as possible. I want you all to be able to read it for yourselves. I want you to learn how to study this kind of thing with the Holy Ghost’s help. You can access the Spirit when you study secular things. You can do it when you study Church history, too.

His help isn’t just for studying the scriptures or for asking questions about doctrine or leadership. He doesn’t just guide us to the truth of the Gospel. He guides us to the truth of all things. That means that, with His help, we can sort through the lies and distortions and come to an understanding of what really happened. We can pray for enlightenment and the ability to understand why things happened the way they did.

In closing out this post, I just wanted to touch briefly on the words of President Monson:

We live in a time of great trouble and wickedness. What will protect us from the sin and evil so prevalent in the world today? I maintain that a strong testimony of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of His gospel will help see us through to safety. If you are not reading the Book of Mormon each day, please do so. If you will read it prayerfully and with a sincere desire to know the truth, the Holy Ghost will manifest its truth to you. If it is true—and I solemnly testify that it is—then Joseph Smith was a prophet who saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Because the Book of Mormon is true, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church on the earth, and the holy priesthood of God has been restored for the benefit and blessing of His children.

If you do not have a firm testimony of these things, do that which is necessary to obtain one. It is essential for you to have your own testimony in these difficult times, for the testimonies of others will carry you only so far.

When you study the history of Joseph Smith, you’re studying the history of the Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel. When you study the Book of Mormon, you’re studying the fruits of Joseph’s calling as a prophet. They go hand in hand.

While you study these topics and other events in Church history, do it with the scriptures and the Holy Ghost at your side. Don’t neglect those things for the sake of academic pursuit. They work together. Keep praying, and keep Heavenly Father apprised of your progress. Ask Him your questions. Lean on His Spirit to guide you to the truth. We all need to learn how to obtain and also maintain our testimonies. We all need to become as unflappable as possible. Otherwise, the prophets have warned that it won’t be possible to survive spiritually in the coming days. That’s a dire warning that we all need to take seriously. We need to learn to rely on the Holy Ghost, and that includes while we’re studying difficult or controversial topics. It’s the only way we’re going to see the truth.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 6: The Early Church – The Translation [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Yesterday the Church History Department made public the Prison Journal of Belle Harris. Harris spent approximately three months in prison in 1883, along with her baby, for refusing to testify about her plural marriage to her ex-husband, Clarence Merrill, during the time when the federal government was attempting to crack down on the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While there, she was received visits and support from various leaders such as Eliza R. Snow, Emmeline B. Wells, Presendia Huntington Kimball, Zina Huntington Young, Mary Isabella Hales Horne, Romania Bunnell Pratt, Bathsheba Bigler Smith, George Reynolds, Charles W. Penrose, and A. Milton Musser.

In her journal, Harris is described multiple times as a “plucky” woman, and her personality and faith really come out. Here are a few examples:

Well another day has nothing of importance to record axcept that I had a visit from Marshal [John W.] Greenman and Mr Putman the latter expressed great sympathy for me and thought it a shame that I should be made to suffer because he said he knew that I was pursuaded to act as I was doing and that I never would go in to plurality again I told him I supposed he had a right to his own opinion regarding the matter and he talked for some time regarding the wick[ed]ness of the mormon system of marrig [marriage] said he would cut his right arm off before he would place a woman in such a situation said I ought to an[s]wer those question and get away from this place I spoke for some time and gave him a few ideas about afairs genealy [generally] regarding my what I thought to be my rights as well as the priveiledes [privileges] of the latter day saints. So said he didnt come to try to pick any informat[i]on but simply as a friend. I could meet an avowed enimy but a wofl [wolf] in sheeps clothing I do despise. it is a perfect mystery to those who do not understand our faith how I can think of staying here when to an[s]wer 2 or three questions would insure my liberty [p. 5] and yet that abominable sheet the S. L. Tribune5 says I have not the courage to say that I am married while holdeing a babe in my arms I wonder who they think I am afraid of I should think I have proved that I dare am not so great a cowerd for rather than assist in giveing evidence which I know was calculated to mark [make] mischief I dared to brave the terrors of a fellons [felon’s] den. those who accuse me of cowerdice are in my extimation not worthy the notice of a woman who is not afraid to assert her wrights and the wrights of her people. (24 May 1883)

it is just a month to day since I was arrested but it seems much more than that to me Sister Jospehine smith [Josephine Groesbeck Smith] wife of John Henry smith visited me to day and I was so glad to se[e] her for I felt very lonely havent had mayy [many] visitors lately one of the guard told me that there was a letter on there table this morning requesting them to have nothing to say to me I suppose the Marshal thinks that this will make me feel so badly that I will surrender immediately though luckily I did not come here to be entertained by any of the guard and therefore shall not feel to lament a great deal (10 June 1883)

tomorrow I persume I will know how wheither I am to make this wreched place my home for the summer. S. A. Kenner visited me yesterday and said they had apointed friday to consider this case but I am afraid they will have to consider it a week or two before coming to a decision I had quite a conversation with the warden this evening he said I was to leave here at 9 o clock tomorrow morning he also expressed a hope that I would not have to return and said he, if your Lawyer dont get you out of here he ought to be shot he didnt say what he thought of the man that got me in here but said he thought it was a fearful thing that people would beleave in a religion that it was possibly get them into this place he doesnt understand our religion nor the persecution we have to put up with. I asked him if he intended staying in utah if so he ought to visit among the mormons and become aquaint [acquainted] for himself he would then know how false a great ma[n]y statements were, which had been given him for facts [p. 20] he said he excepted that was true I told him he could not find industrious, honest upright people. he did not answer me for I persume he did not beleave all I said for he is terribly predigiced against us but he and his wife have been very kind to me and have repeatedly expressed their sentiments with regard to my being brought here though they do not place the blame where it ought to be. (21 June 1883)

July 16 To day Sister Musser and her daughter Flora [Stenhouse] came to see me they brought me callicoes and other materials for mysels [myself] and baby. they also brought many presents sent by different ones among which was half dozzen cans of suggar of lemonade Miss Musser [Flora Stenhouse] perposed making some lemonade which I heartly endorsed and she accordingly made a pi[t]cher full we all drank the gaurds joing [joining] us and so cheerfull and hapy were we that one not knowing would scarcely take me for a prisoner and the gentlemen who were so kind and court[e]ous for my jailors Sister Musser said my friends were joining togather to buy my baby a carri[a]ge How kind and generous they all are to me I often ask myself if I am worthy the friendship and esteem which has been universely expressed for me by all the Saints and many who are not have expressed decided admiration for my [p. 43] conduct I feell to give thanks to my Heavenly Father for thus surrounding me with so many friends in my hour of trial I know that the Lord will overrule for the benefit of those who seek to serve him and I know that he has blessed and sustained me and also enabled me answer the inquisitive questions that have been asked me by non mormon reporters and others who were desirous to learn something about my affairs without giveing any information which I did not wish them to know (16 July 1883)

This journal adds to the available opportunities to see this turbulent time through the eyes of the people involved. It is valuable for historical purposes and is also an inspiring read. It is freely available to read at the Church Historians Press website at https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/belle-harris?lang=eng

Other recent projects that are freely available:

The Discourses of Eliza R. Snow

The Diaries of Emmeline B. Wells

There will also be a symposium on “Women, Religion, and Records” held this weekend on Saturday, February 25. Admission is free and it will also be available via Zoom. More information here: https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/news/announcing-a-symposium-on-women-religion-and-records?lang=eng

Trevor Holyoak is the Vice President of FAIR. He has been actively involved with FAIR for many years and received the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award in 2014. He graduated magna cum laude from Weber State University with a BS in computer science and now works as a programmer and systems administrator. He is currently serving as a stake emergency preparedness director and in the leadership of the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club. He and his wife have five children and live in Cedar Hills, Utah.

The post The Prison Journal of Belle Harris now available from Church Historians Press appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This week, we’re moving on to the Book of Mormon translation method. Faulk opens this section with a banner of several paintings showing Joseph apparently reading from the plates without the Urim and Thummim anywhere in sight. These exact same paintings were part of the collage featured on the similar section of the CES Letter. Since we’re talking about Book of Mormon artwork, I’m sure you can guess where this is going.

He begins:

The Church has always taught that the translation process of the Book of Mormon looked like this: Joseph Smith read the golden plates like a book, translating the text out loud to Oliver Cowdery, who served as scribe.

This is a claim Faulk makes without any supporting evidence. He doesn’t link to a single source from any Church leader, manual, or website to back his allegation. That’s because, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any. I looked, but I couldn’t find a single instance of anyone with any degree of authority saying what Faulk claims “the Church has always taught.”

Could certain members have taught this in Sunday School or Primary? Sure. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that some did. But that isn’t “the Church.” That’s an individual member. We aren’t a monolith. Unless something comes directly from the Church itself—from the prophets, apostles, website, magazines, or manuals—it’s individual opinion. And passing something along out of ignorance is very different from passing it along in order to deceive.

Notice that Faulk doesn’t go into specifics on his claim. That’s a little problematic because thoughts are going to vary on the details. Was there a curtain between Joseph and his scribes? Were the plates on the table beside him, or kept out of view? Were they wrapped in a cloth, or open on the table like you see in those paintings? Did Joseph wear the spectacles with the Nephite interpreters to “read” the translation from the plates themselves? Because he wasn’t wearing them in any of those paintings. Or did he look in them and see the words without looking at the plates? Did he attach the spectacles to the breastplate and wear them both, or just the spectacles, or neither? Did he take the stones out of the spectacles, or did he try to wear them the entire time? If he took the stones out, what did he do with them? Did he cup them in his hands, or place them on top of the plates, or put them in his hat? The questions are endless, and the witness statements and other contemporary accounts allege most of these things at different times.

Beyond that, Faulk’s only provided evidence for this claim is that the artwork reflected the idea that Joseph “read” from the plates like from a book. But how did he do that? The interpreters aren’t found in any of those paintings, so how exactly was Joseph supposed to read from a book featuring a language he’d never seen before? If that’s how “the Church” taught Faulk the translation method, did he even know about the interpreters at all? Is he claiming those are brand new pieces of information, too?

This entire argument is silly. Art is subjective. It’s meant to evoke feelings and atmosphere, not to be 100% historically accurate. There are many famous works of art that aren’t historically accurate: Washington Crossing the Delaware, Guernica, the Pietà, etc.

Arnold Friberg’s Book of Mormon paintings are iconic, for example, but they aren’t very accurate to the text, either. The Nephites weren’t riding horses while carrying metal swords and wearing Roman battle armor. They didn’t stand up on brick walls 50 feet high. I doubt Abinadi had a 6-pack and arms that rival Chris Hemsworth’s. And in 600 BC, Israeli men had an average height of 5 feet tall. This means that Nephi would have been “large in stature” at 5’5”. That’s not exactly the tall, broad-shouldered He-Man body double we picture when we think of Nephi.

How many times have we seen a movie “based on actual events” that ends up bearing little resemblance to the facts? Or a movie adaption of a book that only vaguely resembles the source material? It happens all the time, because artists have their own vision of how to best portray something.

Historian Anthony Sweat illustrated this dichotomy between history and art:

[T]rue art and true history rarely, if ever, fully combine. They are intertwined entities (history needs to be visually represented, and artists need meaningful history to create impactful images), but their connection more often creates difficult knots instead of well-tied bows that serve both art and history. These knots often result because the aims of history and the aims of art are not aligned, often pulling in entirely different directions. History wants facts; art wants meaning. History wants to validate sources; art wants to evoke emotion. History is more substance; art is more style. History wants accuracy; art wants aesthetics. The two disciples often love, yet hate, one another as they strive to serve their different masters….

The tension lies in that historians, scholars, and teachers often want paintings that are historically accurate because images often shape our perceptions of history as much as, or perhaps more than, many of the scholarly works about history. … Thus, when paintings carry apparent egregious historical errors, manipulations, or complete fabrications, there are some who bristle and wonder why the artist didn’t paint it more accurately, wishing that painters and sculptors and the like wouldn’t engage in revisionist history by distorting reality.

However, artists often have little to no intent of communicating historical factuality when they produce a work. Artists want to communicate an idea, and they want to use whatever medium or principle and element of art that it takes to communicate that idea to their viewers. In doing research on this topic, I interviewed a handful of well-known and talented Latter-day Saint artists and asked them various questions regarding the responsibility of an artist to paint historical reality. Almost unanimously, they said the artist carries no responsibility to do so.

Faulk continues with a preview of what’s coming up in the rest of this section:

The context surrounding the translation process raises issues that are not evident to members of the Church. These issues involve the actual translation using a seer stone, Joseph’s use of folk magic, and his trouble with the law regarding these circumstances.

Again, I don’t know that these things are “not evident to members of the Church.” Individual knowledge on these topics will vary, as with all things. However, I think that most members of the Church, at least in the US, are aware that Joseph experienced legal troubles throughout his life. Most of us are also now aware of the seer stone if we weren’t aware before.

Knowledge of these issues isn’t the only thing that will vary. So will whether or not we deem these topics to be controversial, and if so, to what degree. I don’t find them to be particularly controversial, personally. You might, and that’s okay.

The Actual Method

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (Russell M. Nelson, A Treasured Testament Ensign, July 1993. Quoting David Whitmer’s Address to All Believers In Christ. 1887)

Yep. I’ve said this before, but this article was where I first learned of Joseph’s personal seer stone and its role in the translation process. I was 12 years old, and had been flipping through my parents’ copy of the Ensign. I thought it was really interesting, reading these details I’d never read before.

It did catch me off-guard, obviously. But almost immediately, the questions came into my mind, “Does it matter? Does it change anything?” And I thought about it for a minute, then realized it didn’t. It didn’t affect my testimony at all. Joseph Smith using two seer stones in spectacles and Joseph Smith using his personal seer stone in a hat were essentially the same thing to me. All that was different was that I was learning more of the actual details. To me, it was like the way I’d added pre-algebra to my knowledge of math that year in school. It was just adding new knowledge to my existing knowledge.

However, some people reacted very strongly to the information. I don’t dismiss that at all; it just wasn’t my experience. To me, it only warranted a temporary pause and then I shrugged and said, “I guess I didn’t know as much about it as I thought I did.” But to others, it was deeply unsettling. I don’t know why we reacted so differently to the information. I just know what I’ve said before: that, as with all things in this Church, individual knowledge and experiences will vary.

Contrary to general Church teachings, Joseph did not read the gold plates like an open book at all.

What “general Church teachings” taught that? Faulk didn’t point to any, he just pointed to a few paintings. I couldn’t find any manuals, Church magazine articles, quotes from Church leaders, Conference addresses, or anything else that said that’s how the translation process happened. Joseph couldn’t read Reformed Egyptian, and the spectacles notably were too large to fit his face. Numerous reports said as much. And again, those paintings don’t show Joseph using the Nephite interpreters at all. How was he supposed to “read the gold plates like an open book” without any translation aids when he couldn’t read the language on them?

And it’s odd that Faulk would make this statement immediately after citing President Nelson saying otherwise in the Ensign, the Church’s largest, most widely-read publication of the time period. That article was also the transcript of a talk that was given to more than 100 mission presidents, who were then directed to disseminate the information to their missionaries. It was being sent out to as many missionaries and families as possible. Wouldn’t that constitute a “general Church teaching”?

Rather, during the translation process he buried his face in a hat that contained a common rock.

Seer stones are not “common rocks.” They are stones “specially designated” for a “sacred purpose.” There are numerous myths and legends from all over the world about special stones that glow, heal people, and allow their owners to see things. Joseph’s main stone actually has a pretty cool history of its own, apart from its purpose in aiding Joseph in his role as a seer.

As for putting his stone in a hat to block out the light, that was the common method of using seer stones in Joseph’s day. It may sound weird to us today, but it wasn’t weird to Joseph. That was the most effective way he had of blocking out the light so he could see more clearly.

The gold plates were either covered by a cloth where no one, including Joseph, could see them or they were in a different location altogether.

Typically, they were beside him and covered with a cloth, yes. At times, they were nearby in a safe location, but not within easy reach.

I’m curious as to why Faulk seems confused by this. If they were sitting out in the open every day, why would it have been a momentous and special occasion when the Witnesses saw the plates? Wouldn’t every single person living in or visiting the Whitmer, Hale, and Smith homes have seen them on too many occasions to count? The idea of Joseph “reading” from the plates in front of his scribes is completely incompatible with the stories we’ve all actually been taught about the Witnesses. How exactly did Faulk imagine that worked? He doesn’t say. What he does say leaves far too many questions to be sure of his intent.

But of course the plates had to have been hidden by a cloth or box. There’s no other way for the testimonies of the Book of Mormon Witnesses or any of the translation witnesses to make sense.

The Church knew the true method, yet commission works of art and film and use the education system to teach otherwise.

How does the Church “use the education system to teach otherwise”? Again, Faulk offers no evidence or examples to back up his claims.

As for the Church commissioning works of art that show otherwise, Anthony Sweat quotes an artist as saying that he’d been commissioned by the Church several times to try to create works showing the use of the hat. However, each time he tried, it didn’t look right. It didn’t evoke the feelings he wanted it to evoke, and it just looked weird rather than inspiring. He said that some things don’t translate visually. This is why you see the same scenes from scriptures depicted multiple times, and other events don’t get depicted at all.

Sweat’s own attempts at drawing Joseph with the hat came off looking like Joseph was ill and was vomiting into his hat. He joked that he should have called it “The Sick of Joseph.”

So, it’s not that the Church wasn’t trying to commission the art pieces. It’s that they just didn’t look right. They didn’t create the atmosphere the artists wanted.

Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” (Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26, Oct. 1, 1879. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang= eng#28)

Yes, that’s what she said, and the historical record bears that out. There are numerous similar accounts, both by friendly eyewitnesses and by hostile sources.

Emma Smith and David Whitmer describe Joseph’s use of the seer stone and hat, but this information had all but been buried.

“All but been buried” is a stretch, in my opinion. They both did describe the translation process that way, and they were far from the only ones. FAIR has compiled many of the accounts by year:

Accounts from 1829-1835
Accounts from 1836-1840
Accounts from 1841-1845
Accounts from 1846-1900
Accounts from 1901-2000

A great many of them describe Joseph putting one or several stones in his hat and looking into it to read the plates.

And a lot of them also say other things, which is part of the reason for the confusion. Most of the eyewitness accounts conflict with each other in various ways. These aren’t like the First Vision accounts, where they all tell the same story though some have additional details others don’t. Some have a curtain between Joseph and his scribe, some say it was all done out in the open. Some say the Nephite interpreters were used, some say it was Joseph’s brown seer stone. Some say he used the spectacles, some say he used his hat. Some say he read the plates, others say the words appeared in the stone. Etc. It has since been determined that most of those things are correct for different portions of the translation. Initially, though, it did create rather a lot of confusion for historians.

Furthering that confusion was the fact that both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph’s personal stone were referred to as the “Urim and Thummim.” That became a generic term used by the early Saints for any kind of seer stone. This made it difficult to understand which stone or stones was being used.

And unfortunately, as both David Whitmer and Emma Smith left the main body of the Church and refused to go West, and both actively denounced plural marriage, they were looked on with suspicion and even hostility by several generations of Latter-day Saints. That made the Saints less inclined to believe their testimonies. In fact, Joseph Fielding Smith referred to accounts of Joseph’s seer stone as “hearsay” in Volume 3 of Doctrines of Salvation, saying he didn’t believe it was used at all.

Over time, however, historians began finding more and more sources to corroborate the story, and they began taking the issue more seriously. And yet again, the Hofmann forgeries proved to be a blessing in disguise. Because so many of his forgeries were initially confirmed by multiple agencies to be genuine, historians began trying to integrate some of his claims into Joseph’s history. By doing so, they uncovered many of these accounts for the first time in decades. With the new information coming to light, perceptions began to change. Though Hofmann’s more outlandish claims were proven false, new discoveries had been made that needed to be added to the story.

So, the situation was more nuanced than Faulk would have us believe. It wasn’t exactly that the information was being deliberately buried or hidden. It was that many Church leaders in the mid-1900s didn’t believe it was true and didn’t understand that “Urim and Thummim” meant more than just the Nephite interpreters. They rejected the accounts they were aware of as being “errors,” to quote President Smith. They simply weren’t aware exactly how many accounts there were backing up the claims. Again, doing something out of ignorance is not the same as doing it out of malice. Deception requires intent.

There was a span of 35 years between 1939 and 1974 in which the Church didn’t publish this information in any official publication due to the reasons outlined above. However, they did still publish this information repeatedly both before and after that span of time. I’ll link to some of those other mentions momentarily.

In December 2013 the Church released an essay addressing the translation of the Book of Mormon issue. Finally, after public criticisms, the seer stone is again mentioned for a new generation of members.

Again, this is not an accurate statement. Faulk seems to be employing the same tactic Jeremy Runnells did, insinuating that the Gospel Topics Essays were the first time the Church had ever published the information found inside. The 2013 Essay was not the first time this topic had been addressed by the Church, its leaders, and its historians. It wasn’t even the first time it’d been addressed in the current generation.

I already linked to two mentions in official Church publications, the October 1939 Improvement Era and the September 1974 Children’s Friend. There was also the previously linked article in the July 1993 Ensign. Additionally, this information was mentioned in the September 1977 Ensign, the January 1988 Ensign, the January 1997 Ensign, the very popular second edition of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, a book by Elder Maxwell, a book by B.H. Roberts, and a 2005 book put out by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute (which was closed that same year after many of the historians moved over to the Joseph Smith Papers Project). This last book mentions the seer stone approximately 30 times. Other publications include BYU Studies Quarterly, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the FARMS Review, and more.

The mentions were not frequent, coming every few years rather than every few months. However, most of those mentions were in prominent publications, ranging from official Church magazines to books written by apostles. Opening the Heavens was a precursor to the Joseph Smith Papers volumes. The second edition of Mormon Doctrine in particular was a staple feature in many Latter-day Saint homes in the 1970s-80s. It didn’t go into much detail and it did quote part of President Smith’s negative opinion. But it also equated Joseph’s personal seer stone with the Urim and Thummim, despite coming in the middle of the period in which it was believed those accounts were erroneous.

“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.” (Book of Mormon Translation, LDS.org/topics)

On August 4th, 2015, LDS.org published an article titled, Joseph the Seer. It contains the first ever, official image of one of Joseph Smith’s seer stones. It is the very same stone Joseph found while digging a well on the property of Willard Chase in 1822.

There are actually multiple stories of how Joseph discovered his stones, and some of them conflict. Mark Ashurst-McGee traces much of the history and clarifies many of the conflicted stories in his Master’s thesis, which is archived at Book of Mormon Central. The Ensign article in question does not specify exactly how Joseph came to be in possession of this particular stone.

According to Ashurst-McGee, he seems to have discovered the brown stone first by looking into his neighbor Sally Chase’s seer stone, and then discovered the white stone second, in the Chase property well. He also eventually found two others in and around Nauvoo.

The white stone is the one that Martin claimed Joseph used to find lost objects, including a pin Martin had dropped into a pile of straw and wood shavings. It also appears to be this stone that Martin switched, leaving Joseph temporarily unable to translate. However, later translation witnesses described Joseph using his brown stone. So, he potentially used at least four stones to translate the plates: the white one, the brown one, and the two Nephite interpreters.

Essentially, the brown seer stone pictured in the Ensign article is not “the very same stone Joseph found while digging in a well on the property of Willard Chase in 1822.” However, it is one of two of Joseph’s personal seer stones potentially used during the translation process.

For nearly 200 years the Church has had the stone in their possession yet never actively taught about it; and in the case of former president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith, has denied its role. (Doctrines of Salvation Vol.3)

That the Church had some of Joseph’s seer stones in its archives was perhaps not well-known prior to the publication of the Ensign article, but it was also not unknown. Historians were aware of it, having access to the archives. And the stones had certainly been referenced in the past, as was the acknowledgment that the Church had at least one in its possession. Even Joseph Fielding Smith says as much on that very same page in Doctrines of Salvation that Faulk references here. It was the same page I cited above when describing Smith’s “hearsay” and “errors” quotes:

The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar of the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.

Again, this information was not widely known nor discussed in most circles, but it was available. It was information published by an apostle and prophet, among others. Obscure, yes. Hidden, no.

And yes, as mentioned repeatedly, President Smith didn’t believe that the seer stones were used during the translation. As he goes on to say, this was because he believed so intently in the statements made in Ether 3:22-24 and by the Angel Moroni that the Nephite interpreters were preserved for the translation that he didn’t think it was possible that Joseph would use other stones for convenience’s sake.

More work has been done in this area since President Smith’s tenure as leader of this Church. We obviously know more now about the translation process than he did. He was mistaken. It happens. It was also probably a lapse in judgment to state his opinion so directly when there was a chance others would see it as revelation rather than opinion.

However, he did clarify that it was his personal belief that it was incorrect. He also said that reports of Joseph using the Urim and Thummim after the plates were given back to Moroni were “evidently” errors. And he was right that all of the accounts including this information are from people other than Joseph himself. Technically, they could be classified as “hearsay,” though many of the accounts were given firsthand from people who witnessed the translation unfolding in front of their own eyes.

He maybe should have taken his position and audience into account when giving his opinion, but he was clear that it was his opinion. His statements were not nearly as forceful as critics would have us believe. They aren’t even as forceful as Faulk himself, who has so far made several declarations of fact that were incorrect. And frankly, President Smith was entitled to hold those opinions. We know now that he was mistaken, but that doesn’t lessen his calling as a prophet. It also doesn’t change the fact that we’re all allowed to hold opinions that may end up being wrong. We’re human. It happens. It’s what happened here.

But as Elder Holland said, the limitations of human frailty are not limitations in the divinity of the work. Rather, those limitations are in our fallen, human vessels. Getting little things wrong occasionally doesn’t mean we can’t be called to serve God in whatever capacity He calls us to serve in. He’s used to working with mortals and our limitations. He understands we’ll make mistakes sometimes. That’s why we need to show each other the same grace He shows us.

Charity is the pure love of Christ, remember. So, let us have charity toward President Smith in this regard. He made a mistake. He didn’t do anything we haven’t all done many times before.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 5: The Early Church – The Translation [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: Why Do You Need Prophets Anyway?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Matthew 7:15-20 Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful answers to New Testament questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about prophets. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

A common question from Evangelicals is why do we think we need prophets? Aren’t they easily identified as false prophets? And to be honest, when I was investigating the church this was the hardest issue for me to grapple with. The idea of having prophets made literally no sense to me. These days I can see it how other Latter-day Saints see it – it’s a blessing and a gift – but back then I felt suspicious. So why is it so hard for Evangelicals to understand the need for modern prophets? I think there’s two reasons and we’ll talk about both of them.

First, Evangelicals are suspicious of the idea because they have a belief that Jesus is the last prophet – and to call anyone who comes after him a prophet is to be disrespectful to Christ. Where does this belief come from? Let’s look at Hebrews 1:1-2 “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” I know, to your Latter-day Saint ears there is no problem with that verse. You don’t hear it how they hear it. For them that verse sounds more like, “but in these last days we will only hear from Jesus.” As with most scripture quagmires, a careful reading of the text helps us out a bit. All they hear is, “Jesus was the final prophet, no more prophets will come.” But that’s not what the text says, and it’s not what the New Testament shows.

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets, at many times and in various ways” – We have no disagreement with Evangelicals there. The problem comes here, “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things.” In that they hear that Jesus is the last and greatest prophet, that him being the “heir of all things” means that no other “heirs” are needed. The problem here, of course, is that we’re talking about prophecy in a few different ways. When we say that we have a living prophet on the earth today we are not saying that the prophet is greater than Jesus. The Old Testament prophets pointed to a future day when God would save his people. Then Jesus came. Now modern prophets still point to Jesus. Evangelicals are confusing the role of Jesus as prophet with the role of all the Old Testament and modern day prophets. It’s a bit nonsensical since they don’t literally think Daniel or Habakkuk are in competition with Jesus. But they feel very sensitive to the idea of upstaging Jesus. One way to talk about this with them is to talk about what a modern prophet does – points us to Christ over and over.

And then the second issue comes up. Evangelicals wonder why they would need someone to, “point to Jesus” when they already have a few reliable sources of doing that. They see the New Testament as pointing to Jesus (and we certainly wouldn’t disagree with them there); they see the Holy Spirit testifying to them of Jesus (again, no disagreement, we believe the Holy Ghost does that too); and they rely heavily on the concept of the, “priesthood of all believers” meaning that they themselves contain all the needed gifts to hear from God, no “mediator” needed. We’ll talk much more about the priesthood of all believers and what that means when we get to that section of scripture but for now we’ll just say that Evangelicals basically believe that no leader can hear from God any better than they can. Their own pastors teach them, but if the individual doesn’t like what is being taught then they move to another church where they like the teaching better.

Latter-day Saints may find it odd to say it this way, but there is a sense in which Evangelicals believe that by doing this they are emulating, as closely as possible, the New Testament church. They would say they’re just trying to boil down to the essence of the gospel and follow that as much as they can. And it might sound odd to you, but underneath that is a desire for Restoration.

They can easily look around and see that the Evangelical world is in trouble in some very real ways. And they long for God to reach down and set things straight. Sound familiar? What a fascinating opening to talk about what it means that we have a restored church. It might surprise you, Latter-day Saint to learn that many, maybe even most, Evangelical churches sometimes talk about how they’re really just trying to live in a way that contextualizes the New Testament for today’s world. They think they’re living a kind of restoration. I want to talk a little more about that in way you might be somewhat familiar with.

This comes from the work of Dr. RoseAnn Benson. She previously had been in the Ancient Scripture department at BYU and now teaches at Southern Illinois University. Her book is Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19th-Century Restorationists and it’s worth reading. Let me explain what she says and then you’ll see how it relates to Evangelicals. My apologies to Dr. Benson for this simplistic summary. Her work is layered and deep and beautiful and I cringe at the way I’m about to summarize it for you, but summarize it I will.

The year is 1830 and Parley P. Prat (PPP) has been corresponding with his friend Sydney Rigdon. You know from church history that Rigdon is a Campbellite preacher at this time. PPP and other missionaries convert him and about 100 others including 5th President of our church Lorenzo Snow and his sister Eliza R. Snow. This is the basic church history information that you probably already know. What you might not know is that the Campbellite movement considered themselves a Restorationist movement. They thought they were doing the work of bringing the restoration, but they were going about it with an entirely different strategy. The Campbellites believed at that time that in order to restore the Lord’s true church they needed to pare down the essence of the gospel and remove everything that wasn’t essential.They wanted to strip away everything that was not the very basics. They wanted to clear things to the side that didn’t support the goal of restoring the the very essence of the gospel. They were trying to take the very heart of what the Bible teaches and bring it into their day in a way that would get rid of all the errors that had crept into the church over the decades. You can kind of see the logic in what they’re doing.

What happens when PPP and Sydney Rigdon meet in person is that PPP is able to agree with him about the need for a restoration – but that Joseph Smith was teaching the restoration doesn’t come from paring everything down. Joseph doesn’t want to take everything away that isn’t the rock-bottom essentials. Joseph wants to restore everything. Every, everything. He didn’t want to push anything to the side – he wanted to open everything up. To restore it all. Once Rigdon, and 100 others including the Snow family, hear this they understand. They already believed a restoration was necessary – but now they understood it wasn’t going to come through removing parts of what God had established, it was going to come through restoring everything.

Back to our Evangelical friends.

They already know things need to be restored. This is where the mental health therapist comes out in me. If they don’t trust you, or you don’t have enough relationship with you, they are not going to feel safe admitting that any kind of restoration is needed. They will feel defensive and not open up. That’s okay, it just means you need to earn more relationship collateral with them. But if they trust you enough to admit that there can be some issues with their church from time to time, you can probably have a pretty cool conversation about what restoration would look like – is it a paring down of everything so that an individual person sitting alone with their Bible is enough? Or is it a restoration of everything – so that the individual can certainly sit alone with their Bible, but they are also guided by a Prophet from time to time to keep them headed in the right direction?

Now, I told you I would tell you how I gained a testimony of having a Prophet and here it is.

Three and a half years ago I was in the middle of taking lessons from the missionaries. (If you haven’t heard my conversion story it’s a fun one and I’ll put a link to it in the description below where you can listen to it on the FAIR website. But, warning, it has some difficult themes in it and probably isn’t great to listen to around small kids – teens and up would be fine.) From Anglican Minister to Relief Society Sister – Interview with Jennifer Roach – FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org) And honestly I was struggling with the idea of having a Prophet. I’ve seen the worst of what can happen in churches when people in power take advantage of that power (listen to my story if you want to know more about that) and I was skeptical that a man with that much power could be trusted.

One day the missionaries say, “The Prophet is coming to Seattle and we have tickets for you.” At the time I didn’t know that this was an unusual thing. Maybe the Prophet just drops by from time to time. But it was a very special event and it was held at Safeco Field, the baseball stadium. It was a beautiful summer evening and 50,000 people showed up to see Russel M. Nelson. And he was great, just like you’d imagine. But it wasn’t his talk or anything in the evening’s program that made me change my mind. What helped me was that when I arrived about half an hour before the event was to begin and sat with friends from my ward. While we were waiting everyone around us was talking about “their prophet” – usually the one who had been leading the church when they were young, and what it meant to them to have a leader like that. To be totally honest I think my own skeptical nature on this topic would have kept me from trusting a man I didn’t know and will never meet. But I saw what having a Prophet did in the lives of my friends and how much goodness it brought to them. And I was converted to the idea that very night – not by President Nelson’s words, though they were great, but by the testimonies of my friends.

I hope these words have given you some thoughts about how to talk with your Evangelical friends about the idea of Prophets. If you have a question an Evangelical friend has asked you that you’d like to get some insight on please email me at jroach@fairlatterdaysaints.com. I got an email this week from some Sister Missionaries in the Houston, Texas mission so shout-out to Sister Cox and her companions. I’ll be answering their question in an upcoming episode. And I look forward to seeing you all next time.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 6–7 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

As we wind down on the First Vision discussion, I want to take a moment to say again how important this topic is. This event truly was the foundation for everything that came afterward. As such, this is also a pillar that we need supporting the firm foundation of our personal testimonies. There’s been a lot of conversation online recently over Kevin Hamilton’s excellent BYU devotional, “Why a Church?” In that talk, Hamilton pointed out that you can’t separate Jesus Christ from His church or His chosen representatives. Christ Himself endorsed these men to lead His earthly church. That means that He also endorsed Joseph Smith. Therefore, when you stand in opposition to the Church or to the prophets, you are also standing in opposition to Christ. When you criticize the Church or the prophets, you are also criticizing Him for giving them His stamp of approval. And when you dismiss Joseph Smith as a fraud, you are also dismissing The One who called Him to help restore His Priesthood to the Earth.

That’s not the same thing as having questions. Not having a testimony of Joseph Smith yet is not equivalent to openly attacking him and his character. But when you go beyond questioning and start protesting, you’re crossing a line the prophets have repeatedly warned against. There is no room for activism or “loyal opposition” in this Church, just as you can’t stand in opposition to Joseph while still claiming a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Priesthood power, or the fulness of the Gospel. It just doesn’t work. As President Oaks taught in the April 2016 General Conference, “However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not.”

We all come to have our favorite prophets and apostles over time. Different teaching styles resonate with different people, so those favorites will vary. Someone who loves President Oaks’s matter-of-fact approach may be somewhat tired of Elder Uchtdorf’s frequent plane analogies. Someone who needs President Nelson’s guidance on learning to receive personal revelation may not gravitate as strongly toward President Monson’s focus on charity. Someone who feels heard and seen by Elder Holland’s deep empathy for those struggling with depression or anxiety may not be as grateful for President Eyring’s unfailing cheerfulness. All of that is okay. But when you start criticizing them for not being exactly what you want or need in that exact moment, you’re also criticizing the Savior, who deeply felt every moment of pain you have ever experienced.

Similarly, when you attack the First Vision, you also attack Joseph Smith. And when you attack Joseph, you attack everything that he helped to bring forth. And when you attack this Church and its prophets, you also attack Jesus Christ. I fully respect having honest questions. Every single member of this church has unanswered questions. This church was restored precisely because Joseph had unanswered questions of his own. But I can’t respect using those questions to attack Joseph, this church, the other prophets, and especially my Savior.

As I read through this portion of the LFMW and noticed the doublespeak and the criticism masquerading as confusion and doubt, it annoyed me. It’s manipulative. It’s condescending. And it cheapens the experiences of those who legitimately struggle with this issue.

Faulk picks up his letter with a debate on which First Vision account we should trust:

Which One is Correct?

In 1902 The Church decided to adopt the 1838 version of Joseph’s First Vision as the official account now contained in The Pearl of Great Price – Joseph Smith History.

So, again, Faulk’s facts are incorrect. Elder James E. Talmage did separate the text into chapters and verses in 1902 to make it more readable. Those changes were approved in that October’s General Conference. However, the Joseph Smith—History, including the account of the First Vision, was a part of the Pearl of Great Price from its very first printing in 1851. It was also included in the 1878 version, which was canonized as scripture in 1880.

At this time, the only two widely known accounts of the First Vision were this 1838 version and an account from 1842 from what is known as the Wentworth Letter. Presumably, the 1838 account was included in the Pearl of Great Price over the 1842 Wentworth Letter account because it was much more detailed, but I don’t know that for certain. It seems clear, though, that it wasn’t chosen over the 1832 account for any nefarious purposes.

Though the 1832 and 1835 accounts were included in a compiled record now titled Joseph Smith’s History, 1834–1836, this book was neither finished nor published. Its contents, along with Joseph’s journals, found their way to Salt Lake City with the main body of the Saints, but were put into the Church archives and largely forgotten over the years.

The title of this portion, “Which One is Correct?” also positions these accounts as somehow being in conflict, or battling it out for which one is the accurate one. I think that’s where a large part of the difference between us is, because to me, the different accounts all complement one another. They go hand-in-hand. It’s not that if one is correct, the others all have to be incorrect. They can all be accurate. They can all be truthful. They don’t contradict one another. They’re remarkably consistent. Some of the accounts have more detail than others, and some of them focus on different things, but they all tell the same story.

As the Gospel Topics Essay on this subject says, “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. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.”

Next, the LFMW quotes from the Pearl of Great Price account:

Pearl of Great Price – Official account

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:15-18)

This bit is all very straightforward. We’re all familiar with this account. Faulk then provides a little table, contrasting the 1832 account with the 1838 account:

Looking at that table, the first thing that jumps out at me is that he has two lines, “desired for mercy vs prayed” followed by “prayed vs overcome by power of Satan.” Those are juxtaposed as being two separate differences between the accounts. But he easily could have put “prayed vs prayed” and “desired for mercy vs overcome by power of Satan.” He put “saw a pillar of light vs saw a pillar of light,” after all, so he wasn’t only listing differences. For some reason, though, rather than acknowledge the identical aspect of Joseph praying in each account, he positions it as being two separate discrepancies. That feels dishonest to me.

As far as the first line goes, critics also like to point out that this exact same dilemma occurs within the span of a few verses in the 1838 account. However, as Steven Harper explains, it’s a dilemma with an answer. The conflict was between Joseph knowing something intellectually, in his mind, and having it confirmed to him in his heart by the Spirit. Joseph may have thought that no churches matched Christ’s Biblical church, but he hadn’t fully grasped the fact that none of them were uncorrupted. He grew up surrounded by numerous feuding Protestant sects. Protestants believe that the church had become corrupted too, and needed a Reformation to correct it. Joseph hadn’t yet understood that it actually needed a Restoration instead.

His desire for mercy/wanting his sins forgiven is mentioned in several of the accounts, and so is the acknowledgment that they were forgiven. However, it’s absent from the 1838 account. I don’t personally consider this a conflict between the accounts—people often have more than one reason for praying, especially if something is weighing on them on for some time the way this was.

He doesn’t mention being overcome by that thick, gloomy darkness in the 1832 account, that’s true. He does mention it in the 1835 account, but it’s a fair criticism. Again, though, different accounts highlight different things for different audiences. That’s normal and to be expected when someone gives multiple accounts of the same story—unless they’ve rehearsed it.

And let’s not forget how difficult writing was for Joseph. In another blog post, Steven Harper discusses a letter that Joseph wrote to Emma about five years into their marriage. Joseph was away from home at the time, helping Newell Whitney recover from an accident. This is how Harper describes the letter and the subsequent First Vision account:

The letter is in Joseph’s hand. It is composed of just two sentences. Their average length is about 300 words. In them, Joseph jumped from topic to topic. He was a jumble of emotions. He spelled creatively. He asked Emma to excuse “my inability in convaying my ideas in writing. [sic]”

The inability to convey his ideas in writing was one of the horns of Joseph’s dilemma. The other was that he had been commanded to convey his ideas in writing….

Joseph confessed and exposed his mere literary abilities on the opening page [of the 1832 account]. Here in his earliest autobiography, he highlights the horns of his dilemma: he has a marvelous experience to share, and he feels inadequate to share it. In a single sentence of 137 words, there are misspellings, awkward phrases, misplaced modifiers, and no punctuation. It’s natural to wonder why Joseph waited twelve years to write an account of his vision. Discovering how burdened he felt by that task leads us to appreciate the fact that he ever wrote it at all. (emphasis added)

Joseph was not a man who had any confidence at all in his writing ability. Of the few handwritten letters we have from him, several contain apologies for his lack of skill. All of them have poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, and missing words and phrases. The vast majority of his words throughout his lifetime were captured by scribes, not by his own hand.

As a 2020 article for the Church News points out, “Consider the many dramatic events in young Joseph’s life that were not recorded until 1832: Almost losing his leg as a child. Moroni’s visit. Joseph’s courtship and marriage of Emma Smith. The death of their first four children. ‘Joseph did not make any sort of historical record,’ said Elder [Kyle S.] McKay, ‘until the Lord gave him the commandment: ‘There shall be a record kept among you.’’”

Also consider this: it was a common thing for various articles and letters to be repurposed by the early Saints and repeated multiple times across different publications. This account was never published a first time, let alone multiple times. Each time he tried to write the account, he soon abandoned it and started again, rather than polishing and publishing the prior accounts. This tells me that neither of them were good enough to Joseph. He considered the two prior accounts inferior in some way to the 1838 account, because he wasn’t comfortable capturing exactly what happened.

He didn’t know how to tell his own story, because he was trapped by his inability to write clearly. So, if there are things in those early accounts that were left out or that are unclear, to me that makes perfect sense. I’d be surprised if they didn’t have those problems.

As for the last line of the table, Faulk addresses that discrepancy in more detail:

“I saw the Lord” vs. “I saw two Personages”

The difference is quite significant, especially in the most important piece of information they are communicating. If they are both supposed to be of the same event, then why would the official account say he spoke to God and Jesus, while Joseph’s journal say he only saw theLord?

We discussed the question of whether Joseph mentioned both God the Father and the Savior in his 1832 account last week, but just to recap, it’s possible that he didn’t. The Savior did the bulk of the talking, so Joseph may have just concentrated on Him. Not mentioning the Father’s presence doesn’t mean He wasn’t there. Again, Joseph struggled with how to express his thoughts and feelings, and writing was very difficult for him. If you look at the original manuscript, he skipped a lot of words and phrases that had to later be corrected. It’s entirely possible he just focused on the Savior because it was easier than trying to explain in full detail what he’d experienced.

However, it’s equally possible that Joseph did mention the Father in this account. As Greg Smith demonstrated, in Joseph’s day, “testimony from on high” was very commonly used to refer to the times in the Bible in which the Father announced that the Savior was His Son and to listen to Him. That’s exactly what happened during the First Vision, and “testimony from on high” is mentioned in the introduction to the 1832 account as being the first event that helped shape Joseph’s role as a prophet.

Additionally, multiple scholars have posited that on two occasions where Joseph used “the Lord,” he may have meant God in the first instance and Christ in the second.

Since Joseph accidentally skipped the word “Lord” in the original manuscript and had to later edit it in, it’s possible he originally had a different word in mind that would have further clarified the situation.

Also, his motivation for praying seem to be different and his experience with Satan is missing.

We’ve already discussed both of those points in this post, so there’s no need to do it again.

No priesthood or Sunday school manual has ever mentioned that Joseph himself originally wrote that he only saw one personage, not two.

I didn’t have time to try to hunt down and go through every single Sunday School manual the Church has ever put out, but I did find something that calls this line into question. The original LFMW was written and posted to Reddit in 2016. The Foundations of the Restoration Teacher Manual for Seminary and Institute, which was first published in 2015 and then updated in 2016, spoke about the different accounts of the First Vision. Additionally, the Gospel Topics Essays were written and posted to the Church’s website in 2013, several years before this letter was written. While those were not Sunday School manuals, the Essays were actively discussed in many of our Sunday School classes when they were newly released.

It’s possible there are other manuals that discuss the various accounts. There are hundreds of manuals you’d need to wade through to confirm or refute that allegation. Faulk made a claim like this precisely because it’d be extremely time-consuming, if not nearly impossible, to debunk it.

However, in addition to that manual and the Essay, these various accounts were discussed at length in numerous official Church magazines. You can search them by year at FAIR, but here’s the major ones:

April 1970 Improvement Era
September 1976 Ensign
September 1978 Ensign
January 1985 Ensign
January 1986 Ensign
April 1996 Ensign
January 2005 Ensign

Faulk continues:

Continued Concealment

Using the vast resources of the Church education system, members are not informed of the inconsistencies relating to Joseph’s visions.

I would again advise Faulk to speak only for himself, as this is not true of every member of the Church. Experiences will vary depending on the teacher’s knowledge and focus, as well as the student’s willingness or ability to retain information.

You can also hardly claim the Church was hiding these accounts when they were published repeatedly over the span of decades in the Church’s official magazines, on their website, and in at least one of their manuals.

I honestly don’t remember when or where I first learned of the different accounts of the First Vision. I do know it was prior to the Gospel Topics Essays. It wasn’t a surprise when I read the Essay about this topic, but that’s all I can say for certain. I can’t claim to have learned about this topic in Seminary, for example, or from reading my parents’ Ensign, because I simply don’t remember.

It also appears that average members are not the only ones surprised by this evidence. President of the First Quorum of the Seventy, S. Dilworth Young, published a statement in the Improvement Era on this subject.

“I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story, concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith. I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.

This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How then could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?” (S. Dilworth Young, Improvement Era, General Conference edition, June 1957)

This rather shocks me, actually, for several reasons. There are two omissions in this full quote that are not marked by ellipses. Additionally, the first paragraph here was actually two different paragraphs originally. The context of the quote is also missing, giving it an entirely different spin than the one Young did in his Conference talk. The quote, given in context, should read:

I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story, quoted by Brother Bennion, concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith. I am convinced as I grow older and become proportionately wiser that if boys and girls in our Church could keep that story uppermost in their hearts, believing it, having a testimony of it, much of the ills of our youth which President Richards so graphically portrayed this morning would not be.

I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two Beings.

This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in its nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How then could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?

It seems to me, too, that had he evolved such a thing, his enemies would have used it against him. In 1838 there was a crisis in the Church. Men were falling away. It was at that time that Oliver Cowdery became disaffected. If any man in this Church had ever heard that story of the first vision, Oliver Cowdery must have heard it. Yet his reasons for disaffection were never given as an evolution of the first vision. Other men of that time did not use it as their excuse. In 1844 when the final conspiracy was concocted to murder Joseph Smith, the reasons given by those men were not discrepancies in his story of the first vision, but rather other matters far removed from it.

When Joseph wrote the story in 1838, men and women who had known him ever since he had started this work took the story in their stride, that is, it was common enough knowledge from the beginning that no one took an exception to it. Everybody knew it; everybody had heard it; not exactly in the words in which he wrote it—I believe no man will speak extemporaneously in the same manner that he will write something—but essentially the same, and when the Saints read it, it merely confirmed what they had heard over and over again.

His mother should have known something about it. You will remember, he walked into her house that morning and told her that the church to which she had given her allegiance was not true. To my way of thinking, he must have told her all about the vision. When she chose to write the story of her son’s experience, she did not put it in her own words. I suspect that she must have felt that so nearly was what he had written the way he had described it to her, that she quoted his written statement.

This statement was given in 1957, 8 years before the 1832 account was first published. It was also well before an analysis showed that in Lucy’s autobiography, her interviewer/ghostwriter padded her memories with direct quotes from many different sources that Lucy herself did not quote. This would have included Joseph’s account of the First Vision.

However, Young’s point remains that nobody accused Joseph of adding to or altering his recollections of the First Vision when additional accounts with further details were written or published. His account in 1838 matched the stories that had already been floating around, as we went over a few weeks ago. Even his harshest critics never made that accusation against him. That’s the point Young was making, not that Joseph couldn’t possibly have given accounts with slightly different details.

The rumors Young described were in reference to the then-mostly unknown 1832 account. Surprisingly, Faulk doesn’t go into its history, even though it’d have given him a stronger case if he had. But since I am all about providing context, I’ll outline it here.

As I went over above, Joseph’s handwritten account was buried in the Church archives for a good century or more before it was finally published. His account is found on the first few pages of a notebook that was later repurposed as a letter book (where copies of his letters were recorded before being sent, something that was popular in that day and age). That letter book eventually made its way to Salt Lake, and was stowed away in the Church Historian’s Office.

That office was originally quite small, and things were haphazardly stored. None of the people called to work in that office were actually professional historians, and many of them didn’t know how to properly care for older records. Any avid student of history will wince at the treatment this notebook received in that office.

You see, sometime between its arrival in Salt Lake and its publishing in 1965, someone cut the account out of the letter book and stashed the pages in the safe in the Head Historian’s Office. The best guess is, this was done sometime after 1930. One of the pages did not tear out properly, and a corner was left in the book. It was removed and taped onto the corresponding page with clear tape that was not invented until 1930. It’s possible that the corner was taped years or even decades after the pages were removed, but most likely, it was done at the same time.

We also do not know for certain who did this, or why they did it. There are some good guesses, however. Joseph Fielding Smith had been a worker in the Historian’s Office since 1901, and was made the official Church Historian in 1921, where he served until 1970. As he was the Church Historian at the time the pages are believed to have been removed, he is the likely person who removed them. However, one of his senior assistants, A. William Lund or Earl E. Olson, also could have done it. They all had access to that office and that safe.

Several people were given access to this account during the time it was locked in the safe. Eventually, Jerald and Sandra Tanner learned of it and demanded to see it. They were refused, but the contents were published later that same year by sources more friendly to the Church.

FAIR explains one possible motive for their removal:

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.

If it was done to keep it hidden, it is odd that it was shown to enough people that there were rumors loud enough to be addressed during General Conference and passed along to the Tanners. It is also odd that it was subsequently returned to the letter book and published. Especially since this happened still while under Joseph Fielding Smith’s tenure as Church Historian. Those aren’t the actions I would personally expect to see if it was being purposely hidden.

Another motive, as speculated in the comments of a 2019 post on Dan Peterson’s blog, could be because the Historian’s Office at that time separated the different documents by content rather than by source. It wasn’t just Joseph’s First Vision account that was removed, but the entire history he began. So, it’s possible that the historians wanted to keep the history separate from the letter book, as they were two different things. And, since they were loose pages in Joseph’s own handwriting, maybe they were moved to the safe to preserve them better than they would be otherwise.

But again, we just don’t know. Either of those theories could be correct, or neither of them. Both theories are speculation.

The 1832 account first came to light in a thesis paper by a BYU student named Paul Cheesman. It was then published to a much wider audience in 1969 by historian Dean Jesse, along with the also newly discovered 1835 account from Joseph’s journal.

So, we don’t know for sure who removed the pages; we don’t know for sure when they removed them; we don’t know for sure why they removed them; and we don’t even know for sure if they kept the pages hidden away. The pages were restricted to those with special permission, but some people still saw them, and they clearly talked about them.

Faulk wraps up the First Vision section with one last recap paragraph:

Considering that First Vision-like accounts were common in New England, that it took 60 years for leadership to become aware of the “two personages”, and the active suppression of this information, it feels hard to be confident in the truthfulness of the First Vision.

Visions in New England and elsewhere in the United States were indeed fairly common in Joseph’s day. Again though, the Lord has a history of preparing His people for significant events in His church’s history. And remember, Joseph was the only one called to help restore the fulness of the Gospel; the only one called to bring forth new scripture; the only one prophesied to be spoken of for good and evil by the entire world; the only one who organized a thriving church that still exists today; and the only one whose name we actually still know today.

Moving on, it most certainly did not take over 60 years for Church leadership to become aware of the two personages in the accounts, as we went over several weeks ago. The Church leaders he quoted from all had additional quotes clearly discussing both personages in the vision. “Angel” was also a synonym for “Christ” in Joseph’s day. And, as stated, the Lord is described as an angel multiple times in the Bible.

There was no “active suppression” of the 1832 account after its initial publication, as the Church was repeatedly publishing them in their official publications, on their website, and in their Seminary and Institute manuals. And prior to its initial publication, there is no actual evidence that the account was being “actively suppressed.” That is only speculation. It may be true, or it may not be. We simply don’t know. Regardless, even if it was being suppressed, people were still shown the account, and it was still published more than half a century ago.

It is not hard to feel confident in the truthfulness of the First Vision. That is what the Spirit is for. All you need to do is get on your knees and ask Heavenly Father if it truly happened. He will tell you. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth of all things, and the Savior Himself promised us that there is no greater witness than that of the Spirit.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 4: The Early Church – The First Vision [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

There are different accounts of the First Vision. That surprises some people, which always surprises me in turn. Who tells a momentous, notable story only one time in their life? Additionally, some people are troubled that the different accounts don’t match up exactly, word for word, each time they’re told. But when someone tells the same stories and same jokes in exactly the same way every single time, what does that tell you? That they’re rehearsed. And that can often have a negative connotation. Even the Department of Justice website advises not to memorize your testimony for court because it sounds unconvincing and insincere.

That’s why the four Gospels differ in many areas, but overall tell a coherent story. The sequence of events, phrasing, and finer details are often different—Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, for example, while Luke 3:23 says that Heli was Joseph’s father. None of those discrepancies mean that the Savior didn’t exist or that the events described didn’t actually happen.

Though all four Gospel accounts tell the story of the Savior’s earthly life and ministry, they don’t all give the same information. Matthew skims over the birth of the Savior and doesn’t even mention the Nativity. Instead, he focuses much of his attention on the Wise Men. Mark and John don’t discuss the Savior’s birth at all and jump straight to His baptism. Luke is the only Gospel where we receive the account of the shepherds and the angelic hosts. That doesn’t mean the authors were lying. It just means they focused on different details and messages. There are variations in the accounts of Paul’s vision and Alma the Younger’s vision, too.

I myself had a profound spiritual experience about 14 years ago that I don’t talk about much. It wasn’t a vision, but it left a deep impression on me and things were revealed to me at that time. On the few occasions I’ve discussed this experience, I’ve highlighted different things, combined things, left other things out, etc. Each time I’ve told it to someone, it’s differed from the account I wrote in my journal after it happened.

And in another recent example, George W. Bush and Seth MacFarlane both gave various accounts of their experiences on 9/11 that don’t match up exactly, either. They even had video of their previous interviews they could watch to refresh their memories, but still got some details wrong. That’s simply the way that memory works, especially when it comes to notable experiences that deeply affect us. Even the law makes a distinction between “discrepancy” and “contradiction” because witness statements will often include inconsistencies.

So, there are different ways to approach the same information. Can you look at each of those things described above and decide that they must be lies because the stories don’t perfectly align? Yes, of course you can—and many have. Can you also look at that those same things and conclude that they’re true because they’re largely consistent stories overall? Yep, you can do that, too. And again, many people have done so. Can you also study the accounts with the Spirit by your side, helping you decipher what’s true and what isn’t? Yes. This is my approach, and that of many others.

As the Gospel Topics Essay states, “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. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration. Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.”

That said, let’s see what the LFMW has to say about the different accounts:

Multiple Accounts of the First Vision

Josephsmithpapers.org records 4 separate accounts of the First Vision by Joseph between 1832-1842.

Yes, and here they are, along with the corresponding links to the Church’s website in case anyone wants transcripts with proper spelling:

1832 account original | 1832 account transcript
1835 account original | 1835 account transcript
1838 account original | 1838 account transcript
1842 account original | 1842 account transcript

You can compare and contrast them for yourselves. Most of them are brief, so don’t let that put you off of reading them. Only the 1838 account is somewhat long, and that’s the one we’re all familiar with.

Earliest account – Joseph Smith’s journal. Letterbook 1A, 27 November 1832:

In his first account written in 1832, Joseph mentions that he had already concluded that the world had apostatized from the faith and that “there was no society or denomination built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He then has an encounter with “the Lord,” but makes no mention of two separate personages. Joseph then writes that his sins are forgiven and the Lord agrees with Joseph’s conclusion about the corruption of Christianity.

Just as a point of clarification, Joseph’s wording is that he found there was no society or denomination that matched what he read about in the New Testament, and that his mind was “exceedingly distressed” over it. He didn’t say he concluded it, or determined it, or settled on it, or anything of the sort. It’s something he found, or discovered, and it really upset him. The reason I point out his phrasing is because that doesn’t sound to me as though he’d made up his mind yet. He was still struggling with the question, trying to fully understand what his heart realized.

This entire account is an emotional one that describes the battle between his mind and his heart. Though the other accounts also describe that same battle, and though they describe events that were clearly emotional for Joseph, the language used is different. They’re more rational, more focused on his thoughts than his feelings.

This account was written when Joseph was still early in his transition from uneducated farm worker to devout student of languages and theology. He was still working on the JST during this time. He hadn’t read or considered the deeper doctrine contained in the Book of Abraham, hadn’t yet studied Hebrew or Greek, hadn’t held the School of the Prophets, hadn’t restored the Endowment or work for the dead, hadn’t given the King Follett discourse, etc. He was still learning how to speak to the entire church as its leader. And he was writing down for the very first time an overwhelming experience that brought him and his family pain and derision. For example, Joseph’s sister Katharine described how their oldest sister, Sophronia, became sick and frail because of the way her own friends treated her in the wake of Joseph’s vision being spread around the town.

So, when he says that his mind was “exceedingly distressed” over something he’d “found” in the scriptures, that tells me that he was still grappling to understand it. It wasn’t something for which he’d already made up his mind and accepted in his heart.

As to Joseph’s references to “the Lord,” multiple scholars, including those who wrote the Gospel Topics Essay on the subject, have pointed out that because his uses of that phrase are separated by time and action, it could just as easily be referring to two beings instead of one. As in, “the Lord [God the Father] opened the heavens, and [then] I saw the Lord [Jesus Christ].”

Supporting this is the original handwritten manuscript. If you zoom in and look at the actual written page, what he originally wrote was, “…I was filled with the spirit of god and the opened the heavens….” The word “Lord” was inserted later when he realized he’d skipped it accidentally. We don’t know what Joseph intended the original word or words to be. Maybe it was “Lord,” or maybe it was “he,” referring back to “the spirit of god.” Or maybe it was “the first personage.” Or maybe it even could have been “they.” We don’t know. All we know is that it was later corrected to say “the Lord.” That may have been his original intention, or it may not have been. If you’re going to claim that Joseph later embellished his accounts to include two Gods instead of one based on this passage, that is quite a stretch when you don’t even know what he originally meant to say.

In a recent fireside, Greg Smith proposed a different theory. The typed account on the Church’s website/LDS Tools picks up with the beginning of Joseph’s first-person narration. However, the handwritten accountcontains a third-person preface. This preface lists four things that Joseph experienced: first, receiving the “testimony from on high”; second, the ministering of angels; third, the reception of the Priesthood in order to administer ordinances; and fourth, the confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood and its authority and keys. These come in order of when they were received. First, Joseph received that testimony from on high. Then, he received visits by Moroni and other heavenly messengers. Third, he received the Aaronic Priesthood. And lastly, he received the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Greg looked up what “testimony from on high” meant in various other writings from the beginning of the 19th Century onward. In those accounts, he discovered something interesting. They all pointed to references from the scriptures, such as the Mount of Transfiguration or at Christ’s baptism, in which the Father testified of the Son, saying, “This is My Beloved Son.” We know from two of Joseph’s later accounts that those words were exactly how God introduced the Savior to Joseph. So, according to vernacular from Joseph’s day, the preface of his first account heavily implying that God the Father was present and testified of His Son, Jesus Christ.

However, you might disagree with these theories. To that, I would argue that it doesn’t really matter if Joseph only described the Savior or both the Savior and God the Father. The Savior did the bulk of the talking during the First Vision. Only mentioning Him does not mean that the Father wasn’t also there.

Say you were hanging out with a group of friends, and later, you saw a mutual friend of one of them. You tell that person that the two of you hung out. That’s completely true, even though the statement leaves out the fact that other people were there with you.

As James B. Allen and John W. Welch wrote:

Finally, remembering that the 1832 manuscript was an unpolished effort to record the spiritual impact of the vision on him, and that the main content of the heavenly message was delivered by the Son, it is understandable that the Prophet simply emphasized the Lord in the 1832 account. Thus, nothing precludes the possibility that two beings were present.

The next three accounts are all lumped mostly together in the LFMW with very little commentary:

Second account – Joseph’s 1835 account notes that while one of the two personages testifies that Jesus is the Son of God, neither personage is specifically identified as God or Jesus. Also sees “many angels.”

Third account – 1838 (draft 2) account adopted as the official version.

Fourth account – 1842 account from the Wentworth Letter notes two personages; again neither identified as God or Jesus.

The very first thing to mention in response to this is that none of the accounts identify either being as God or Jesus.

In the 1835 account, it says, “A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared, like unto the first. He said unto me, ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee.’ He testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God.”

In the well-known 1838 account, it says, “When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

And in the 1842 account, it just says, “I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom.”

From those passages, we can infer that it’s God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, but no account explicitly confirms that.

As for the comment about “many angels,” the amount of First Vision references that refer to “angels,” whether from Joseph or others, is fairly high, as the author himself lays out in his very next point. One notable account he omits is Joseph’s second 1835 journal entry, which discusses his “first visitation of Angels which was when [he] was about 14 years old.” It’s not listed as an official First Vision account since it’s only a passing reference.

Regardless, it was a somewhat common description for the First Vision:

Contemporary Accounts

It appears that Joseph told the elders of the Church a very different experience than any of his written accounts.

The LFMW then gives quotes from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and John Taylor in which they all describe Joseph being visited by “an angel” during the First Vision. I’ll list and comment on each quote in turn, but I wanted to talk about the point as a whole first.

You see, the premise of this section is incorrect for at least three reasons. I’m not saying this to insult Thomas Faulk, but if it’s not meant to be purposely dishonest, it does show a surprising ignorance of both Biblical scholarship as well as LDS Church history for someone who supposedly studied all of this out as a voracious student while writing his list/letter.

The first reason this is a bad argument is because “angel” held a variety of meanings in the mid-1800s. Now, I don’t blame Faulk for not being an expert on American English linguistic history—the vast majority of us aren’t. But that’s why we turn to the handy 1828 Webster’s Dictionary as a reference for how the word was used in Joseph’s day. And what do we find? A definition that says the word could mean “Christ, the mediator and head of the church,” and cites Revelation 10:1 as a reference. What does that verse and chapter describe? A mighty angel coming down from Heaven amid clouds and pillars of fire, carrying a book through which comes the restoration of prophesy to “many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.”

Seriously.

So, if the word was a synonym for Jesus Christ, then all of the different uses of the word “angel” are not in any way contradictory with Joseph’s claims to also have seen the Savior that day. It’s just another way of saying the exact same thing.

The second reason is that the Bible further backs this up. The most common Hebrew word translated as “angel” in the Bible is “ma’lak.” This word has various meanings which are all used in the Bible, including: a messenger or representative (such as a prophet or a teacher like John the Baptist); an angel (a divine messenger who is not God, but has a message for someone from God, such as the Angel Gabriel); and a being who is called the theophanic angel, AKA “The Angel of the Lord,” a being who appears frequently throughout the scriptures and speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims the attributes of God.

By way of explanation, a theophany is when someone has a literal visitation from God, not just a feeling of the Spirit. So, a “theophanic angel” is when God delivers a message to someone while in a human form, as opposed to a cloud of smoke or a burning bush. Most Biblical scholars define the Angel of the Lord as exactly that, a manifestation of Jehovah Himself.

The “Malak Yahweh,” as he is sometimes called, is a figure that was described by many pre-Christian Jews and was “a divine figure, properly denominated Yahweh, but nonetheless distinct from another called Yahweh. The earliest Christians, as well as many other Christian worthies throughout the centuries, have also viewed the Malak Yahweh as a distinct divine person within the Godhead, further explicating it as a Christophany, that is, an appearance of the pre-incarnate Logos or Word of God—the Lord Jesus Christ.”

A “Christophany” is exactly what it sounds like: an appearance of Jesus Christ to someone. Several early Christians believed that this Angel of the Lord/Malak Yahweh was a pre-earthly Jesus Christ appearing as a messenger sent by His Father. And who is the pre-earthly Jesus Christ? Jehovah/Yahweh.

So, basically, all of these different scholars are saying the exact same thing: Jehovah was sent at various times to deliver messages on God the Father’s behalf to His people. That is not just contemporary Bible scholarship; early Christians, Muslim scholars, and Jewish teachers prior to the birth of Christ all believed this figure was a manifestation of Jehovah and/or Jesus Christ, and that He was a separate being from the Father but still part of the Godhead.

And what are angels in LDS theology? Ministers from the Lord who are either pre-resurrected beings made of spirit or resurrected beings made of flesh and bone. Though the Bible Dictionary is not an official statement of doctrine, by the definition of the word that our church typically uses, as a resurrected being the Savior does fall into this category.

Therefore, saying that a visitation from an angel could also be a visitation from Jesus Christ is not a stretch at all. It’s not some absurd twisting of the word that you’d have to be desperately reaching to make. It’s something that numerous scholars from many denominations and world religions across multiple centuries have believed; it aligns with LDS theology; and “angel” was a synonym for “Christ” in Joseph’s day.

And there’s still a third reason this point is poorly made. While Faulk lists a handful of accounts that used “angel” instead of “Jesus Christ,” all of them are quoted from the Journal of Discourses, which should be taken with a grain of salt. The reporters took it upon themselves to edit, delete, add to, and rephrase the sermon transcripts before publishing them, often substantially (also see here, here, and here for further details). We do not have the original transcripts for these four sermons, which means that we can’t be certain any of them are quoted properly.

But even accepting them all at face value and granting that they did indeed say “angel,” Faulk ignores the multiple other contemporary accounts that say otherwise.

William and Katharine Smith both each variously referred to Joseph conversing with an angel, the Lord, and the Father and the Son in his vision. However, most of the contemporary secondhand accounts from others given closer in time to the vision do not say “angel.”

In 1840, Orson Pratt described “two glorious personages” who appeared to Joseph. In 1842, Orson Hyde mentioned “two glorious heavenly personages.” In 1843, Levi Richards wrote in his journal that Joseph “enquired of the Lord” which church to join and “received for answer that none of them were right.” He doesn’t mention how that answer came to Joseph. In a newspaper interview from 1843 that was reported in both the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette and the New York Spectator, Joseph is quoted as describing “a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage.” And in 1844, Alexander Neibaur wrote in his journal that Joseph “saw a personage in the fire” and then, “after a wile a other person came to the side of the first[sic].”

Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde were both apostles. Claiming that Joseph told “the elders of the Church” a very different story than the one he told everyone else is demonstrably untrue. He was telling a consistent story all along.

The first of these quote in question is from Brigham Young:

“The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven … but He did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p.171)

As Greg Smith advised to do in a different fireside given on the CES Letter, the first thing I did when looking this quote up was to check what was removed by the ellipsis. The full context says:

[T]he Lord sent forth His angel to reveal the truths of heaven as in times past, even as in ancient days. This should have been hailed as the greatest blessing which could have been bestowed upon any nation, kindred, tongue, or people. It should have been received with hearts of gratitude and gladness, praise and thanksgiving.

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.

Brigham was not giving a recitation of the First Vision, though he described some of its details. His point was that when God restored the fulness of the Gospel to the Earth, He followed the same pattern for prophetic revelation He always had. It did not come from a thundering army announcing the news to the entire world. Instead, it came by delivering a one-on-one message to a single prophet.

Additionally, none of these quotes are from the only time these people ever referenced the First Vision. Brigham Young referenced elements of it, or was in the proximity of others mentioning it, on numerous occasions throughout his life. Sometimes he used the word “angel,” other times he didn’t. In fact, in this exact same sermon Faulk quoted, Brigham used several phrases from the 1838 First Vision account.

“The same organization and Gospel that Christ died for … is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world … He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world … Joseph was strengthened by the Spirit and power of God, and was enabled to listen to the teachings of the angel. . . . The man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel.” (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol.2, 1855, pp.196-197)

When I looked this one up, my mouth actually dropped open a little bit. Those ellipses are shady:

That same organization and Gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world; and the Lord gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world, that the people had turned away from His true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein there was no profit. He told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene. Joseph was strengthened by the Spirit and power of God, and was enabled to listen to the teachings of the angel. He told him he should be made an instrument in the hands of the Lord, if he kept His commandments, in doing a good work upon the earth, that his name should be held in honor by the honest in heart, and in dishonor throughout the nations by the wicked. He told him he should be an instrument in laying the foundation of a work that should gather tens of thousands of the children of men, in the generation in which he lived, from every nation under heaven, who should hear the sound of it through his instrumentality. He told him the nations were wrapt in wickedness and abomination, and that the judgments of God were ready to be poured out upon them in their fulness; that the angels were holding the vials of His wrath in readiness; but the decree is that they shall not be poured out until the nations are warned, that they may be left without an excuse.

This man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel; he received it in meekness and humility, and bowed down before the Lord and worshipped Him, and did the best he could in his illiterate state; he was as it were but a mere plow-boy.

Woodruff calls the angel “the Lord” twice in the omitted passages. The entire thing also testifies strongly of Joseph’s call as the Prophet of the Restoration. No wonder those portions were cut out.

And again, Wilford Woodruff spoke often of the First Vision, and he used a variety of terms while doing so: the angel; the Lord; the Son of God; God Himself; the Father and the Son (at least five separate times); the God of heaven; and God the Father and God the Son. To claim he was unaware of the details of the First Vision is absurd.

“He [Joseph Smith] went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong.” (George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, 1863, vol.12, pp.334)

Unlike the last one, this quote doesn’t have any omissions. George A. Smith did refer to Joseph being visited by an angel during the First Vision on two different occasions, but he also quoted from and read sections of the 1838 First Vision account on several public occasions, including just the year after this particular sermon.

Additionally, George A. Smith was called as the Church Historian in 1854. The Church Historian surely knew the details of the First Vision. And we know that Smith did, because while serving in that capacity, he published in the Deseret News a history of the Church that included the First Vision. This history stated that Joseph saw “two glorious Beings wrapped in a brilliant and glorious light.”

“How was it, and which was right? None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. We will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol.20, 1879, pp.158-171)

The above statement from 3rd president of the Church, John Taylor, reveals that as late as 1879 (35 years after Joseph Smith’s death; 59 years after his vision) the Church was still not teaching that Joseph saw two personages but only an “angel.” This makes it seem that the official version in the Pearl of Great Price must be a much later revision.

This one is such an insane claim, I’m actually a little surprised it wasn’t in the CES Letter instead. Not only does John Taylor have a lengthy history of discussing the First Vision in some detail, but this particular sermon was given the exact same day as another sermon by Taylor that also referenced the First Vision. In that other sermon, Taylor said, “When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him…”

Like the others on Faulk’s list, he used a variety of terms to describe the vision. Many of them came before this quoted sermon. Those terms included: an holy angel; two glorious personages; the Lord; the Father and the Son; God Himself through his Son, Jesus Christ; God Himself accompanied by the Savior; the Lord accompanied by his Son Jesus; the Lord together with his Son Jesus; both the Father and the Son; God the Father, and God the Son; God and His Son Jesus; Heavenly Father pointed to the Savior; etc.

Imagine having the audacity to claim that “the Church was still not teaching that Joseph saw two personages but only an ‘angel’” after John Taylor himself used all of those other terms. And this is just John Taylor we’re talking about. It isn’t even counting all of the dozens of other references and accounts from multiple people prior to 1879 that clearly say two personages were there. Faulk claims to have been an avid student of Church history. For him to then make a statement like this is mind-boggling. Or blatantly dishonest, take your pick. This is right up there with the very worst things in the CES Letter. It’s a flat-out lie. And he expects any of us to trust anything he has to say after this?

Personally, I’m not in the habit of trusting sources that lie to me. And I hope none of you are, either.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 3: The Early Church – The First Vision [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be talking about the First Vision. Faulk goes on about this issue for the next 9 pages of the LFMW, so we’re all going to get very familiar with the various accounts.

I have a deep fondness for the First Vision. When I was a young child in Primary, learning the words to “Joseph Smith’s First Prayer” was one of the very first times I can ever remember feeling the Spirit. I was so young at the time I didn’t understand what the feeling was or what it meant. I remembered it, though. It became one of the central pillars of my testimony from the day I was old enough to understand what the Spirit had been teaching me. My dad grew up inactive in the Church, and it was the account in the Pearl of Great Price that gave him his testimony. And when I was a teenager, it was the First Vision that I felt prompted to share with my good friend that led her to investigate the Church and eventually get baptized. So, when I say that the First Vision is important to me on a personal level, I do mean that.

This section begins with even more quotes. The first is from President Hinckley:

President Gordon B. Hinckley rests the entire truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on the validity of the First Vision when he stated, “Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [First] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens” (Gordon B. Hinckley, The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith, General Conference, October 2002)

This quote was lifted straight from the opening of the First Vision section of the CES Letter. I’ve always loved that talk, however, and there’s no getting around it: if the First Vision never happened, then the Church is not “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” That event is the foundation for everything that came afterward.

I firmly believe that there is room in our church for everyone, regardless of our current level of belief. However, our church also does make bold truth claims regarding its historicity, truthfulness, and approval by God. The time will come when we will have to decide once and for all what we truly believe. The Lord Himself has promised that we can’t halt longer between two opinions because He will spew us out of His mouth if we are lukewarm in our testimonies.

Someday, we all are going to have to decide if we believe that the Book of Mormon is genuinely an ancient record or not, that Christ is the true head of this church, that we are led by modern-day prophets receiving revelation from Him, and that He and His Father appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees and through him, restored the fulness of the Gospel to the Earth. President Hinckley was absolutely right.

When studying the circumstances surrounding the First Vision, issues arise that are not taught to members of the Church. These issues involve: the timeline, common First Vision-like accounts, Joseph’s multiple accounts, contemporary statements, discrepancies with the official version, and continued concealment.

As with literally everything our church teaches, individual knowledge on these topics will vary. Some of us were taught these things in Seminary; some were not. We have been encouraged right from the start to study all that we can on our own, however. Our time in Sunday School, Primary, Relief Society, and Elder’s Quorum each week is limited. We also have limited time in Seminary and Institute. Our teachers simply can’t cover every single thing that has ever happened in our history, and every quote that has ever been made by the members or even the leadership. The time we spend in church is for fellowshipping and trying to bring people closer to Christ. We should be studying Church history on our own time.

However, we each learn in different ways and at different rates. And the simple fact is, a lot of people don’t like history or theology. A lot of us don’t have the time or the inclination to study on our own. Many of us can’t even find the time to read the scriptures regularly. But the thing is, we have to make the time.

I can’t speak Spanish fluently. I know a few words, but I’m not even very conversant because I took French in middle and high school. And now that I’m an adult, despite easy access to a multitude of methods and resources available to me in order to learn Spanish, I never have. I could blame my various schools, teachers, or professors for not teaching it to me. But if I never took the classes, are they really to blame? I never got a textbook, I never downloaded an audio course, I never took lessons. I never even bought myself an English-to-Spanish dictionary. I never made the time to learn it. So, if I can’t speak the language today, whose fault is that? To be blunt, it’s mine. If it was something I truly wanted to know, I could have made time to learn it. I just didn’t.

And if there are some of us who don’t know that Joseph Smith told his story more than once, the exact timeline of events of early Church history, that others in Joseph’s day and age claimed to have visions, etc., it’s because we never took the time to study those things. I’m not saying that to blame anybody. I’m just saying that we have to take some personal responsibility. Why shouldn’t we be expected to study the church we belong to? Why shouldn’t we read the scriptures we claim to hold as sacred? Why shouldn’t we read what our founding prophet actually said in his own words? Especially when these things have been acknowledged and discussed for decades in our church’s most widely read publications?

In this day and age, with so much information right at our fingertips, why should we expect to be spoon-fed every piece of information we think we should know? Why shouldn’t we bear some of the responsibility for looking it up? Most of us carry around a portable computer in our pocket or purse everywhere we go. Why can’t we, at a minimum, make a 30-second Google search on our own? Is that really too much to ask when we’re talking about our eternal salvation?

Timeline

Joseph Smith claimed to have experienced the First Vision in 1820, yet there appears to be no record before 1832. The Church confirms this fact when it states, “The oldest account, written in 1832, was part of an autobiography. This account emphasized Joseph’s quest for religious truth and his desire to be forgiven of his sins. Therein, Joseph stated that the Lord said to him, “Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee.” (https://www.lds.org/topics/first-visionaccounts?lang=eng). If this event occurred in 1820, then it was 12 years later when Joseph decided to first make a record of it; 2 years after the organization of the Church.

It’s absolutely true that Joseph’s 1832 account was the first attempt at recording the vision in any kind of detail. There were scattered references to it prior to then, as we’ll get into, but this was the first time he attempted to record it.

In fact, we only have one thing written by Joseph prior to 1832 and very few documents written afterward. As someone who was much more comfortable speaking than writing (the exact opposite of me), he dictated his own letters and journal entries for years. Every document we have in Joseph’s handwriting is listed at the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and it contains only 82 items. Fifty-one of those items are individual journal entries, most only a single sentence or paragraph long.

Joseph famously hated writing. He referred to it once in a letter as a “little narrow prison almost as it were total darkness of paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language” [sic]. And don’t forget, this account of the First Vision was written only a few short years after the time period in which Emma described him as being unable to “neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.”

While those of us who were raised in the Church come from a culture of writing down our spiritual experiences, Joseph did not. He didn’t start recording things until two years after he was commanded to. Even then, when he did start keeping a daily journal, he only wrote in it for 10 days before giving up for nearly a year. So, it should not be a surprise to anyone that it took him so long to write this account down, or that it’s brief and lacking detail compared to some of the later accounts.

No contemporary periodicals in the 1830s mention Joseph Smith, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no journal or correspondence from that time mention the story of the First Vision.

I assume this sentence is missing a “that” after “the 1830s.” Otherwise, this sentence doesn’t make sense. Multiple periodicals from the 1830s mention Joseph Smith. But even granting the likely typo, this claim is categorically untrue, as I’ll go through in a moment.

First, though, this seems to be due to some poor editing on Faulk’s part. You see, this section is different from the original text of the “For My Wife and Children” letter. Despite claiming that “every single line in their response to [his] letter is a lie,” the author changed several portions of his letter in response to FAIR’s rebuttal, including this one. The original assertion was that no one had ever heard of the First Vision until 1842, and this was altered once FAIR pointed out that Orson Pratt published an account of it in 1840. However, it seems that Faulk didn’t update all of the language to reflect the new corrections.

Former Church Historian James B. Allen, acknowledged that the story of the First Vision was not known in the 1830’s. Elder Allen stated that in the 1830s “the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966) According to the historical record, there is no reference to the First Vision in any published or hand-recorded material in the 1830s.

While the quoted portion is correct as far as Allen knew—remember, that quote is more than half a century old and we know more now than we did then—the sentence following it is not. There’s a reason James B. Allen did not say “According to the historical record, there is no reference to the First Vision in any published or hand-recorded material in the 1830s” anywhere in that article, and that’s because it’s wildly incorrect.

For one obvious, notable example, Joseph’s 1832 account falls under the banner of being both hand-recorded and a journal entry from the 1830s. One of Joseph’s scribes, Frederick G. Williams, assisted on this history and surely learned of the First Vision during this time. And, in fact, this account says literally says that he told others about it:

My soul was ﬁlled with love, and for many days I could rejoice with great joy. The Lord was with me, but I could ﬁnd none that would believe the heavenly vision. Nevertheless, I pondered these things in my heart.

How can you possibly claim that Joseph didn’t tell others about his vision when it says right here that he did? But there’s considerably more early evidence of the First Vision than just this account.

In another instance, the Palmyra Reflector, which is a periodical, published an article on February 14, 1831, about Joseph Smith that derided him for having “seen God frequently and personally,” and saying that he “had now received a commission from God” to preach with authority. Clearly, people were talking about it in the early 1830s if it was being mocked in a local newspaper.

On April 19, 1831, an Ohio newspaper, the Painesville Telegraph, published the Articles and Covenants of the Church, which referenced Joseph having received a remission of his sins. That event happened during the First Vision. And, as the linked source demonstrates, this includes our modern-day Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which was recorded a year earlier in April of 1830. Verse 5 of that section also mentions Joseph’s remission of sins. These Articles and Covenants were also republished in a variety of sources throughout 1830-1831, as well as read to a conference of Saints in September of 1830.

In 1832, a man named B. Pixley published an article in the Christian Watchman, which was republished in the Ohio Atlas on December 6, 1832. It mentions that members of the Church “converse with Christ face to face.” (At the link, run a search for “Pixley” and it’ll be the first entry that comes up.)

Joseph Smith gave additional evidences while working on the JST. The JST of John 1:19 states that no man has seen God the Father at any time, unless he’s bearing record of Christ, which is exactly what happened during the First Vision. This would have been translated near but prior to February 16, 1832, which is when Joseph and Sidney Rigdon had the joint vision of the Celestial Kingdom while working on the JST for John 5:29.

And a recently published paper by Walker Wright and Don Bradley also shows that the JST rendition of Psalm 14, which was likely completed in January or February of 1833 (he worked on the New Testament before most of the Old Testament), echoes language from Joseph’s 1832 account. This suggests that it was probably heavily influenced by the First Vision.

In early March of 1833, Richmond Taggart gave an account claiming that Joseph “had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them.”

Also in 1833, on August 10, the Missouri Intelligencer spoke of a meeting held the month prior in which it was claimed that members of the Church discussed “their personal intercourse with God and his angels…converse with God and his angels….”

In Mormonism Unvailed by E.D. Howe, published in 1834 (not to be confused with Mormonism Unveiled by John D. Lee, published in 1877), a man named Joseph Capron gave a statement mentioning Joseph’s “holy intercourse with Almighty God.”

Joseph’s patriarchal blessing given to him by his father in December, 1834, describes Joseph speaking with God “even in thy youth,” which seems like a clear nod to the First Vision.

The hymn “Now We’ll Sing With One Accord” was written by W.W. Phelps in 1835 and published in the Messenger and Advocate and in the Church’s first hymnal later that same year. This hymn describes a heavenly messenger announcing the restoration of the Priesthood as well as Joseph conversing with Jesus Christ, both elements of the First Vision.

One of Joseph’s journal entries from November of 1835, recorded by Warren Parrish, recounts his telling a visitor about the First Vision in some fair detail. This is the official second account, indicating two additional people had heard of it.

Just a few days later, in another journal entry, it describes a second visitor who was told of Joseph’s “first visitation of Angels which was when [he] was about 14 years old.”

The Joseph Smith History from our Pearl of Great Price, while not published for the first time until 1842, was begun in 1838. Therefore, at least one and probably more of Joseph’s scribes certainly learned of the First Vision during this recounting, which again was in the 1830s.

In a book titled Gleanings By the Way, John A. Clark recounted a confused, secondhand conversation with Martin Harris that mentioned elements of the First Vision mixed in with other events. Though this book was not published until 1842, the author states that the conversation took place in autumn of 1827. If there is any truth behind this story, that means that Martin Harris, at least, was aware of the vision before 1830.

Though I cited it earlier, Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote an article in 1969, only three years after James B. Allen’s comment above, listing multiple accounts with references to elements of the First Vision.

And FAIR compares a list phrases taken from various other accounts from the 1830s against the Joseph Smith History account we’re all so familiar with, stating, “[I]t becomes apparent that the Prophet’s account of things stayed steady during this time frame and was probably known among a wider cross-section of the contemporary LDS population than has been previously acknowledged.”

So, claiming that there’s no references at all to the First Vision in any contemporary periodicals, Church publications, journals, correspondence, or published or handwritten account from the 1830s is, quite frankly, absurd.

Obviously, not everyone knows that these various references exist. But you don’t even need to know about all of those other mentions to know that Faulk was wrong in his assertions from this portion of his letter. All you have to do is point to Joseph’s 1832 handwritten account that Faulk already discussed, and that negates everything he said afterward. Neither basic logic nor historical fact supports his claims here.

In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, a predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants. The first printing of the Book of Commandments also contained the Lectures on Faith, a series of seven lectures outlining the doctrine and theology of the Church up to that point; no reference was made of the First Vision.

Aside from oblique references like the one already mentioned in D&C 20, the First Vision is not included in the Doctrine and Covenants today, either. It’s in the Pearl of Great Price. It wasn’t a recorded revelation pertaining to the organization of the new Church, and even of those, the Book of Commandments did not include everything.

There was a paper shortage and the Book of Commandments pages were only about 4 ½ x 3 ⅛ inches. They were tiny books and space was limited. And, according to Orson Pratt, Joseph was selective about which revelations went into the book:

“Joseph, the Prophet, in selecting the revelations from the Manuscripts, and arranging them for publication, did not arrange them according to the order of the date in which they were given, neither did he think it necessary to publish them all in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but left them to be published more fully in his History. Hence, paragraphs taken from the revelations of a later date, are, in a few instances, incorporated with those of an earlier date. Indeed, at the time of compilation, the Prophet was inspired in several instances to write additional sentences and paragraphs to the earlier revelations. In this manner the Lord did truly give ‘line upon line, here a little and there a little,’ the same as He did to a revelation that Jeremiah received. And even though this revelation was burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed the central message again with great numbers of additional content.” (Millennial Star17 [25 Apr. 1857]: 260.)

The Book of Commandments was more limited in scope than the Doctrine and Covenants was, and it didn’t include much in the way of Church history. It also did not include the Lectures on Faith, as my Reddit friend WooperSlim reminded me.

The Lectures on Faith were just that—sermons about the nature of faith, along with some minor recitations of the rules governing the running of the early Church included in the second half of the volume. However, they were not given until the winter of 1834-1835, approximately a year and a half after the Book of Commandments was printed. The Lectures on Faith were not published until their inclusion in the original 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Additionally, there was no reason to mention the First Vision in it, as it was also not a history book.

The first periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but it never tells the story of the First Vision.

The Evening and Morning Star printed some revelations as they came out, but mostly it reported news and included articles about theology, letters to the Saints living different states, and notices about upcoming events. The Church history it published was brief and lacking detail. It was intended to give background information on the Church’s movement to Ohio, then Missouri, so that the members would be able to see how the Church was spreading and growing. It wasn’t meant to be a comprehensive history.

Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the Church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but again, they contained no mention of any vision.

For some super quick background on what Faulk’s talking about here, Oliver wrote a series of eight letters to W.W. Phelps, giving some brief summaries of the history of the Church to that point. These were printed in the Messenger and Advocate, and Joseph was so impressed with them that he later had them reprinted as a block in his 1834-1836 history, but without any clarifications or corrections. There is no evidence that Joseph requested that Oliver write the letters, and the extent of his involvement is not clear.

However, there is “substantial evidence” that Oliver had access to Joseph’s 1832 account while writing these letters, and that Oliver, knowing about the First Vision, hinted at it but did not elaborate further. Perhaps Joseph asked him not to, which would be in keeping with his pattern at that point.

Joseph did not habitually broadcast his visions until after the Kirtland Temple was completed. I’m not entirely sure what the correlation was there; perhaps the Lord told him it was the right time. Prior to that point, he had been given several admonitions that he should not share certain things openly until the time was right:

Early revelations cautioned leaders against sharing the texts widely. A circa Summer 1829 revelation, for example, gave the explicit command to “shew not these things neither speak these things unto the World.” A 3 November 1831 revelation, dictated immediately following the aforementioned conference, reminded listeners that Smith’s revelations had been “commanded to be kept from the world in the day that they were given.” With the newly authorized publication, however, the revelations were now “to go forth unto all flesh & this according to the mind & the will of the Lord.”

He also believed, like many of us do, that we should keep sacred experiences to ourselves unless the Spirit prompts us otherwise. And, of course, he was used to being mocked and persecuted when he did share his visions with the public.

While working on the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph once recounted:

In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of our having been baptized, and having received this priesthood; owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood. We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time, and this too by professors of religion…

And there is one rather shocking story regarding his brother Alvin that might explain why Joseph was reluctant to publicly share something that had already brought him ridicule. You see, both Willard Chase and Joseph Knight explained that before Joseph Smith obtained the golden plates, he had been instructed to bring his oldest brother, Alvin, along with him when he collected them.

However, before that could happen, Alvin died of mercury poisoning in late 1823. So, Joseph was instructed to bring Emma with him instead. It was in between Alvin’s death and Joseph obtaining the plates that things took a disturbing turn.

From September-November of 1824, Joseph Smith Sr. ran weekly notices in the Wayne Sentinel newspaper explaining that, due to rumors of Alvin’s body being exhumed and dissected, he and some neighbors had to dig up the body to prove that it was still intact. (To view the Wayne Sentinel article, click on the link and run a search for “Alvin.”) The rumors were ostensibly saying that Joseph mutilated his dead brother’s body, brought a piece of Alvin to the hill with him, and engaged in necromancy in order to fulfill the prophecy, as was suggested by Ed Decker, D. Michael Quinn, and others. It was this story that Mark Hofmann exploited in his infamous Salamander Letter forgery.

Can you imagine how horrible the rumors must have been that a grieving parent would have to dig up his dead son’s corpse in front of witnesses in order to prove that another of his sons hadn’t mutilated the body for Satanic purposes? And we wonder why Joseph didn’t want to publicly share things that led to rumors like those ones?

But even still, Joseph was privately sharing his visions with those he trusted, and the evidence shows that clearly.

The first missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, published in 1837 by apostle Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830’s, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book’s authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but again, nothing on the First Vision.

No, but as demonstrated, other publications and accounts did discuss the First Vision. I don’t know why Parley Pratt didn’t include it. Perhaps Joseph asked him not to. Maybe Parley believed in giving investigators milk before meat and not casting your pearls before swine. Maybe he wasn’t one of those who knew the details of the vision yet. Who knows?

The story of the First Vision was not printed until 1840, when Orson Pratt published an account where neither personage is identified at Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ.

Yes, which again, was a late addition to the letter by Faulk despite his claims that everything FAIR said about his work was a lie.

For 20 years there are no records of transcribed sermons by Joseph or the other elders of the Church, no personal journal entries by any of Joseph Smith’s family or followers, and no LDS periodicals or publications describing this historic event. By its first publication in 1840, not a single one of the 16,865 members of the Church ever recorded hearing about it. From all this it would appear that the general membership did not receive any information about the First Vision until the 1840’s. Even then the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in common knowledge that it does today.

Again, this is only somewhat true, as there is certainly evidence of it being relatively common knowledge, at least among those who knew Joseph personally. Oliver Cowdery, Frederick G. Williams, Warren Parrish, W.W. Phelps, James Mulholland, Martin Harris, Erastus Holmes, scribes who dictated for Joseph and had access to his records, and numerous other people who gave accounts or wrote newspaper articles referencing it were all aware of the claims being made regarding the First Vision. That something is not written down in explicit detail is not proof that no one had ever heard of it.

As an example, I have never announced my real name on Reddit. And yet, due to these blog posts, there are numerous people on that site who know my real name but who still typically refer to me by my Reddit handle. People are aware of that information and they know where to go to find it. It is not commonly used, however, even among those on the site that I consider to be good friends. That even includes those who I know on other social media sites and in real life. We have each other’s real names, but we often do not use them when talking to or about each other while on Reddit. There are only vague, circumstantial hints that people on the site now know my real name, and yet, it can’t be denied that many people do.

That is obviously nowhere near as momentous a thing as the First Vision, but it supports my larger point: despite it not being published in full detail yet, there is solid evidence that multiple people were aware of at least some elements of the First Vision prior to 1840. There were two handwritten accounts of it in journals by that time, a host of newspaper articles referencing it, accounts of people hinting at it, at least three records of Joseph admitting to telling people about it, a hymn that included elements of it, etc.

The simple truth is that we don’t know for certain how prominent it was, or why it wasn’t more prominent. We don’t know for certain why those who clearly knew of it didn’t share it publicly. We don’t know for certain why Joseph didn’t broadcast it far and wide until later in his life. But we have some very good guesses, and we know that it was being discussed at least among some people. Despite whatever Faulk is insinuating here, there is evidence of the First Vision years before he claims there was.

Common First Vision-Like Accounts

Several religious publications in the New England area demonstrate that such visions were common during the early Church.

At this point, Faulk writes out six different accounts that are quite interesting to read, even though I’d read several before. Due to space limitations I’m not going to list them all here, but they are available at Faulk’s website if anyone would like to read them. Some include seeing both God the Father and Jesus Christ; one received a remission of his sins; and two were told that all Christian denominations had been corrupted. One of those two was also told that God would soon raise up an apostolic church like the one that existed after Christ’s resurrection.

It appears that when Joseph Smith initially wrote his First Vision experience in 1832, many people related stories of visionary experiences with Heavenly Father and Jesus. Joseph’s story turns out to be quite a common claim in his day.

This is something that I’ve known about for a while now. In my experience, though, not many people do. It’s okay to be surprised, confused, or even a little disturbed by it. To me, though, this is just further evidence of Joseph’s calling as a prophet.

What happened before Christ’s birth? Multiple people on at least two continents were warned it would happen. What happened in the Americas prior to Christ’s death? Prophecies of destruction and days of blackness. What happened prior to the revelation lifting the Priesthood restriction? Blessings suddenly started being given to black members by patriarchs and others, declaring that they’d enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood, missions, and the temple during their lives on Earth, rattling those giving the blessings. They’d felt strongly impressed to say those words, but didn’t understand why or how it would happen. What happened to Heber C. Kimball and his family and neighbors the night Joseph received the plates, long before they met? They heard the sound of a rushing wind and saw a heavenly army marching across the skies.

The Lord prepares His people for momentous things. He’s already given us numerous signs of His Second Coming. So why, then, wouldn’t He also give us signs to prepare us for the restoration of His Priesthood and the fulness of the Gospel?

It’s also worth pointing out that, while others were told that other Christian denominations had become corrupted over time, only Joseph was told not to join any of the other churches in the meantime.

The other main difference is this: how many of those other people claiming visions of God from Joseph’s day can you name? Any? Did any of them form churches that still exist today, let alone ones that have grown and thrived the way ours has? Only Joseph’s name was prophesied to be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues. Only Joseph was driven from state to state and murdered for his prophetic claims. Only Joseph produced works of new scripture that are lengthy, complex, and internally consistant. There’s a reason why the world knows his name and not the names of the others who had similar visions during the same time period.

I’m going to wrap this here. Next week, we’ll talk about the multiple accounts of the First Vision and where they differ. For now, though, just know that Faulk was mistaken in his assertion that there was no recorded evidence of the First Vision throughout the 1830s. Understand that other visions of God from Joseph’s day are not only nothing we need to worry about, but they’re actually keeping in the Lord’s pattern. Even if this is brand new information for some of you, it’s not the devastating bombshell Thomas Faulk apparently thinks it is.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 2: The Early Church – The First Vision [A] appeared first on FAIR.

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View

View Details

Malachi and Turning the Hearts of the Children to Their Fathersby Craig Foster

While the Book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, it is certainly not the least in terms of the eternal teachings within the book. The name Malachi means “My Messenger” and the Malachi certainly fulfilled the purpose of his name in his prophetic calling as he discussed the end-time which is currently being fulfilled.[1]

Malachi is filled with passages regarding pure and righteous offerings, repentance, and preparing for the Second Coming. But by far, the most important teaching contained within this concluding Old Testament book is the fourth and final chapter in which the reader is warned, “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”[2] Root refers to our ancestry while branch refers to posterity.

In other words, as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland explained, without proper eternal links, “no family ties would exist in the eternities, and indeed the family of man would have been left in eternity with ‘neither root [ancestors] nor branch [descendants].’”[3] All would be destroyed, leaving those who have experienced mortality without not only ancestors and heritage, but also posterity and name. Holland continued, “Inasmuch as such a sealed, united, celestially saved family of God is the ultimate purpose of mortality, any failure here would have been a curse indeed, rendering the entire plan of salvation ‘utterly wasted.’”

But when the reader is left wondering if all is for naught, comes the most powerful and beautiful promise of Malachi. In the final two verses:

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.[4]

When the Angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith, he quoted Malachi with a slight but significant variation:

Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.[5]

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Now, the word turn here should be translated bind, or seal.”[6] Thankfully, the sealing powers were restored on the 3rd day of April, 1836 by the visitation of the prophet Elijah to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple. President Russell M. Nelson explained, “The earth was created, and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally.”[7]

What is bound on earth can and will be bound in heaven when performed by priesthood power in temples of the Lord. In an epistle from Joseph Smith giving further directions on baptism for the dead, he stated, “It may seem to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven.”[8] Relationships no doubt created in the premortal existence and continued in mortality will also continue in our post-mortal existence.

These eternal bonds are generational and multidimensional “for we without [our deceased loved ones] cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.”[9] President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “What was the promise made to the fathers that was to be fulfilled in the latter days by the turning of the hearts of the children to their fathers? It was the promise of the Lord made through Enoch, Isaiah, and the prophets, to the nations of the earth, that the time should come when the dead should be redeemed.”[10]

As we seek after our dead and perform the necessary saving ordinances, we are blessed. As Elder Gerrit W. Gong explained, “Connecting with our ancestors can change our lives in surprising ways. From their trials and accomplishments, we gain faith and strength. From their love and sacrifices, we learn to forgive and move forward. Our children become resilient. We gain protection and power. Ties with ancestors increase family closeness, gratitude, miracles. Such ties can bring help from the other side of the veil.”[11]

Truly, as we turn our hearts to our ancestors by searching after our deceased ancestors and performing the saving ordinances in temples of the Lord, we will feel the Spirit of Elijah which is the Holy Ghost and His guiding us as we participate in family history and temple work. Everyday, millions, and soon billions, on both sides of the veil benefit from Elijah’s restoring the sealing powers as prophesized in the Book of Malachi.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The author would like to thank Suzanne L. Foster and David S. Young.

[1] See “Malachi” at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/51?lang=eng.

[2] Malachi 4:1.

[3] Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 297–98.

[4] Malachi 4:5-6.

[5] Joseph Smith—History 1:38-39.

[6] Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 472.

[7] Russell M. Nelson, “Celestial Marriage,” October General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage?lang=eng.

[8] Doctrine and Covenants 128:9.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954–56), 2:154.

[11] Gerrit W. Gong, “We Each Have a Story,” April 2022 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/26gong?lang=eng.

Craig L. Foster earned a MA and MLIS at Brigham Young University. He is also an accredited genealogist and worked as a research consultant at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City for over thirty years before retiring in December 2021. He has published multiple books and articles about different aspects of Mormon history, including co-editing the Persistence of Polygamy series with Newell G. Bringhurst and co-authored American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith with Marianne T. Watson. Craig is also on the editorial board of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.

The post Come, Follow Me Week 51 – Malachi appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

(submitted by Dennis B. Horne)

Editorial Note: In the below article, President Smith defines the label “Mormonism” very much as President Russell M. Nelson has. These prophets are one in their views on this matter. President Smith also expounds in some detail on many facets of church practice and doctrine, including the future. Most of the material is as true and relevant today as it was a hundred and twenty years ago—there is great consistency in church teachings and practice. One effect of his message is to make one proud to be a faithful member of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. The original article is titled, The “Mormonism” of Today:

[Two and a half pages of explanatory material regarding plural marriage omitted.] Marriage is regarded by the Latter-day Saints as a sacrament. Under its higher ecclesiastical law it involves an everlasting covenant. That does not end with death. The marriage does not take place in the resurrection, but in time and in this world. It is of the nature of that marriage in the Garden of Eden between a man and a woman in whom then there was no death. It was a wedding of immortals. That which was lost through sin in the fall, was restored through obedience and the atonement of Christ in the regeneration, and the resurrection brings the parted pair together again as one, “no more twain but one flesh,” spiritual but tangible and eternal. That which is sealed on earth today by divinely revealed authority is sealed in heaven and remains in spite of death, immutable, and abides forever.

The family thus formed is the basis of an ever-increasing kingdom and dominion continuing in worlds without end.[1] Marriages are permitted for time only, as all persons are not fitted for the higher conditions and the pure and sacred obligations they impose. The secular law in all cases whether for time or eternity, is honored, and that requires a license and a ceremony to be recorded under the State statutes, which provide heavy penalties for their violation. Monogamic wedlock is thus established by law in Utah, and is really more rigidly observed than in any other part of the Union.

“Mormonism” inculcates chastity of life, self-restraint, temperance, abstinence from stimulants, order, peace, charity and fraternity. It teaches submission to law and promotes true patriotism. It recognizes the institutions of this country as established under Divine direction. It does not unite church and state. It supports each in its own sphere, but regards them as separate and distinct, and holds that neither should encroach upon the domain of the other. The “Mormon” Church does not dictate the politics of its members or direct citizens how they shall vote. The only restraint it claims to exercise as to political office is, that before any man who holds an ecclesiastical position which demands his entire services for the Church, becomes a candidate for a secular office which would take him from his Church duties, he shall obtain permission to do so from its presiding authorities. This is absolutely necessary to proper Church discipline, and is only reasonable and just. When that consent has been obtained, no man occupying a political office in this land is freer than he to perform his duty to his country, nor enjoys greater liberty as an American citizen. Notwithstanding all that is said and imagined as to the interference of the Church in political affairs, no citizen can truthfully assert that he has been deprived by the Church of his freedom, or that the Church has attempted to coerce or control conventions, elections, or legislatures.

“Mormonism” is a term coined by its adversaries. It cannot mean anything but that which was taught by Mormon. He was a prophet of God on this hemisphere about sixteen centuries ago. His doctrines can be learned from the book that bears his name. It was translated by Joseph Smith from metallic plates covered with ancient hieroglyphics and deposited by Mormon when his nation was about to perish, under the warlike race from which our present Indian tribes descended. Those doctrines are, simply, the gospel of Jesus Christ as he delivered it in person on this land, after His resurrection and ascension from Palestine. They are unmixed with the precepts of men. They are the principles of Salvation. They teach faith, hope and charity. They show the necessity of belief in God and obedience to His commands. They require repentance from sin, baptism by immersion in water by one having divine authority, for the remission of sins through Christ’s atonement, and they promise the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands and all the gifts of that Spirt enjoyed of old. They explain the true order of the Church organization and make plain the religion of the Redeemer.

The Book of Mormon gives the history of this continent back to a remote period. It describes the customs and doings of the early inhabitants of the land and traces their origin. It gives the places of cities, temples, fortifications and buildings, the ruins of many of which have been discovered since the book was published. It treats of the wars, troubles, divisions of tribes, their religion, rebellion, travels, triumphs and tribulations, and forms a study for the archaeologist and the antiquarian.

“Mormonism,” then, is the pure gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ revealed anew in these latter times. Its advocates are not “Mormons” any more than they are Isaiahs or Ezekiels, Peters or Pauls, for they believe in the Old and the New Testaments as well as in the Book of Mormon. Their proper name is Latter-day Saints, in distinction from that of the former-day saints. They claim to have a mission to proclaim the “everlasting gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people,” and brought to earth by the angel predicted by John the Divine in the Apocalypse. They gather in places appointed of God and his elect, called from all quarters of the earth. They “seek first the kingdom of God;” that is, His spiritual kingdom set up on the earth for the last days and for the last time, in the “dispensation of the fulness of times,” in which all things in Christ are to be gathered in one. The elders of the Church go into the world for this purpose, without pay or support other than that which is voluntarily bestowed by their hearers. They travel “without purse or scrip.”[2] They are often despised and rejected. They are men of pure lives devoted to the welfare of humanity. They are constantly libeled and maligned. They bear their cross with patience.[3] Their reward comes from above. They invade no man’s family. They have no inducements to offer to converts except the blessings that come from obedience to the truth, and a witness from God to each soul that accepts the message of salvation. To these may be added the assurance of persecution and obloquy and in many instances mobocracy and violence.[4]

The “Mormons” or Latter-day Saints are baptized by one spirit into one body. They are striving to live together in love, and to observe the golden rule. They are organized into a compact ecclesiastical body, and are guided by apostles and prophets, pastors and teachers, and all the ministerial authorities had in the primitive Christian Church. These are inspired by divine revelation for the work of the ministry and the perfecting of the saints, and to give counsel and advice to them in all things pertaining to their welfare. But everything in the Church has to be done by common consent. The people prosper under the system. They are advised to own the land on which they live and the homes that shelter them. The home is held sacred by the saints as the beginning of their heaven. They rear their families in the fear of God. The song of praise and the voice of prayer are heard in their habitations. They are becoming a power in the earth because of the virtues and the strength of the religion that is intensely spiritual and also eminently practical.

“Mormonism” is for the body as well as for the spirit. It is a religion for today. By right living now, its votaries are prepared for the future. By laying a firm foundation in their world, they expect to be able to build upon it in the world to come. No one need fear the spread of “Mormonism,” for that means the spread of righteousness and order and peace. It is light in the midst of the darkness of this world. It contains the solution of every religious problem that has vexed and divided Christendom for centuries. It holds for future development the settlement of the conflict between capital and labor. It bears divine authority sent down from heaven in the nineteenth century, and it will not be taken from earth again. It will prepare the way for the coming of the King of kings, whose right it is to reign, and until then its people and their leaders are required to remain “in subjection to the powers that be,” and to live honoring kings, presidents, magistrates and municipalities and to upholding wholesome law wherever they reside.

“Mormonism” will be opposed and fought against, but it will not be overcome. It is of God and not of man. It is vital in every part. It puts down sin and vice and regards lust with abhorrence. It brings its devotees not only to the “unity of the faith,” but to concert of purpose and of action. It leads them to individual communion with Deity, and at the same time to perform their duties to one another on the earth. It promotes industry, thrift, education, progress, the fine arts as well as the common labors of life, and seeks for the acquirement of everything that is useful and beautiful in this world, and the securing of all the highest glories and exaltations in the world to come. “Mormonism” is God’s truth manifested to man, and it will endure and conquer and abide forever.

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/a8b335cc-080c-4c90-b72a-21d3add7f4ad/0/371

Note: This article was originally published on Truth Will Prevail.

[1] For further information about this concept, see: http://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2022/04/getting-or-creating-planets.html

[2] This is no longer current practice, the Church having gradually moved away from that method of missionary service during the early part of the last century. Yet most missionaries still bear the expenses of their own missions today.

[3] For further explanation of this phrase, see Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s October 2022 General Conference address here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/41holland?lang=eng

[4] Regarding the persecution most members experience, see Pres. Nelson’s article here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2020/04/the-future-of-the-church-preparing-the-world-for-the-saviors-second-coming?lang=eng

Dennis B. Horne grew up in south Davis County and he served in the Independence Missouri mission. He attended BYU and Weber State Universities, earning a degree in Communications. After working in television broadcasting for a number of years he became a technical writer for the LDS Church Material Management Department. He became an independent researcher/author because of his love of church history and doctrine. This pursuit led him to write a biography of Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an edited publication of the diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, and biographies of President Lorenzo Snow and Orson F. Whitney. He also wrote about callings to serve in the church, the doctrine of giving healing blessings, and a compilation of the teachings of prophets and apostles about how to determine doctrinal authority. He has twice presented at the BYU Church History Symposium. His articles occasionally appear at Truth Will Prevail, Interpreter, and FAIR.

The post President Joseph F. Smith Explains What “Mormonism” Really Is appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

His Love for Us Is Constant by Anna Buis Despite our best efforts, we will inevitably fall short because we are human. This human experience teaches us that we need the Savior and His atoning sacrifice. His invitation to us is always to return to Him; His love for us is constant. Hosea 14:4 says, […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 44 – Hosea 1–6; 10–14; Joel appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Keep the Commandments of God Regardless of the Consequences by Maddie Barzee “Keep on the covenant path” was President Russell M. Nelson’s first message to the Church after he was sustained as the prophet, and it has been his continued anthem ever since.1 In the short term, it may feel difficult to fully obey the […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 43 – Daniel 1–6 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Seven years ago, a FAIR conference presentation identified a harmful ideology among some members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It claims that God gives revelations, visits, and special priesthood ordinations to individuals outside of church leadership, and that faithful church members should follow and obey those individuals, and believe the truth of their purported […]

The post Evaluating Claims that Contradict the Prophets appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Websites critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are popping up regularly, some gaining more traction than others. FAIR has responded specifically to some of them, like the so-called “CES Letter,” “Letter to My Wife,” and MormonThink. There are many other similar websites that FAIR has not responded to, partly because the […]

The post Yet another critical website pretending to be something it’s not – “LDS Discussions” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 68: CES Letter Conclusion [Section B] by Sarah Allen This particular portion of Jeremy’s conclusion starts to get spicy. There will be a lot of questions being asked in a very hostile tone, some of them for the first time in this version of the Letter (he removed an entire section on the […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 68 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 67: CES Letter Conclusion [Section A] by Sarah Allen After almost a year and a half, this series is drawing to a close. All we have left here is Jeremy’s conclusion (which is 3 pages long) and then my own concluding thoughts. It’s been a long road, with a lot of reading, studying, […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 67 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Braeden Dyer [Courtesy of Wilford Woodruff Papers] Since beginning my work for the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project, one aspect of Wilford’s life which has struck me, and made me ponder, has been the opposition which he faced. He faced immense physical and social opposition—just one account of which we see in this excerpt from his […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 29 – Ezra 1; 3-7; Nehemiah 2; 4-6; 8 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

We are pleased to announce that Michael R. Ash’s book, Bamboozled by the “CES Letter”, is now available in audiobook format from Audible and iTunes! We’d especially like to thank Derrick Duncan for volunteering his time and talent to narrate it. The e-book version is still available from the FAIR Bookstore and Amazon.

The post “Bamboozled by the ‘CES Letter'” by Michael R. Ash now available on audiobook! appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 64: CES Letter Other Concerns/Questions [Section F] by Sarah Allen Picking up the next portion of the “ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM” topic heading, Jeremy begins with a quote from President Oaks: Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the following disturbing comment in the PBS documentary, The Mormons: “It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 64 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[We have more information about Under the Banner of Heaven here.] “God is greater than the United States, and when the Government conflicts with heaven, we will be ranged under the banner of heaven against the Government.” This sentence, supposedly spoken by John Taylor, has been made famous by Jon Krakauer. He used it […]

The post Under the Banner of Misattribution appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 62: CES Letter Other Concerns/Questions [Section D] by Sarah Allen Before we get started, something happened this week that I wanted to address. This particular matter is resolved and I’m not trying to call anyone out, but I wanted to say this in case something similar happens in the future: I know that […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 62 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 61: CES Letter Other Concerns/Questions [Section C] by Sarah Allen Recently, we all had the chance to feast on the words of our prophet and apostles, among other wonderful speakers, as they expounded on the words and teachings of Christ. I had a beautifully moving experience, and I hope the rest of you […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 61 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 60: CES Letter Other Concerns/Questions [Section B] by Sarah Allen Today I’d like to finish out the first topic header of this section. For those who don’t remember, this header is titled “CHURCH’S DISHONESTY, CENSORSHIP, AND WHITEWASHING OVER ITS HISTORY.” Last week, we covered the Priesthood restriction again, and this week, we’ll be […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 60 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 59: CES Letter Other Concerns/Questions [Section A] by Sarah Allen We’re starting the last section of the CES Letter besides the conclusion, so it’s just a few more weeks of this series. This particular section is a hodgepodge of all of the different things Jeremy could think of that didn’t quite fit in […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 59 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Friends, Today a new television series has been released titled Under the Banner of Heaven. It is based on a best-selling book by that same name, published in 2003, written by Jon Krakauer. The book, and now the television series, talks about the 1984 horrific murders of Brenda Lafferty, and her 15-month-old daughter Erica, by Dan […]

The post Under the Banner of Heaven: Fact vs Fiction appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 58: CES Letter Science Questions by Sarah Allen In this life, there are a lot of questions for which we don’t have answers, or only have partial answers. There is much still yet to be revealed, and one of the big lessons we need to learn in this life is that of having […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 58 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 57: CES Letter Temples & Freemasonry Questions [Section C] by Sarah Allen While Eastern societies and cultures are often well-versed in allegory and symbolism, Western societies and cultures are typically much more literal-minded, especially in the modern day. This can make studying the Gospel, particularly the temple, more challenging than it needs to […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 57 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 56: CES Letter Temples & Freemasonry Questions [Section B] by Sarah Allen Before picking back up with this week’s post, I just wanted to take a moment to thank Jeffrey Bradshaw and Brandon Cole for providing additional resources and information in the comments of last week’s posts, as well as Trevor Holyoak for pointing […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 56 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

(Updated 4/28/2022 – Please see our new post at https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/04/28/under-the-banner-of-heaven-fact-vs-fiction) “Under the Banner of Heaven” is not only a slap in the face of modern Latter-day Saints but also a misrepresentation of religion in general. – Robert L. Millet This book is not history, and Krakauer is no historian. He is a storyteller who cuts […]

The post “Under the Banner of Heaven” Redux appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Robert Hill Every six months, dating back to 1840, Latter-day Saints gather as a worldwide congregation to worship, sing and learn at the feet of leaders we consider living prophets. It’s a wonderful time full of the Spirit of God. But recently, I can’t help feeling I miss the way General Conference used to be. […]

The post Come Listen to a Prophet’s Voice appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 55: CES Letter Temples & Freemasonry Questions [Section A] by Sarah Allen The next “problematic” topic the CES Letter discusses is the apparent link between the temple ceremony and Freemasonry. Admittedly, this isn’t a topic I know as much about as some of the others we’ve gone over. I’ve just never had many […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 55 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference. If you would like to watch all the presentations from that conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Derek Sainsbury, “We mean to elect him”: Electioneer Experiences during Joseph Smith’s 1844 presidential campaign Derek’s book, Storming the Nation: The Unknown […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #79 – Derek Sainsbury, “We mean to elect him”: Electioneer Experiences during Joseph Smith’s 1844 presidential campaign appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 54: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section J] by Sarah Allen With the exception of Hyrum Smith, the stories of the three witnesses are much more recognizable to us as a whole than those of the eight witnesses. Today, I wanted to focus on the seven we aren’t as familiar with. Their contributions to […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 54 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 53: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section I] by Sarah Allen We’ll wrap up Jeremy’s issues with the Book of Mormon witnesses this week, and then I’d like to take a little time discussing some of the lesser-known witnesses. We’re all pretty familiar with the three witnesses, but aside from Hyrum and arguably Joseph […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 53 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 52: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section H] by Sarah Allen This post officially marks the one-year mark for this series (on Reddit, Part 1 was split into two parts). I honestly never thought this would take so long, or that anyone would still be interested. I thought that maybe five people at most […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 52 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 51: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section G] by Sarah Allen In this entry, I’d like to get through as much of the next few pages of the CES Letter as possible, so that we can wrap up the Witnesses section soon and move on to the next topic. There are a lot of […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 51 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 50: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section F] by Sarah Allen We’re continuing the saga of James Strang today, addressing Jeremy’s various concerns and comments. If you read the prior post, you know that this is a crazy story and Strang was a rather colorful character. Jeremy Runnells, of course, does not go into […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 50 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

for FAIR Newsletter – Black History Month Edition 4 2022 I am a white male. Well, I really have more of a ruddy complexion that looks red most of the time, but that still counts as “white.” I have found no one in my family history who owned slaves. One family line came from Scotland after […]

The post Answers to a Few Questions for Black History Month appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Polygamy as an Abrahamic Sacrifice by V.H. Cassler (From a presentation originally titled “A Reconciliation of Polygamy,” given at the 2011 FAIR Conference; edited here for clarity and length) Today we are going to talk about polygamy but probably in a different way than you have heard about it before. That is, we are going […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 8 – Genesis 18–23 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Can the Book of Mormon be the Word of God and inspired fiction? Did Joseph Smith’s cultural worldview influence the way he understood the relationship between New World people and the 10 Lost Tribes? How might have Joseph’s worldview influenced his understanding of both the Nephite Interpreters and his own seer stone? What did the […]

The post FREE BOOK CHAPTER: “‘Translating’ Restoration Scripture” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 48: CES Letter Witnesses Questions [Section D] by Sarah Allen The claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses didn’t actually see the plates except through “spiritual eyes,” which critics take to mean “imagination,” is one of the more common claims against them that you’ll see. Jeremy’s hardly the first to make this […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 48 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference. If you would like to watch all the presentations from that conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Jennifer Ann Mackley, Discovering Church History: The Wilford Woodruff Papers Project Jennifer’s book is available from the FAIR Bookstore. Jennifer Ann […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #77 – Jennifer Ann Mackley, “Discovering Church History: The Wilford Woodruff Papers Project” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Craig L. Foster Recently a movie titled, “Who Killed Joseph Smith?” premiered promising “never seen before ballistic testing, research & reenactments exposing an extremely controversial theory concerning who may actually have murdered the American prophet, Joseph Smith, and his loyal brother Hyrum.” This never before seen information includes the assertion that Joseph Smith was […]

The post What weapon was Joseph Smith using to shoot John Taylor? – Review of the recent film, “Who Killed Joseph Smith?” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. John Gee, Lessons on Doing Apologetics John Gee’s books are for sale in the FAIR bookstore. John Gee is […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #75 – John Gee, “Lessons on Doing Apologetics” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Ben Spackman, Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution Ben Spackman is a […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #73 – Ben Spackman, “Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

How did we get the books of Moses and Abraham? The Come, Follow Me manual poses this question and gives links to articles on the Church’s website about the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham. For further information, the following resources are available from FAIR […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 1 – Moses 1; Abraham 3 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 39: CES Letter Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions [Section C] by Sarah Allen When you look over this section of the CES Letter, one of the most common threads is arrogance. Jeremy talks about it, ironically saying how arrogant it is to deny the spiritual experiences of others while simultaneously denying that anyone’s spiritual experiences […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 39 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 38: CES Letter Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions [Section B] by Sarah Allen Last week, I spoke about the progression of ideas I see in the CES Letter and how dangerous I think this section is. Jeremy Runnells isn’t just targeting other flawed human beings or messy historical events without much documentation this time. He’s […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 38 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Dan Peterson, The Book of Mormon Witnesses: Sincerity and Reality The Witnesses film and books by Dan Peterson are […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #72 – Dan Peterson, “The Book of Mormon Witnesses: Sincerity and Reality” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 37: CES Letter Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions [Section A] by Sarah Allen Entries in this series (this link does not work properly in old Reddit or 3rd-party apps): https://www.reddit.com/r/lds/collection/11be9581-6e2e-4837-9ed4-30f5e37782b2 *** While the CES Letter has jumped around a bit in terms of topics, the progression of ideas has been interesting to see. First, it went […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 37 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Michael R. Ash Those who have read any of my writings in the past several decades will know that I’ve been a volunteer for FAIR for more than twenty years. I’m an active Latter-day Saint who accepts prophets as the divinely called and authorized agents of Christ’s church on earth. And, like many other believing […]

The post Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 36: CES Letter Kinderhook Plates/Translation Claims Questions by Sarah Allen The Kinderhook Plates and Joseph’s attempt at translating them is something that the critics love to bring up, but when they do, they’re banking on you not knowing what really happened. Once you do understand the actual circumstances, you’re more likely to shrug […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 36 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Rebekah Clark, “The Gospel of Equal Rights”: Latter-day Saint Suffragists, 1870-1920 Rebekah Clark is co-author of the book Thinking Women: A Timeline […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #71 – Rebekah Clark, “The Gospel of Equal Rights”: Latter-day Saint Suffragists, 1870-1920 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 35: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section I] by Sarah Allen Jeremy’s sneering contempt for the idea of ongoing revelation and modern-day prophets is, I believe, quite telling. Later in the CES Letter, he uses the same method to cast doubt on the idea of personal revelation as well. It speaks to his mindset […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 35 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 34: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section H] by Sarah Allen I am what some people on the internet commonly refer to as a “basic white girl.” Most of my preferences are mainstream and wholly unoriginal. I like Converse and Vans, the color pink, s’mores, steel water bottles, canvas messenger bags, Friends, unicorns, Harry […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 34 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This biography of Dallin H. Oaks was written by Richard E. Turley, Jr., who has been associated with Oaks throughout most of his (Turley’s) professional life. Turley has served as the Director of the Church History Department (originally selected to work for the department by Oaks), Assistant Church Historian, and Director of Public Affairs. He […]

The post Book Review: “In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

We Believe All that God Has Revealed by Cassandra Hedelius On social media and other discussions, it’s very common for LGBT activists/allies to invoke the ninth Article of Faith. They take for granted that the church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality are wrong, and assert that God will soon change them. After all, “we believe […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 50 – Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 & 2 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 32: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section F] by Sarah Allen Last week, we discussed the history of race in the Church up to the institution of the Priesthood restriction on black members. This week, I’d like to finish the history of the ban and discuss the shifting reasoning people came up with to […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 32 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Brian Hales, Mind the Gap The mentioned handout is available here. Many of Brian’s books are available from the […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #69 – Brian Hales, “Mind the Gap” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 31: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section E] by Sarah Allen Today and next week, I’ll be covering one of the very most controversial topics in our church’s history, the Priesthood ban on black members. I’ll say right up front that I don’t know exactly where this ban came from, but it’s a lot […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 31 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference held in August. If you would like to watch all the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Keith A. Erekson, Real Vs. Rumor Keith’s book is available in the FAIR bookstore. Keith Erekson is an award-winning […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #68 – Keith A. Erekson, “Real Vs. Rumor” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Heirs of the Celestial Kingdom of God by David W. Smith Many people today misunderstand the nature and blessings of God’s love. “God loves me just as I am, so I don’t need to change,” they might say, or “Because God loves me, He will accept me as I am into heaven.” To use a […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 49 – Doctrine and Covenants 137-138 appeared first on FAIR.

LDS History Archives - FAIR: Recent Episodes

FAIR