Questions Archives - FAIR

View Details

A Conversation with Brant A. Gardner on Book of Mormon Authenticityby Jared RiddickThis month has seen the release of two exciting new titles from FAIR Books, our small but growing publishing arm. The Record and the Reading: Explorations in Book of Mormon Authenticity by Brant A. Gardner, is an edited and selected compilation of his presentation from FAIR and other conferences, as well as scholarly articles, that have been published over the past twenty-five years.

Since we conceived of the idea of this book in October of 2025, and got Brant onboard, it has been an absolute pleasure going through these articles, updating and trimming sections where necessary, and getting to work with him more closely. He is an excellent scholar and devoted reader of the Book of Mormon, and those who read this compilation will find themselves tremendously benefitted by the insights and methodology he brings to its study.

As part of our ramp up to publication, we sent him a series of questions to respond to about the book and subjects therein, which we think you will enjoy.

Get your copy on the FAIR Bookstore or on Amazon today!

QuestionIn the opening section of the book, you tackle some popular but problematic “evidences” for the Book of Mormon, such as the Michigan Relics, the Bat Creek Stone, and the Quetzalcoatl myth. Why is it so vital for defenders of the faith to let go of these well-loved but flawed artifacts, and how does discarding them actually strengthen our foundation?

Response: We believe that the Book of Mormon is true, and we want others to know it is as well. We turn to evidences that might help them believe – or that at least will support our own belief. When we turn to forgeries or wishful readings of history, we build on a sandy foundation. Such things cannot convince others, because they (unlike the Book of Mormon itself) are not true. The danger for believers is that we might eventually learn that these artifacts are fakes or that the stories misread the evidence. A house on sand too easily falls, and these things are sandy foundations at best.

QuestionYou argue that looking for a single “smoking gun” archaeological proof for the Book of Mormon is the wrong approach. Instead, you advocate for building a “web of interlocking evidence.” Can you explain how this methodology works and why it yields much richer results?

Response: Regardless of what the single thing might be, as an anomaly, it can be dismissed. To be considered a “smoking gun” it really has to be a big gun! Archaeology and historical analysis simply don’t work that way. What it requires is building a consistent case from multiple types of evidence which all converge in a single place at a single time. In the case of the Book of Mormon, those convergences add an additional layer of needing to converge with the Book of Mormon at that same time and place. That is quite difficult, but that is the way good archaeology and history work. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon works better in that more complicated method of connecting it to the real world that it does to producing a “smoking gun.”

QuestionYou have spent a career situating the Book of Mormon within a Mesoamerican setting. For a reader who might be new to this approach, what is one of the most striking “aha!” moments in the book where ancient Mesoamerican culture perfectly explains a confusing detail in the Nephite record?

Response: How ironic that this question should follow the one above. There isn’t any one thing. There are so many things. There is, however, a category that I can say I find most impressive. I call that category productivity. By that, I mean that the intersection of time and place (Mesoamerica at the appropriate time periods for the Book of Mormon) can enrich and expand our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Little things become “aha” moments. For example, Amulek taught:

For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another(Alma 34:10–11).

Why would he add that it should not be a human sacrifice, or that one cannot shed one’s own blood to atone for others? Mesoamerica knows. Human sacrifice was standard. The king would ceremoniously shed his own blood for his people. As one of the small convergences that add up, we not only see why this sentence is there, we have a greater understanding of why it was important to Amulek’s audience.

QuestionIn your essay on the social history of the early Nephites, you discuss Jacob’s seemingly abrupt condemnations of wealth and polygyny. How does understanding the local trade and economic pressures of ancient Mesoamerica completely reframe what Jacob was dealing with?

Response: Most modern Book of Mormon readers read the text devoid of any historical context. It is simply there – without any actual reason for being there (perhaps other than to teach us something). Just as the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon “grew up” in a time and place, and that time and place influenced the lives of the people who lived — but are rarely mentioned by name — in the Book of Mormon. Understanding history shows how the prophets responded to history and therefore helps us understand how modern prophets might respond to the history happening all around us.

For Jacob, he was not dealing with a few renegade Nephites who somehow decided that costly apparel and polygamy might be fun and they should try it. The Nephites lived in a region and absorbed material and mental culture from the surrounding regions (just as Israel did in their Old World homeland). This process of dealing with the influence of the world around us is clearly a continuing modern issue and we can learn from Jacob’s denunciation of certain parts of it.

QuestionA significant portion of this collection explores Mormon not just as a compiler, but as a highly intentional historian and editor. When we start “looking over Mormon’s shoulder,” as you put it, how does it change the way we read the narrative flow of the Book of Mormon?

Response: Mormon was a genius, in my opinion. His masterwork was a synthesis of nearly a thousand years of history into a coherent theological story. It was a story that taught by example and Mormon had to make sure that all the right examples were highlighted. We cannot tell how much he left out, but it had to have been considerable. What he wrote, he crafted. Even when quoting, it was Mormon selecting and contextualizing what he quoted. How does this help us understand his text? It should give us a new perspective. We should move deeper into the text than the simplistic “he wrote what happened.” Mormon didn’t create unhistorical events, but he did mold them so that a much greater lesson was taught — not just in the verses we pull out to quote to each other, but in the reason for the longer arc of connected (and often paralleled) stories he told.

QuestionYou discuss the interplay between literacy and orality in Nephite culture. We often think of the Nephites solely as a literate people because of the gold plates, but how did their reliance on oral tradition shape the way sermons and histories were actually delivered and preserved?

Response: We moderns have a difficulty understanding a world where there was significantly less literacy than we experience. We do hear that there are those among us who are termed “functionally illiterate,” and it comes as a shock and surprise. We read our world back into the Book of Mormon and therefore expect our level of literacy when “functionally illiterate” might have been a generous assessment for most.

What the Book of Mormon represents is a culture with incipient literacy. There were literate elite who could read and write. As with other cultures at that stage of development, elite literacy did not replace concepts of orality, even in their writing. For the Book of Mormon, we can follow some of their arguments and note that they still employ techniques from oral discourse. They use parallelism as an important tool. In an oral culture, repeating something gave the listeners another chance to understand it. Artistic parallelism repeated the ideas with different words, which also enhanced understanding. When we see Nephi or Moroni complaining that they are better at speaking than writing, we are seeing artifacts of their participation in that oral literary world which has not gone away — even though they are writing.

QuestionYour chapters on the translation process delve into Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones and introduce the concept of “mentalese” (the brain’s pre-language). How does viewing the translation through the lens of cognitive linguistics help us understand the presence of King James phrasing and other unique linguistic features in the text?

Response: The included chapters don’t directly address the recent emphasis on Early Modern English as the language of the Book of Mormon, and I can’t do that here in this response. I will note that even in that hypothesis, a translator is required and that translator produced a text that includes language and references to New Testament phrases from the King James Bible that could not have been part of whatever language was on the plates. In other words, even though I disagree with removing Joseph Smith as the actual translator, the problem of the text we read is essentially the same. It includes language that could not have been a word for word translation of the plates. This is the reason that Royal Skousen has called the Book of Mormon a “cultural” translation. The translator’s mind was present.

The idea of mentalese is, I believe, a consistent model for how a text in any source language becomes the translated text in the target language. A mind is involved. When that mind is involved, the culture and vocabulary of that person provides the contexts in which the translation occurs. This means that even with divine assistance, the plate text was translated into language and idioms from Joseph Smith’s time. Similarly, even if there was a much better word to use in the translation, but it hadn’t entered English by Joseph Smith’s time, divine assistance didn’t presciently add that word.

QuestionSome people are troubled by the idea of Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a hat to translate. How does your historical and cognitive analysis in the book help demystify this process and reaffirm the claim that it was done by the gift and power of God?

Response: I accept that Joseph used the interpreters and later a seer stone. What both of those instruments have in common is that they are stones – rocks. They also have in common the fact that not everyone who uses them can see anything. My mobile phone is a modern miracle, and it shows me all kinds of wonders. I can have someone else look at the screen and share those wonders with them. The interpreters and seer stones didn’t work that way. Only some had the talent to use them, and those who did could actually see in them. Others in Joseph Smith’s community could also use seer stones, and those people and Joseph used them to “see” hidden things – often things which were lost.

God used Joseph’s understanding to shift his talent from seeing lost things in the seer stones to seeing a lost language and a lost text. The similarity of the medium helped Joseph have the confidence to engage with God in the task, but God and Joseph translated – not the stones.

QuestionIf a reader wants to truly understand the Book of Mormon on its own ancient terms, which specific essay in this collection do you think will challenge and expand their perspective the most?

Response: Probably “As Social History of the Early Nephites,” gives a good introduction in the concepts behind the way I place the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica and provides examples. Other chapters delve deeper, but this would probably be the best first article for that purpose.

QuestionYou mention that after forty years of intense study, your curiosity about the text remains unquenchable. What is it about the Book of Mormon that continues to yield new insights after all this time?

Response: One could spend much of a lifetime attempting to learn the life principles in the Book of Mormon. It only becomes more complex and richer when one dives deeply into the writers and what — and why — they wrote. Nephi was a wonderful writer, Mormon was a wonderful writer, but the two are very distinct and write for very different reasons and therefore they can speak of similar things with very different meanings. My main example is how Nephi and Mormon see the Lamanites. Nephi is writing at a time when he must establish a new city-nation. One of the ways of doing this was to establish the unity of “us” against those who are not “us.” The use of this “us/then” dichotomy is well understood and Nephi is an excellent example. The Lamanites are the enemy. Modern readers tend to see them that way throughout the Book of Mormon because we read Nephi first.

Mormon’s Lamanites are different. They are not “us,” but they are no longer the targeted enemy. In Mormon, the “bad guys” are apostate Nephites who stir up the Lamanites. Then it is the Gadiantons who cause trouble. Mormon even lays the destruction of the Nephites at the feet of the Gadiantons. Why not the Lamanites? When Mormon is writing, he is writing to the Lamanites to tell them they are of the House of Israel – that they can repent. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies, the Lamanites later converted by Nephi and his brother Nephi, and Samuel the Lamanite are all specifically selected to show that Lamanites can repent – and that repentant Lamanites might even exceed the Nephites in righteousness. That is very different from the Lamanites in the small plates.

There is so much more. I read books about the Old Testament and see new ways to understand the Book of Mormon. Scholarly books on the New Testament similarly open new perspectives. The more I learn, the more there is to know.

This book is the first of several similar compilation volumes that we would like to do, featuring some of FAIR’s frequent conference speakers over the years. Who would you be interested in seeing? Leave us some suggestions in the comments below.

We mentioned that The Record and the Reading was one of two titles published by FAIR Books this month. The other is A New Translation of Isaiah: Based on Ancient Scrolls and Texts, translated and edited by Donald W. Parry. There will be another Questions & Response post featuring it, coming soon.

Stay tuned! And Happy Reading!

Brant Gardner is an anthropologist and author specializing in Mesoamerican context and Book of Mormon studies. He will be speaking at the 2026 FAIR Conference.

Jared Riddick is the Managing Editor for FAIR. From 2015 to 2025, he was the research librarian and archivist for Scripture Central, where he established, built, and curated their digital library of over 14,000 items. He graduated from the University of North Texas with a Masters in Library Science with two graduate academic certificates in Archival Management and Digital Curation and Data Management. He received a Bachelor of Arts in History Education from Brigham Young University-Idaho. He was also an editorial consultant for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith Scholarship from 2012 to 2017.

The post Beyond the Sandy Foundation appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What This MeansUpon the passing of a prophet, the First Presidency is dissolved. The senior Apostle—currently Dallin H. Oaks—is called as President. Two Apostles are chosen by revelation to serve with him as counselors, forming the First Presidency.

This sacred reorganization ensures continuity, divine direction, and stability in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Meet the Prophet and CounselorsPresident Dallin H. OaksPresident Oaks, the 18th President of the Church, has served as an Apostle since 1984. A former justice of the Utah Supreme Court and accomplished scholar, he is known for his clarity on doctrine, defense of religious freedom, and emphasis on covenant discipleship.

First Counselor: Henry B. EyringPresident Henry B. Eyring served as a counselor to President Russell M. Nelson from 2018 to 2025, to President Thomas S. Monson from 2008 to 2018, and to President Gordon B. Hinckley from 2007 to 2008. He was sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on April 1, 1995. Prior to full-time Church service, President Eyring was president of Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho, from 1971 to 1977. He was on the faculty at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University from 1962 to 1971.

Second Counselor: D. Todd ChristoffersonPresident D. Todd Christofferson was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on April 5, 2008, and previously served in the Presidency of the Seventy. Before full-time Church service, he was associate general counsel of NationsBank Corporation (now Bank of America) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Previously he was senior vice president and general counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee in Nashville, where he was also active in community affairs and interfaith organizations. From 1975 to 1980, Elder Christofferson practiced law in Washington, D.C.

CONTINUED HERE

The post A New First Presidency: Called by Revelation appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evidence That God Still SpeaksEvery six months, millions gather to hear messages from prophets, apostles, and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To some, this is just another conference; to believers, it is a sacred witness that God still speaks today.

Critics often claim that revelation ceased with the Bible, that modern prophets are unnecessary, or that faith is irrelevant in our time. General Conference provides a powerful answer to each of these doubts – it is continuing revelation in real time.

Common Criticism: Church members are told what to think instead of encouraged to seek truth for themselves.It would be easy to see General Conference as a time when leaders “tell members what to think,” leaving little room for individual thought or spiritual independence. Instead of noticing the repeated invitations to seek, ask, and act for themselves, they focus only on the authoritative voices at the pulpit.

Fallacy at Work: False Dilemma (or “All-or-Nothing Thinking”)A logical fallacy that presents only two options as if they are the only possibilities, when in fact other alternatives exist.

This fallacy frames the choice as either blind obedience to leaders or total independence without them. In reality, General Conference models a “both-and” pattern: prophets teach truth while encouraging members to seek confirmation and revelation for themselves. It’s a consistent pattern. Leaders teach; they invite listeners to pray, record impressions, and then act on personal revelation.

Correction: General Conference is designed to train disciples in spiritual self-reliance. President Nelson urged members to “hear Him”—to develop the personal capacity to recognize and follow Christ’s voice. President Eyring promised that if we trust God enough to listen, we will receive His message in every sermon, song, and prayer.

Conference strengthens independent thinking by connecting members directly to revelation.

Solution: Rather than being told what to think, members are shown how to think with the Spirit. General Conference is God’s gift to His children: a sacred setting where prophets declare truth and every disciple is invited to confirm that truth with heaven. The false dilemma hides the reality that Conference is not about controlling minds—it is about opening hearts to the living God who still speaks.

Living Apologetics: Prophets Are Just Sharing OpinionsIt’s easy to dismiss Conference messages as nothing more than advice.

President Eyring counters this by saying that “God sends messages and authorized messengers to His children”. Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 reminds us that when His servants speak, it is as if God Himself speaks.

Practical Apologetic Use:

If someone says: “That’s just their opinion.”
You can respond: “General Conference isn’t just advice—it’s God’s word through His chosen servants. Test it by living it, and you’ll see the promised blessings.”

Ways to Apply Today:

1️⃣ Act on one prophetic invitation, no matter how small. Watch for how God blesses you as a result.
2️⃣ Share a personal story of when following a Conference invitation brought unexpected strength or peace.

Keep This Talk With YouAs you prepare for General Conference this week, remember that the greatest evidence that God still speaks is when His voice continues with you after the sessions end. Don’t let the Spirit’s impressions fade—carry them into your week.

Here are some “small and simple” things to try this week as you prepare:

Write down one question before Conference and review it afterward to see how God answered.
Record one impression during Conference and act on it within 24 hours.
Share one quote or thought with a friend or family member as a witness that God is speaking today.
Pray specifically for the ability to recognize when a talk is meant for you.

How will you act in faith this week so that General Conference becomes your personal proof that God still speaks?

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 Preparing for General Conference 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

by Maddie Christensen

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are frequently invited by Church leaders to attend the temple regularly. For instance, in the April 2024 general conference, Elder Neil L. Andersen advised, “My beloved friends, if we are able and have not already increased our attendance at the temple, let us regularly find more time to worship in the house of the Lord.”

Even though we know temple attendance is a good thing, sometimes it can be hard to understand why attending regularly is fundamental.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Should I Attend the Temple Regularly? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In this episode, Ryan sits down with Debra McClendon to discuss religious OCD, also known as Scrupulosity. Debra shares valuable advice for those navigating Scrupulosity while striving to stay faithful within the church. They explore what approaches tend to be effective, what often falls short, and dive into topics like consecration, burnout, and finding balance. If you or someone you know struggles with Scrupulosity, anxiety, or toxic perfectionism, we hope this conversation offers insight and support.

Debra Theobald McClendon, PhD is a licensed psychologist in the state of Utah and has interjurisdictional authorization to work with clients in most U.S. states. She specializes in treating those with scrupulosity, a religious and moral subtype of OCD. She is the owner of The OCD & Scrupulosity Clinic (ocdscrupulosityclinic.com) and is a member of the International OCD Foundation. She has been interviewed on podcasts, published articles, and published the book: “Freedom from Scrupulosity: Reclaiming Your Religious Experience from Anxiety and OCD.”

Ryan Sorensen is a native of Cache Valley, Utah. He earned his Bachelor’s degree at BYU-Idaho and is currently pursuing a Master of Divinity at Abilene Christian University, with plans to become a chaplain after graduation. Ryan previously hosted a podcast called The Whom Shall We Go? Podcast. In his spare time, he enjoys being involved in interfaith work, reading about Latter-day Saint theology and history, training for triathlons, and spending time with friends and family.

The post The Cause for Christ Episode 2: Scrupulosity (moral and religious OCD) with Dr. Debra McClendon appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

How Can We Know That God Answers Us?Many wonder if God hears their prayers, especially in moments of doubt. The life of Joseph Smith provides a profound response to this question. His experiences illustrate that God is a revealing, personal, and involved being who speaks to those who sincerely seek Him.

A Prophet’s Testimony of Jesus ChristIn his General Conference address, Elder Kyle S. McKay testifies of Jesus Christ through the lens of Joseph Smith’s life. Joseph’s search for truth led to the First Vision, launching the Restoration of the Gospel and demonstrating God’s willingness to respond to sincere seekers. Elder McKay highlights Joseph’s unwavering faith, commitment to repentance, and reliance on revelation, showing how these principles remain vital today.

This message is relevant for those experiencing faith questions. It addresses the nature of God, the reality of personal revelation, and the power of repentance. Like Joseph, we can turn to God with our doubts and trust in His divine guidance.

Doctrine: Does God Really Answer Prayers?Question: Why don’t I always receive clear or immediate answers like Joseph Smith did?Many struggle with the idea that God answers prayers, especially when responses aren’t immediate or dramatic. It’s easy to assume divine communication is reserved for prophets or that their faith is insufficient.

Response:Elder McKay emphasizes that Joseph’s experience is a model for all who seek divine guidance. Joseph wrestled with uncertainty before acting in faith. Similarly, answers may come through scripture, personal impressions, or gradual understanding—but God does answer. The key is trusting His timing and methods.

All-or-Nothing Thinking (Viewing Situations in Extreme, Absolute Terms)

This fallacy assumes that something must be either entirely true or entirely false, with no room for nuance or complexity. In this case, all-or-nothing thinking assumes that if one doesn’t receive an answer like Joseph did, then God must not answer at all. However, divine communication varies for each person.

Confirmation Bias (Favoring Information That Supports Preexisting Beliefs)

This occurs when someone selectively focuses on evidence that aligns with their views while ignoring or dismissing contradictory evidence. Some expect only a dramatic spiritual manifestation and overlook quieter, consistent promptings. Recognizing small, daily witnesses strengthens faith.

History: Was Joseph Smith’s Life a Pattern of Deception or Divine Calling?Criticism: Joseph Smith was uneducated—how could he have been called as a prophet?Skeptics argue that Joseph’s lack of education and young age disqualify him from being a prophet. Some claim he fabricated the First Vision and the Book of Mormon to enhance credibility.

Response:Elder McKay underscores that Joseph’s calling was divine, not self-made. His pattern of revelation—from the First Vision to translating the Book of Mormon—demonstrates reliance on God. Despite relentless persecution, Joseph remained faithful. The fruits of his work—doctrinal clarity, continued revelation, and the Church’s growth—affirm his prophetic role.

Common Fallacies:Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person Instead of the Argument)

This fallacy occurs when someone attacks an individual’s character, background, or traits instead of addressing the validity of their claims. In Joseph Smith’s case, critics attack Joseph’s background rather than engaging with the substance of his revelations and teachings. Personal circumstances do not invalidate truth.

Presentism (Judging the Past by Modern Standards)

Presentism is the application of contemporary values and norms to judge historical figures or events. Some critics view Joseph Smith through modern expectations of education, failing to acknowledge that formal schooling was limited in early 19th-century rural America. While Joseph lacked higher education, he produced the Book of Mormon and led a growing religious movement, which speaks to his spiritual gifts and divine calling, not just his academic background.

False Dilemma (Forcing a Binary Choice When More Options Exist)

A false dilemma presents only two extreme choices, ignoring the possibility of a nuanced reality. Assuming Joseph was either a fraud or a perfect individual is a flawed premise. Critics often claim that Joseph Smith must have been either a flawless prophet or a complete fraud. This ignores the historical reality that prophets—like Moses, Jonah, and Peter—were imperfect people called to do God’s work. The truthfulness of Joseph’s revelations does not depend on his perfection as a person.

Defending Divine Doctrines: Continuous RevelationExplanation of DoctrineA key teaching from Elder McKay’s talk is continuous revelation—the principle that God speaks today just as He did in ancient times. Joseph Smith’s mission restored lost truths, confirming that divine guidance did not cease with the Bible. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 affirms that God is tangible and actively communicates with His children.

How This Doctrine Defends Core Beliefs: Critics argue that Latter-day Saints add to the Bible (Revelation 22:18). However, this verse refers to the Book of Revelation, not all scripture. If God is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8)*, why would He stop revealing truth? * Some claim modern prophets are unnecessary since we have scripture. Yet, the Bible records ongoing revelation—Noah, Moses, and Paul all received divine guidance. Amos 3:7** confirms that God reveals His will through prophets.

Application Clarifying misunderstandings: Many assume revelation ended with the Bible. Joseph Smith’s experience proves that God still guides His people today. * Practical use: When discussing revelation, ask: “If God spoke in the past, why wouldn’t He now?”* Encourage others to seek revelation through scripture study and prayer.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsContextual BackgroundThe First Vision was not an isolated event but part of a divine pattern. Just as Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6), Lehi’s vision (1 Nephi 1:8-9), and Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-6) marked turning points in history, Joseph Smith’s vision initiated the Restoration. The Lord has always spoken to His children, revealing truth through prophets.

In Doctrine and Covenants 6-9, Oliver Cowdery learned firsthand about personal revelation. Seeking to assist Joseph in translating the Book of Mormon, Oliver desired the same gift of revelation. The Lord taught him that revelation comes through study, faith, and the workings of the Holy Ghost (D&C 9:7-9). Just like Joseph, Oliver had to learn that divine guidance often comes as quiet impressions rather than dramatic manifestations.

Doctrinal Connection to Come, Follow Me Doctrine and Covenants 6:22-23 reminds us that revelation often comes as peace to the mind—a principle Oliver Cowdery experienced when he sought divine confirmation. * Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3 explains that revelation works through both the mind and heart, reinforcing that the Lord speaks to us in ways we can understand. * Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9 highlights that revelation requires effort, study, and faith* before receiving answers. This principle continues to guide us in seeking personal revelation today.

Oliver’s experiences mirror those of all who seek revelation. Like him, we must learn to trust in the Spirit’s quiet confirmations and act in faith. This week’s lesson emphasizes that revelation is available to all who diligently seek it.

Living ApologeticsFaith in Action –share what you’ve learned- Host a Discussion on Personal Revelation. Invite others to share experiences of divine guidance. Use Joseph Smith’s example to encourage questions and testimony. * Ask Thought-Provoking Questions. Engage in a conversation: “If God spoke in ancient times, why wouldn’t He today?” * Use Joseph Smith’s Story to Comfort Those Struggling with Doubt. Share how asking questions strengthens faith*.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and FactsDefensive Highlights God still speaks today. Joseph’s experience confirms that revelation did not end with the Bible. * Seeking answers through prayer leads to revelation. The First Vision exemplifies James 1:5. * Prophets are not perfect, but their calling is divine.* Joseph Smith never claimed perfection, yet his revelations remain true.

Conclusion: Encouragement and ReflectionElder McKay’s talk reminds us that God is actively involved in our lives. Joseph Smith’s experience proves that questions lead to revelation, not away from faith. We can ask, seek, and trust in God’s answers.

What questions will you take to the Lord, trusting He will answer in His time?

“Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was ‘blessed to open the last dispensation,’ and we are blessed that he did.” – Elder Kyle S. McKay

The post The Man Who Communed with Jehovah: Joseph Smith and the Restoration of Truth appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Joseph Smith’s childhood; the First Vision; Moroni, & the gold plates(Joseph Smith—History)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

Handout

Additional Reading

- “First Vision Accounts,” Gospel Topics Essays, November 2013. An excellent summary on the Church’s website of Joseph Smith’s various accounts of the First Vision, along with a response to criticisms that he misremembered or embellished his accounts over time.
- Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” BYU Studies 9, no. 3 (Spring 1969): 275–94. (The entire issue is devoted to the historical setting of the First Vision.) This article was updated and expanded as the opening chapter of John W. Welch and Erick b. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844 (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press and Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), 1–33.
- Dean C. Jessee, “The Reliability of Joseph Smith’s History,” Journal of Mormon History 3, no. 1 (1976): 23–46. Jessee explores how the official history of the Church was compiled between 1838 and 1856, the historiographical methods the clerks used, and the limitations of the record.
- Steven C. Harper, “Was Joseph Smith a Money Digger?,” BYU Studies 62, no. 4 (2023): 37–55. Harper evaluates the historical claims that Joseph Smith used his spiritual gifts to seek for buried treasure and find lost items.
- The First Vision: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is a six-part documentary miniseries that explores the history and legacy of Joseph Smith’s first vision. The podcast recreates the world in which Joseph Smith was seeking answers to the pressing questions of his soul. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

[The below is additional content not included in Mike Parker’s original lesson]

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 – Joseph Smith—History – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Can faith and trust in God’s guidance coexist with personal doubts?

Elder David P. Homer’s recent General Conference address, “Trusting Our Father,” explores a fundamental question: How can we fully trust God’s will, even when it challenges our own understanding? Drawing on historical and scriptural examples, Elder Homer emphasizes that God’s boundaries are eternal and defined by His love for us. As we seek to understand these divine truths, this talk offers valuable insights for those facing doubts or challenges to their faith.

Questions, Misconceptions, and CriticismsDoctrine:

Misconception: Truth is always relative and depends on individual perspective or context.
- Response: This belief reflects the philosophical concept of moral relativism, which suggests that what is right or true depends entirely on social norms, personal beliefs, or situational factors. However, Elder David P. Homer counters this idea by teaching that God’s truths are absolute, eternal, and independent of human perspective. “The boundaries between right and wrong are not for us to define. God has established these boundaries Himself, based on eternal truths for our benefit and blessing.” Elder Homer asserts that while circumstances can shape how we experience or apply principles, some truths remain unchanged because they are divinely appointed. For example, the law of chastity, honesty, and the command to love one another are consistent moral standards that transcend cultural shifts. These truths are not contingent on context but are rooted in God’s eternal character.
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases:
- Moral Relativism Fallacy: This fallacy suggests that since different cultures have varying beliefs about what is right or wrong, no universal truth exists. While individual experiences vary, God’s laws are designed for the eternal well-being of all His children, not just specific groups or times.
- Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Believing that truth must conform to popular opinion assumes that societal consensus determines what is morally right. This is flawed because majorities have often supported unjust practices in history. Truth is not a democratic process; it is revealed by God.

Social Issues:

Criticism: Commandments should change to align with evolving social norms.
- Response: The belief that God’s laws must adapt to current cultural standards is based on the assumption that divine commandments are outdated social constructs. However, Elder Homer teaches that God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules but expressions of His love and eternal wisdom. “God’s saving truths are absolute, independent, and defined by God Himself.” While societies evolve, God’s commandments remain constant because they are designed to bring lasting happiness and spiritual safety. For example, commandments related to honesty, fidelity, and service reflect eternal principles that uplift individuals and communities. When societal values deviate from divine law, God does not alter His laws to accommodate humanity’s changing preferences; instead, He invites us to align with His higher standard.
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases:
- Appeal to Novelty: This fallacy assumes that newer societal norms are inherently better than established principles simply because they are modern. This discounts the wisdom embedded in enduring divine teachings.
- Presentism Bias: This bias judges historical religious teachings based on modern cultural values, ignoring the fact that God’s commandments are meant to be timeless and not bound by current societal trends.
- False Dilemma: Some assume that if commandments don’t change, believers must choose between following an outdated moral code or rejecting faith entirely. This oversimplifies the process of living faith, which involves applying unchanging truths in changing circumstances with personal revelation and divine grace.
By understanding that God’s laws are rooted in eternal truths rather than social consensus, we can see the wisdom in commandments that sometimes feel countercultural. Elder Homer reminds us that trusting in God’s design leads to spiritual clarity, peace, and lasting joy.

Defending Divine DoctrineElder Homer’s emphasis on trusting in divine boundaries provides an apologetic approach to several common critiques. By underscoring that truth is not for humans to redefine, he aligns with Come, Follow Me lessons in Moroni 1-6 about the Sacrament, repentance, and ordinances as God-given instructions rather than culturally influenced practices.

Application: Trusting God’s Boundaries in Daily LifeThis teaching helps counter the criticism that Church doctrines are restrictive. By trusting that God’s boundaries are an expression of love, believers can find meaning even when doctrines challenge their views. Elder David P. Homer’s talk offers several practical “to-do” items that help apply this principle in everyday life:

Pause, Reflect, and Respond with Faith:
- “When we don’t understand, we can pause, let our feelings settle, and then choose how to respond.” When faced with difficult teachings or personal struggles, practice pausing before reacting. This pause creates space for spiritual clarity through prayer and thoughtful reflection.
Study the Scriptures and Listen to Prophets
- “Fortunately, we have the scriptures and guidance from living prophets to help us understand God’s truth.” Commit to a consistent scripture study routine. Focus on teachings that address current questions or concerns, such as studying Come, Follow Me lessons or recent General Conference talks. Create a study journal to write down insights, questions, and how you see God’s guidance in your life.
Seek Personal Revelation
- “If clarification beyond what we have is needed, God provides it through His prophets. And He will respond to our sincere prayers through the Holy Ghost.” Practice regular personal prayer, specifically asking for help understanding God’s will. Follow promptings from the Holy Ghost, even when they require courage or sacrifice.
Stay with Faith through Uncertainty
- “We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” When doubts arise, try Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s counsel to “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.” Create a habit of spiritual resilience by focusing on past spiritual experiences and holding onto the truths you already know.
Choose to Trust God’s Timing
- “God gives His word according to the attention and effort we devote to it.” Make a conscious decision to trust God’s timeline. This might mean waiting patiently for answers to long-term questions while staying active in your spiritual practices.
Remember God’s Eternal Perspective
- “God has something better for us. If we reach out to Him, He will assist us.” Write down one area of your life where you struggle to trust God’s plan. Pray specifically about that area, asking for His help in seeing things from His eternal perspective.

By applying these steps, believers can build trust in God’s eternal laws rather than being influenced by temporary societal trends or personal uncertainties. As Elder Homer’s talk illustrates, trusting divine boundaries leads to deeper peace, spiritual growth, and lasting joy—even when understanding takes time.

Explaining the Nature of the PriesthoodElder Homer’s discussion on trusting divine roles and structures supports the Church’s position on priesthood authority as sacred and purpose-driven. For example, Moroni 3 discusses the importance of ordaining individuals by priesthood authority—a principle that underscores God’s intentional design for leadership in His Church.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsContextual Background – The Story of Louisa Barnes PrattThe example of Louisa Barnes Pratt courageously following God’s guidance despite personal reluctance mirrors the journeys many of us take in faith. This historical story reminds us of the faith required to trust in God’s eternal plan, even when societal norms suggest alternative paths.

Resources for Deeper Understanding:* Priesthood * Church resource: Revelation for Our Lives

Living ApologeticsPractical ApplicationRespectful Dialogue Guide: When discussing spiritual topics, particularly the idea of absolute truth vs. relative morality, it’s important to approach conversations with empathy, patience, and clarity. Here’s how to engage effectively:

Listen Actively: Begin by listening without interrupting to understand others’ perspectives, even if they differ from your own.
Ask Open-Ended Questions: Use phrases like, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or “What do you believe about truth?” to invite thoughtful dialogue.
Clarify God’s Teachings with Humility: Share beliefs without being defensive. Say something like: “I believe that God’s laws are based on eternal principles meant for our lasting happiness.”
Acknowledge Common Concerns: Recognize that trusting in God’s will can be challenging. You might say: “There have been times I’ve struggled to understand a commandment, but as I’ve studied and prayed, I’ve come to see its deeper purpose.”
Express Love and Understanding: No matter the outcome, express kindness: “Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’ve enjoyed learning more about what you believe.”

Faith in Action: Applying Elder David P. Homer’s counsel to trust in God’s boundaries, even when public opinion or personal desires differ, strengthens our spiritual foundation.

Suggested Actions: Speak with Purpose: Share your beliefs about God’s eternal truths when the opportunity arises. This might be during family discussions, in church meetings, or with friends who have honest questions. Use phrases like: “I believe that God’s truth isn’t defined by society but revealed through His prophets.” * Study Faithfully: Strengthen your understanding by studying scriptures and prophetic counsel. Focus on sections like Alma 30 (Korihor’s rebellion) and 2 Nephi 2* (agency and eternal law). Seek personal revelation on how to trust God’s will more fully.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and Facts Truth is Eternal: God’s truths are independent and do not change based on cultural trends. * Historical Figures in Faith: Stories like Louisa Barnes Pratt show that trusting God often requires courage against popular opinion. * Sacrament and Ordinances:* Following sacred ordinances, as discussed in Moroni 1-6, helps believers connect to God’s guidance and protection.

ConclusionEncouragement and Reflection: Elder Homer’s message encourages us to trust in God’s eternal love and wisdom, especially in times of doubt or challenge. When we recognize that God’s boundaries are expressions of His love, we can find peace in His plan for us.

“God trusts us to make many important decisions, and in all matters He asks us to trust Him. This is especially difficult when our judgment or public opinion differs from His will for His children. Some suggest that we should redraw the lines between what is right and what is wrong because they say that truth is relative, reality is self-defined, or God is so generous that He does not actually care about what we do. As we seek to understand and accept God’s will, it is helpful to remember that the boundaries between right and wrong are not for us to define. God has established these boundaries Himself, based on eternal truths for our benefit and blessing.”

Share Your InsightShare your thoughts on trusting God’s boundaries – your thoughts and experiences can help others!

The post Trusting God’s Boundaries: Faithfully Navigating Modern Challenges appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

With conflicting voices coming at us from all sides, we can find comfort knowing that we have the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide us. As we partake of the sacrament each week, we are promised that we can “always have his Spirit to be with [us]” (Moroni 4:3). What an amazing promise and privilege to be permitted the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost!

Wilford Woodruff counseled, “Every man should get the Spirit of God and then follow its dictates. This is revelation. It [doesn’t] make any difference what the Spirit tells you to do, it will never tell you to do anything that is wrong.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Know if I’m Being Guided by the Holy Ghost? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

How can we find answers to spiritual questions in a world full of doubt and uncertainty? For many, questions about the gospel, Church history, and personal faith can be complex and emotionally charged. Sister Tracy Y. Browning’s talk, “Seeking Answers to Spiritual Questions,” offers profound insights into navigating spiritual curiosity with patience, trust, and a willingness to follow God’s guidance, even when answers seem elusive.

In her message, Sister Browning underscores that questioning is an essential part of spiritual growth. The gospel invites us to seek truth with a sincere heart and “real intent,” trusting that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will guide us “line upon line, precept upon precept.” For those who struggle with faith questions, her counsel offers a hopeful roadmap.

Common Questions, Misconceptions, and CriticismsDoctrineMany faith questions revolve around the nature of God, revelation, and eternal progression. Sister Browning’s talk addresses common questions about whether God answers us in real-time and how much of His plan is available to our understanding right now.

Does the Church’s belief in a corporeal God conflict with traditional Christian teachings about the Trinity?
- Response: Traditional Christian views of the Trinity describe God as one essence in three persons without a physical body.The LDS doctrine of God teaches that Heavenly Father has a glorified, tangible body, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.” Latter-day Saints believe this distinction aligns with biblical accounts of God appearing in physical form, such as Moses speaking with God “face to face” (Exodus 33:11).
- Common Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy: Critics may misrepresent LDS beliefs by implying that Latter-day Saints worship a “different God” entirely. However, Latter-day Saints worship the same God of the Bible, with a different understanding of His nature. Appeal to Tradition: Some argue that the Trinity has been accepted for centuries, and thus alternative views are invalid. However, early Christian writings indicate a diversity of thought about God’s nature.
- Resources: FAIR: The Nature of God; LDS Gospel Topics Essay: The Godhead
Why does the Church teach that humans can become like God (deification), and is this doctrine biblical?
- Response: The doctrine of deification, or theosis, teaches that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, humans can become like God and inherit all that He has. This belief is rooted in scripture, such as Romans 8:16-17, which states that we are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ,” and 2 Peter 1:4, which invites us to become “partakers of the divine nature.” Early Christian leaders like Irenaeus and Athanasius also wrote about the idea of deification.
- Common Fallacies: False Dilemma: Critics may assert that believing in deification conflicts with worshiping God alone, but Latter-day Saints maintain that our exaltation glorifies God, as it is through His power and grace that this transformation is possible. Ad Hominem: Some may dismiss this belief by labeling it as self-aggrandizing, rather than engaging with its scriptural and historical basis.
- Resources: FAIR: Deification; LDS Gospel Topics Essay: Becoming Like God; Article: Theosis: The Early Christian Doctrine of Divinization (BYU Studies)

History Is ongoing revelation through modern prophets a contradiction to the Bible’s teaching of sola scriptura (scripture alone)? * + Response:Latter-day Saints believe that God continues to guide His children through modern revelation, as promised in Amos 3:7: “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” This belief does not diminish the importance of the Bible but builds on the principle that God’s word is “quick” (living and active) (Hebrews 4:12). * + Common Fallacies: Circular Reasoning: Critics who advocate for sola scriptura (the idea that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority) often use the Bible itself to argue that no other scripture or revelation is valid. This is an example of circular reasoning because they are using the Bible to prove a conclusion that relies on the Bible being the only source of authority, essentially assuming their conclusion is true from the start. Slippery Slope: Some claim that accepting modern revelation opens the door to false prophets, ignoring safeguards like scriptural consistency and spiritual confirmation. * + Resources:* FAIR: Modern Revelation; LDS Gospel Topics Essay: Revelation

Defending Divine DoctrinesDoctrinal Emphasis:Sister Browning speaks about the importance of obedience to God’s laws, even when understanding is incomplete. She highlights Adam’s willingness to obey without full understanding as a model of faithful obedience, noting that obedience often precedes understanding. Her emphasis on obedience to divine law as a gateway to personal revelation counters criticisms that God’s commandments are restrictive.

Application:This emphasis helps to clarify misunderstandings about why LDS members place such importance on faith and obedience. Sister Browning explains that faith does not mean having all the answers but rather embracing the journey of spiritual discovery as a sacred, step-by-step process with God as our guide.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsContextual BackgroundHistorically, Latter-day Saints have encountered criticisms regarding doctrines like eternal progression and revelation. Sister Browning’s talk places these in the context of patiently seeking truth and recognizing divine timing. Her emphasis on the role of the Holy Ghost as a “personal teacher” offers a useful perspective when responding to criticisms about revelatory practices in the Church.

Resources for Deeper Understanding

The FAIR article on The Nature of God and this talk “We Can Do Better and Be Better” provide insights that reinforce Sister Browning’s counsel to trust in divine timing.

Living ApologeticsPractical ApplicationTo live the principles Sister Browning teaches, individuals can begin by applying her counsel to daily spiritual practices. Here are practical ways to cultivate a deeper, trust-filled faith:

Respectful Dialogue: When addressing sensitive topics with others, use Sister Browning’s approach of encouraging sincere questioning without contention. Listen thoughtfully and answer questions by sharing your personal journey.
Faith in Action: Take your concerns to the Lord with “real intent,” as Sister Browning suggests, meaningfully committing to accept and follow His guidance.

Faith in ActionReflect on Sister Browning’s teachings and how they resonate with your personal experiences of seeking answers. Consider journaling your thoughts and feelings of your own faith journey.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and FactsDefensive Highlights:

Seeking Truth: Trust that Heavenly Father has a timing for each of us, and revelation often requires waiting and preparation.
Divine Guidance: Faithful obedience prepares us to receive further understanding, even when it’s difficult to comprehend immediately.
Living Prophets: Prophets provide modern-day revelation to help navigate today’s unique challenges. Sister Browning’s counsel aligns with President Nelson’s encouragement to seek guidance through prayer and study.

Top Apologetic Facts:

Revelation is Continuous and Essential: The belief in ongoing revelation distinguishes Latter-day Saints from many other Christian denominations. Revelation is not confined to ancient scripture but continues today through prophets (as affirmed in Amos 3:7) and personal spiritual guidance. This underscores the doctrine that God’s communication with His children is active and personalized.
Trust in God’s Timing and Wisdom: The principle of receiving truth “line upon line” (2 Nephi 28:30) teaches patience and trust in divine timing. Answers to spiritual questions often come incrementally as individuals are spiritually prepared to receive them. This prioritizes individual readiness by obedience and faith.
Obedience Precedes Understanding: As illustrated by Adam’s obedience in offering sacrifices (Moses 5:5-7), obedience often lays the foundation for deeper spiritual insight. Sister Browning emphasizes that obeying God’s commandments even without complete understanding invites greater revelation.
Faith and Questions are Compatible: Asking questions is not seen as a sign of weak faith but as a precursor to spiritual growth. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf teaches that questions lead to learning and deeper understanding.

Conclusion

Encouragement and Reflection:
Sister Browning’s talk offers a profound reminder that faithful seeking is a journey that requires trust, patience, and obedience. Her insights reassure us that Heavenly Father is intimately aware of our sincere questions and will provide answers that lead us closer to Him. Consider how you can apply these teachings in your life, especially in moments of uncertainty. What can you do today to practice faith while waiting for answers?

“Our sincere gospel questions can provide Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ with opportunities to help us grow.” Tracy Y. Browning

Share your insightYour thoughts and experiences can help others along their journey. Share them below, and let’s continue this conversation on sustaining the Savior’s light together.

The post Seeking Divine Guidance: Finding Answers to Spiritual Questions in an Age of Doubt 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

What You Choose to Seeby Autumn Dickson

We have arrived at the war chapters. Within these chapters are plenty of principles that we can still spiritually engage with despite the fact that the events are taking place on a battlefield. During one such battle, Captain Moroni bears his testimony to Zerahemnah (one of the antagonizing military leaders) regarding the protection of the Lord.

He testifies that they have the true faith and that the Lord strengthened and protected them because of their belief and worship. After bearing testimony, he commands Zerahemnah to make an oath that he and his men will never come against the Nephites again. Otherwise they will commence the battle and wipe out the remainder of the men.

Zerahemnah delivers his weapon to Captain Moroni but refuses the oath. Zerahemnah gives this as his reasoning:

Alma 44:9 Behold, we are not of your faith; we do not believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands; but we believe that it is your cunning that has preserved you from our swords. Behold, it is your breastplates and your shields that have preserved you.

Captain Moroni believes that they won because of their faith. Zerahemnah believes it was because they were good at war. Note that both sentences contain the word “belief.” People can find evidence of whatever they choose to look for. Captain Moroni found evidence of the Lord’s protection, and Zerahemnah did not.

What we choose to see

I taught a man on my mission who had lost his faith. He had grown up a devout Catholic. He attended mass regularly, and after marrying his wife who was a member, he also started attending church meetings with us. He met with us regularly, read The Book of Mormon, and participated in other faith-promoting activities.

And yet, if you were to ask him, he would have maintained that he didn’t feel any faith in God. He had watched a movie that had asked a question, “What if it’s not true?” or something along those lines. That question had stuck with him, and he had not been able to feel faith since.

My companion and I worked over and over and over to teach him to look for those good feelings from God. We wanted so badly for him to find that faith he had lost. There was one evening where the Spirit was so powerful. We had randomly chosen to sing a hymn or primary song (can’t remember which one). He, his wife, my companion, and I found ourselves in tears. It was “thick” in the room.

But still, our friend could not bring himself to attribute it beyond good hormones that were conjured up with beautiful music. He still could not bring himself to see God in it.

I’ve learned since then that faith is a choice, both when it comes to obedience and when it comes to seeing God in our lives.

My friend participated in faith-promoting activities but wasn’t choosing faith; he wanted faith to descend upon him. Where we felt the presence of God, he felt good feelings that didn’t necessarily come from Him. People can look at the same event and draw completely different conclusions.

When I pray about finding my lost keys, I can choose to believe that God helped me find them or that it was a coincidence. When I feel good emotions associated with church, I can believe that the Lord is making His presence known or that I simply have positive pathways built in my brain when it comes to church. When we look at mistakes leaders in the past and present, we can choose to see fallible humans who are still generally led by God or we can see evidence that they can’t really be prophets if they had flaws. When Alma faced off with Korihor, he testified that all of creation was a witness of God. Obviously, there are millions of people throughout history who have come to a completely different conclusion.

The truth remains that you can find “evidence” to support your beliefs no matter which beliefs you ascribe to. I feel that almost most everyone goes through moments in their lives when they ask, “What if it’s not true?” Though these moments can be a little scary, both for ourselves and those we love, these moments can be defining. They can be the threshold in our lives where we really decide where we are going to invest our belief, and that’s incredibly powerful.

We may be tempted to desperately avoid questions such as, “What if it’s not true?” However, rather than avoiding them, we can examine them closely and try to include the Lord we’ve been taught about. We can use it as a testing ground rather than unraveling because we’re afraid of it.

Why should I choose to invest in faith?

So let’s say we’ve reached that threshold. We’ve asked ourselves, “What if we were wrong about everything? What if I was just seeing what I wanted to see?” If you can find “evidence” of whatever you believe in, why should you choose faith?

Unfortunately, this is an extremely personal question that gets handled by the Lord according to each individual. I can only share my experiences.

For a long time, I’m not even sure I had a good reason for choosing to invest in faith because I’m not sure I was consciously choosing it. I was afraid to consider the alternative of leaving the church, and I had found enough goodness and evidence that I felt okay moving forward. I invested in faith because I had been taught to invest in faith. I believed that my good feelings were coming from God because I had been taught to believe. I’m so grateful for that gift.

I’m also grateful that I reached the point where I’ve made my own, conscious choice to continue investing in faith. It was scary facing some of those questions at first, but walking through those low points created an opportunity for me to invest on my faith on purpose, and that has been far more rewarding.

I still receive all those good feelings and quiet moments and associate them with God, but those are not the reasons I choose to keep investing. Those are rewards I receive from investing, but they are not the reasons I continue investing.

I think my most definitive reason for investing right now is how I’ve felt guided. Over the past couple years, I have been watching the Lord guide my prayers before something happened and then watching them be fulfilled before my eyes.

I’ve told the story before, but as we were moving to Virginia, I opened my journal and prayed for absolutely everything I wanted. I left nothing out, no matter how silly or artificial it seemed. At a time when my husband was under immense stress trying to find something we could afford that wasn’t a box in an alley, I was feeling pretty good about everything and asking for whatever I wanted. Sure enough, seven months later, we were led to a temporary home that had every single thing I had asked for. Not to mention, it was given to us at a price that was unheard of, and we did absolutely no work to get it. It quite literally fell into our laps.

I would have been fine if the Lord had given us a tiny apartment without all the extras and I told Him that too, but it was one of those moments where one of the most important lessons He taught me was, “I heard you.” Maybe in and of itself, this can be considered coincidence, but this has been repeated over and over and over.

I pray. I am guided as I pray. Things come together, and I recognize the Lord’s hand because He told me to pray for it. He would likely still bless my family, but because I prayed for it, I was given the tremendous gift of recognizing that He was speaking to me.

Maybe this is how Captain Moroni felt. Maybe Zerahemnah was impressed with their shields, breastplates, and cunning, but maybe Captain Moroni had felt something nagging at him ahead of time to prepare his men in precisely this manner. Then, when he saw everything come together, he quietly thanked the Lord for preparing him ahead of time. Or, maybe Captain Moroni had enough experiences of that manner that he knew the Lord had been guiding them, even if he hadn’t felt any specifics in that particular moment.

Right now, prayer and its results are the reasons I keep investing in faith. I have had other experiences where my prayers have been much shorter and involved far less of my silly, little wants, and I have seen how those prayers were also guided because He led me towards something that I wasn’t expecting. I have had even more experiences where I did pray for everything I wanted, but I felt this little nagging feeling that I wasn’t going to get it. And sure enough, I was led elsewhere.

The Lord could lead me for my entire life without me knowing it. But because He has commanded me to pray, He has been able to guide my feelings ahead of time so that I can recognize Him later. And isn’t that just a beautiful reason to pray? Prayer isn’t about getting what we want. It’s about helping us find our Heavenly Father, and it has surely done that for me.

I testify of Heavenly Father who hears and answers prayers. I testify that He can guide our prayers and feelings if we practice that skill. I testify that He can make Himself known to you should you choose to invest in faith and ask for help in recognizing Him. The experiment surely won’t hurt you. You have nothing to lose by asking Him to help you see Him if He’s really there. The rewards I have personally experienced have gone far beyond what I could have imagined, and I know it all comes from a loving Heavenly Father who loved me because He made me.

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.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Alma 43–52 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Michelle Pack

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Wilford and Phebe Woodruff’s first child, Sarah Emma, was born on July 14, 1838. Just over a year later, Wilford left his family to serve a mission in England. In his journal on July 14, 1840, he wrote, “Sarah Emma is two years old this day. May the Lord preserve my wife and children from sickness and death until my return. O Lord, I commit them into thy hands. Feed, clothe, and comfort them, and thine shall be the glory.” Wilford had a strong testimony of the power of covenants to unite his family for eternity. In a letter to Phebe on July 16, 1840, he said:

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Gain a Testimony of Temple Ordinances? 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

by Scott Hansen

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe “that God has revealed” and “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9). However, change can be unsettling after we have already gotten into a routine. Ordinances, policies, and procedures serve as a mechanism for us to have spiritual experiences. When these things change, it can be hard. So, why do Church policies and procedures change? Here are three reasons:

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Does the Church Change? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2024 April General Conference, Sunday Morning Session

Pillars and Rays

Elder Alexander Dushku
Of the Seventy

Main Points

We too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time.
No two people experience God’s light and truth in exactly the same way.
Most of us receive truth line upon line, not in one big revelation

Gospel Principles taught

Jesus Christ, The Holy Ghost, Faith in Christ,

Gospel Doctrine taught

Restoration, Prophets

Scriptures

Joseph Smith—History 1:10–13, Joseph Smith—History 1:14–16, Joseph Smith—History 1:17, Joseph Smith—History 1:20, Mosiah 16:9, Doctrine and Covenants 84:46; John 1:9, Doctrine and Covenants 88:12–13, Doctrine and Covenants 6:23, Doctrine and Covenants 8:2; Helaman 5:30, Mosiah 5:2; Doctrine and Covenants 11:12, 2 Nephi 4:21; Helaman 5:44, Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–14, Doctrine and Covenants 18:35–36, Mosiah 2:17; Moroni 7:45–48, 1 Nephi 1:20, Helaman 5:9–12, Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79, Moroni 10:3–4, Doctrine and Covenants 88:40, Alma 32:35, Doctrine and Covenants 50:24, Alma 32:41

Other Sources

Joseph Smith, Journal, Nov. 9–11, 1835, 24

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith Chapter 23: Receiving a Testimony of Jesus Christ

Related talks:

Russell M. Nelson, “Closing Remarks”
Spencer W. Kimball, in Conference Report, Munich Germany Area Conference, 1973, 77; quoted in Graham W. Doxey, “The Voice Is Still Small”
David A. Bednar, The Spirit of Revelation
Gerritt W. Gong, Ministering
Always Remember Him

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- Jesus Christ “is the light and … life of the world”
- Christ’s “Spirit giveth light to every man [and woman] that cometh into the world”
- His light “fill[s] the immensity of space”
- His light gives “life to all things.”
- I bear witness of Jesus Christ, that He is the light and life of the whole world—and of your personal world and mine.
- I testify that He is the true and living Son of the true and living God and that He stands at the head of this true and living Church, guided and directed by His true and living prophets and apostles.
Description of His Teachings.
- The Lord teaches truth line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.”
- The Lord’s typical pattern, brothers and sisters. Rather than sending us a pillar of light, the Lord sends us a ray of light, and then another, and another.

Inspiring Words & Phrases

My message is for those who worry about their testimony because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences.
The Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ began with an explosion of light and truth!
All that, and much more, began with a boy’s desperate prayer and a pillar of light.
One of the great truths of the Restoration is that the heavens are open—that we too can receive light and knowledge from on high. I testify that is true.
One of the great truths of the Restoration is that the heavens are open—that we too can receive light and knowledge from on high. I testify that is true.
But we must be wary of a spiritual trap. Sometimes faithful Church members become discouraged and even drift away because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences—because they haven’t experienced their own pillar of light.
President Spencer W. Kimball warned, “Always expecting the spectacular, many will miss entirely the constant flow of revealed communication.”
Rather than sending us a pillar of light, the Lord sends us a ray of light, and then another, and another.
The Light of Christ is literally all around us.
Perhaps you were reading in the Book of Mormon and a verse spoke to your soul, as if God had put it there just for you—and then you realized that He did.
Brothers and sisters, I have not seen a pillar of light, but, like you, I have experienced many divine rays. Over the years, I’ve tried to treasure such experiences. I find that as I do, I recognize and remember even more of them.
I remember studying and praying desperately to receive a more certain witness of Jesus Christ. Then one day, as I pled with Heavenly Father, I felt a powerful sense of light and warmth. And I knew. I just knew.
You have had your own experiences—your own light-filled bursts of testimony. As we recognize, remember, and gather these rays “together in one,” something wonderful and powerful begins to happen. “Light cleaveth unto light”—“truth embraceth truth.” The reality and power of one ray of testimony reinforces and combines with another, and then another, and another. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a ray and there a ray—one small, treasured spiritual moment at a time—there grows up within us a core of light-filled, spiritual experiences. Perhaps no one ray is strong enough or bright enough to constitute a full testimony, but together they can become a light that the darkness of doubt cannot overcome.
In time and through “great diligence,” we too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time. And in the midst of that pillar, we too will find a loving Heavenly Father calling us by name, pointing us to our Savior, Jesus Christ, and inviting us to “Hear Him!”
May we recognize and receive His glorious light and then choose Him over the darkness of the world—always and forever.

Lists

We have needs just like Joseph did:

Freedom from spiritual confusion.
Freedom from worldly darkness.
The need to know for ourselves.

The restoration brought a flood of:

Divine revelation
New scripture
Restored priesthood keys
Apostles
Prophets
Ordinances
Covenants
Reestablishment of the true and living church

We are ‘living in revelation’ (worthy to receive these divine rays constantly) if:

We have received the gift of the Holy Ghost
We are striving to exercise faith
We are striving to repent
We honor our covenants

Different ways we experience the light and Spirit of the Lord:

Peace spoken to your mind about something that has worried you
An impression to do something good
A desire to follow Jesus Christ
A desire to be faithful
Felt that the testimony you shared was true
Felt an assurance that God loves you
Someone else’s testimony of Christ touches you and gives you hope
A verse in the Book of Mormon seems to be just for you
Felt love of God as you serve others
Remember past tender mercies

Invitations/Challenges

“Immerse yourself in the glorious light of the Restoration.” (Russell M. Nelson)
May we recognize and receive His glorious light and then choose Him over the darkness of the world—always and forever.

Warnings

But we must be wary of a spiritual trap. Sometimes faithful Church members become discouraged and even drift away because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences—because they haven’t experienced their own pillar of light.
President Spencer W. Kimball warned, “Always expecting the spectacular, many will miss entirely the constant flow of revealed communication.”

Blessings/Promises

in time and through “great diligence,” we too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time. And in the midst of that pillar, we too will find a loving Heavenly Father calling us by name, pointing us to our Savior, Jesus Christ, and inviting us to “Hear Him!”

Stories:

Elder Dushku tells the story of Joseph Smith. “And then, “at the very moment when [he’s] ready to sink into despair and abandon [him]self to destruction,” when he doesn’t know if he can hang on any longer, a glorious brilliance fills the grove, scattering the darkness and the enemy of his soul.” The answer to his question was given when a pillar of light appeared in the grove, with the Father and the Son.
Elder Dushku remembers being a rowdy teenager at a baptism and having the Spirit urge him to sit down and be reverent.
He recounts how he received a more sure witness of Christ before his mission.
“Being awakened one night years later by a feeling of “pure intelligence” telling me I would be called to serve in the elders quorum.”
“I remember a general conference where a beloved member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke the exact words of testimony I had told a friend I hoped to hear.”
I remember kneeling with hundreds of brethren to pray for a dear friend who lay unconscious on a ventilator in a small, faraway hospital after his heart had stopped. As we united our own hearts to plead for his life, he woke up and pulled the ventilator out of his own throat. He serves today as a stake president.
And I remember waking up with strong spiritual feelings after a vivid dream of a dear friend and mentor who passed away far too early, leaving an enormous hole in my life. He was smiling and joyful. I knew he was OK.

Application Ideas

Take some time to think about how you experience the light and Spirit of the Lord. Write your observations in a journal or your study journal. Revisit and revise your comments over time.
Over the next month, spend a week focusing on each of the items under “living in revelation.” Write about your experiences or share them with a trusted friend.
Honestly evaluate whether or not you are being aware of the spiritual trap Elder Dushku mentions. Ask Heavenly Father for a desire to overcome and weakness you may find.

The post Consider Conference: Pillars and Rays appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Kamryn Maughan

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Going to the Savior, Peter asked, “How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus responded, “I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:21–22). Just as we are commanded to forgive others, our merciful Heavenly Father promises to forgive us. Although we may understand this promise, it can be difficult to know if we’ve been forgiven. Three actions can help us feel God’s forgiveness: repenting, recognizing the Spirit, and reflecting on Jesus Christ.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Know If I’ve Been Forgiven? 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

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.

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

By Aubrey Barzee

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

While every page of scripture testifies of Jesus Christ, actually having a Christ-centered study can be hard at times. With so many responsibilities competing for our time, we might just read a few verses without getting much personal meaning out of them and feel satisfied that we’ve checked off “read the scriptures” for our day. Sometimes we may even find ourselves getting so caught up in deeper history or unnecessary questions that we completely miss the mark. Studying can be simple—it should fill us with the Spirit and a desire to become more like our Savior.

Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal in 1883, “While studying the word of God we learn truths which cannot be obtained from any other source.” His words are supported by another servant of the Lord, Apostle D. Todd Christofferson, who stated, “The central purpose of all scripture is to fill our souls with faith in God the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ.” So, how do we do that? Here are some study strategies that will help you increase your faith in Jesus Christ and feel His love for you personally.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Find Jesus Christ in My Studies? 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

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.

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

by Shauna Horne

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

General conference is a time for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to hear from the beloved prophet and apostles. Conference weekend is always spiritually uplifting, but preparing beforehand is essential if we want to get the most out of the messages we hear.

President Howard W. Hunter (1907–1995) taught that general conference is a time to strengthen our testimonies and resolve to improve our lives: “Conference time is a season of spiritual revival when knowledge and testimony are increased and solidified.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Prepare for General Conference? 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

2023 October General Conference, Sunday Morning Session

Be Peaceable Followers of Christ
Elder Quentin L. Cook, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Main Points

Trials and death are things all of us face in mortality.
We are blessed with agency
Peaceable followers of Christ remember that mortality is like the second act in a three act play. They follow and obey even in trials.
Moroni quotes his father, who in speaking to his congregation, calls them the “peaceable followers of Christ.” Those troubled times in Nephite history resemble our own times. Navigating such difficult times can be done with joy by being the peaceable followers of Christ.

Gospel Principles taught

Our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ, Agency, Prayer, Prophets, The Atonement, Faith in Christ, Obedience, the Family can be Eternal, Exaltation

Gospel Doctrine taught

The Plan of Salvation, The Atonement of Jesus Christ, Ordinances and Covenants, Commandments

Scriptures

Moroni 7:3, John 16:33, Mosiah 18:8–9, 2 Nephi 32:7, Abraham 3 (Chapter heading), Abraham 3:24–25, Alma 12:24, 2 Nephi 28:7–9, Acts 17:21, Doctrine and Covenants 123:12, Moroni 7:3, Doctrine and Covenants 6:34, Doctrine and Covenants 6:36–37, Hebrews 4:16, Hebrews 5:9, Moroni 7:3–4, Doctrine and Covenants 122:7–9, Alma 7:11-12, Matthew 11:28;verses 29–30, Doctrine and Covenants 137:10, Doctrine and Covenants 137:7, Mosiah 2:41, Doctrine and Covenants 1:14, Doctrine and Covenants 1:12, Doctrine and Covenants 136, Doctrine and Covenants 136:28, Doctrine and Covenants 136:29

Related talks:

The Songs They Could Not Sing
Overcome the World and Find Rest
“The Peaceable Followers of Christ”
Peacemakers Needed

Other Sources Cited:

President Russell M Nelson introduces preach my gospel …
Video: 3 Apostles talk about the impact of ‘Preach My Gospel’
Chapter 3: Lesson 2—Heavenly Father’s Plan of Salvation
The Great Plan of Happiness
‘These Things Shall Give Thee Experience’
Come, Ye Disconsolate

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- …We have a Father in Heaven who knows and loves us personally and understands our suffering perfectly. His Son, Jesus Christ, is our Savior and Redeemer.
- As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I testify that “peaceable followers of Christ” will find personal peace in this life and a glorious heavenly reunion. I bear a sure witness of the Savior’s divinity and the reality of His Atonement. He is our Savior and Redeemer. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Description of His Teachings.
- “Fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.”
- “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.”
- “… Be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
- “If the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.
- “The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?
- “… Fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.”
- “give heed to the words of the prophets.”
- “Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come.”
Description of His Atonement.
- We are blessed to know of Jesus Christ and His role in the plan.
- As peaceable followers of Christ, we strive to live His commandments. It has never been easy for His followers. Nor was it easy for the Savior to faithfully fulfill His mortal mission.
- “In His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ took upon Himself our pains, afflictions, and infirmities. Because of this, He knows ‘according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities’. He invites, ‘Come unto me,’ and as we do, He gives us rest, hope, strength, perspective, and healing.” (Preach My Gospel)
- “As we rely on Jesus Christ and His Atonement, He can help us endure our trials, sicknesses, and pain. We can be filled with joy, peace, and consolation. All that is unfair about life can be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.” (Preach My Gospel)

Inspiring Words & Phrases

Those who believe in, humbly worship, and testify of Jesus Christ have always experienced trials, tribulation, and adversities.
Bad things happen to good people on this mortal journey.
Now all of us are here in the second estate of our journey of progression toward a kingdom of glory as part of God’s great plan of salvation and exaltation. We are blessed with agency and subject to the trials of mortality. This is the time allotted for us to prepare to meet God.
We choose the role of “a peacemaker, now and always.”
Our heavenly destiny is not altered when we suffer adversity.
Trials are a part of mortality and occur in everyone’s life throughout the world. This includes major conflicts between countries.
We can joyfully be peaceable followers of Christ.
Our Father’s plan of happiness for His children includes not only a premortal and mortal life but also a potential for eternal life, including a great and glorious reunion with those we have lost.
Many do not appreciate that under His loving and comprehensive plan, those who appear to be disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, are not ultimately impacted.
Almost all of us have experienced physical and spiritual storms in our lives, some devastating.
A loving Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, who is the head of His restored Church, have provided us scriptures and prophets to prepare us, warn us about dangers, and give us guidance to prepare and protect us.
The Lord provides His people a chance to prepare for the challenges they will face.
Lives full of praise, music, and thanksgiving are uniquely blessed. Being joyful and relying on heavenly help through prayer is a powerful way to be peaceable followers of Christ. Striving always to be of good cheer helps avoid being cast down in spirit.

Lists

The scriptures warn us of some of the ways people are led astray:

They succumb to an “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” approach
Follow in line with like-minded people advocating for the next “new thing”
Listen to the philosophies of men
They know not where to find the truth

The Plan of Salvation:

Includes a premortal life
Includes a mortal life
Includes the potential for eternal life
Includes the potential for a great and glorious reunion with those we have lost
Includes the potential of having all wrongs righted
Will allow us to see with perfect clarity
Will allow us to have faultless perspective and understanding

Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ have given us scriptures & prophets to:

prepare us for physical & spiritual storms in our lives
Warn us about dangers
Give us guidance to prepare
Prepare and protect us

Some of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ’s directions:

Require immediate action
Provide protection for many years in the future

Stories/Parables

The Plan of Salvation is like a three-act play. Those who have no knowledge of the Father’s plan don’t understand what happened in the first act (the premortal life) and the purposes established there; nor do they understand the clarification and resolution that come in the third act. Many do not appreciate that under His loving and comprehensive plan, those who appear to be disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, are not ultimately impacted.
One of the most important scriptures for those who are righteous, regardless of their situation in life, is part of King Benjamin’s address to his people. He promises that those who faithfully keep the commandments are blessed in all things in this life and “are received into heaven … [and] dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness.”
Story of the revelation given to Brigham Young on Jan 14, 1847 at Winter Quarters. The revelation gave practical counsel on preparing for the exodus; taking care of the poor, the widows and fatherless and families of the Mormon Battalion; advice on living righteously; and then encouraging them to praise the Lord with singing, music, dancing and prayer; and if sorrowful, to call on the Lord that their souls may be joyful.

Invitations/Challenges

We are warm, engaged members of the communities where we live. We love, share, and invite all of God’s children to follow Christ’s teachings. We follow the counsel of our beloved prophet, President Nelson: we choose the role of “a peacemaker, now and always.”

Equations

Peaceable followers of Christ who (a) are righteous + (b) follow the Savior + (c) keep His commandments = will be blessed
the ultimate answer = “Earth has no sorrow that heav’n cannot heal.”

Blessings/Promises

For those of us in the Church striving to be peaceable followers of Christ, a brighter day awaits us as we focus on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
All wrongs will be righted, and we will see with perfect clarity and faultless perspective and understanding.
As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I testify that “peaceable followers of Christ” will find personal peace in this life and a glorious heavenly reunion.

Apologetics:

We do not know all the answers; however, we do know important principles that allow us to face trials, tribulation, and adversities with faith and confidence in a bright future that awaits each of us.

Application Ideas

How can I better love all of God’s children? How can I invite them to follow Christ’s teachings?
Ask yourself: which gospel principles allow us to face trials, tribulations and adversities with faith and confidence? Consider listing them in your journal, scriptures or study journal. Make a plan to study those principles and pray about them.
Make a goal to be a peaceable follower of Jesus Christ.
How can I praise the Lord with singing, music, dancing and the prayer of thanksgiving?
How can I show others the joy I have in being a follower of Jesus Christ?

The post Consider Conference: Be Peaceable Followers of Christ appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Maddie Christensen

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Sometimes paying a full tithe is overwhelming. With so many expenses mounting and the cost of living ever increasing, it can be daunting to give up 10% of our income. Even though we know that tithing is a commandment, recognizing why we should follow it can be difficult.

David A. Bednar said, “The honest payment of tithing is much more than a duty; it is an important step in the process of personal sanctification.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Should I Pay Tithing? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Isaiah foresaw a time when good would be called evil and evil would be called good (Isaiah 5:20). We live in the time he saw—a time when noisy opinions conflict with what we know to be true. Most of us know someone who currently struggles or has struggled with these conflicting ideas, and as disciples of Jesus Christ, we can help them.

President Dallin H. Oaks said, “We must stand fast against the values and practices that draw us away from the Lord’s teachings and our covenants, privileges, and obligations. We can do this with love.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Do I Help Those Going through a Faith Crisis While Staying Strong in My Testimony? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Conflicts and differing opinions surround us in this world. All voices—good and bad—are amplified through social and mass media. Thankfully, the Lord has given us a voice that we can and should listen to above all others: the voice of living prophets.

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, “One of the glorious messages of the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ is that God continues to speak to His children! He is not hidden in the heavens but speaks today as He did in ancient days. From the days of Adam, God has spoken to His children through appointed oracles who are charged with revealing His will and counsel to others.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Do We Need a Living Prophet? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Maddie Christensen

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

In a world full of natural disasters, instability, wars, and conflicts, many people wonder why terrible things continue to happen. It feels like we are constantly being bombarded with bad news, heartache, and grief. Through our time here on Earth, we will go through various trials and tribulations that can be hard to understand. So, why do bad things happen to people who are trying to do good? There are three main reasons:

To help us learn.
To help us come closer to Jesus Christ through His Atonement.
To help us have empathy for those around us.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why do bad things happen to good people? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Second Spindleby Autumn Dickson

I learned something this week about the Liahona that kinda blew my mind. I want to share what I learned, and then let’s take some principles from it.

In a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Robert L. Bunker describes an engineering phenomenon that I was completely unaware of. He talks about a concept that was invented by man in the 1940’s known as fault tolerant systems. Essentially, you build a computer that does the same processing twice (or more sometimes). If the processing comes back the same, then the computer can continue on because it is “correct.” If the processing comes back different, then something failed and the computer can know about it. Thus, it is fault tolerant. The computer can detect if it’s having its own issues.

Maybe I’m way behind on figuring this out, but the Lord built a fault tolerant system in the Liahona. It didn’t even register in my mind that the Liahona had two spindles until I was an adult. Even then, I couldn’t figure out why it had two spindles until I googled it and found this article from Robert L. Bunker. This verse is not in this week’s reading, but it does give us insight into the Liahona which we’re studying this week.

Alma 37:40 And it did work for them according to their faith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God, day by day.

Spindles. Plural. Both were pointing. If the Liahona only had one spindle, how was Lehi’s family supposed to know whether it was “working?” They could have waned in their faith and diligence, but the one arrow was still going to be pointing somewhere. There was no way they could have known that it was pointing “wrong.” Maybe this is completely obvious to anyone with any kind of predilection for engineering, but this totally blew my mind.

First of all, the idea that Joseph Smith, with all three years of his formal schooling, could have come up with that would have been impressive to say the least. This kind of fault finding system wasn’t formally invented until the 1940’s, but Joseph kinda just threw it out there while interpreting The Book of Mormon in three months. If it hadn’t been in there, I’m sure I could have found the faith to just assume the Lord had a way of letting the family know, but I still think it’s super cool that it was included.

Anyway, I obviously do not claim to have figured this out on my own, as made apparent by surprise. However, I do want to try and take this a step further. It makes sense that the Lord would provide a way for the family to know if their Liahona was in working order; He was planning on using it as a tool to teach them about faith, diligence, and being led along. He didn’t just give it to them, and they were done. The Lord is purposeful and wanted them to practice living the gospel principles in a continuous manner.

Though the second arrow has very obvious implications for Lehi’s family, I believe there are spiritual implications for us. After all, The Book of Mormon was written for our day so that we could learn about the Lord’s dealings with His children. So what do we learn from this fault tolerant, second spindle?

The words of the prophets

One of the fail-safe systems the Lord has provided are dual pathways for revelation. Like much of the world, we believe that the Lord can speak to us directly. This pathway of revelation is critical to our exaltation. It requires us to stretch and reach and dig for ourselves. When we have to seek out personal revelation, we are able to gain that personal relationship with Christ which is ultimately what saves and exalts us. It also allows us to be guided in our personal lives so that the prophet doesn’t have to tell me whether studying elementary education in college is a good idea. Personal revelation is crucial.

The world is also a great example of what happens when you don’t have that second pathway; President Oaks has coined this pathway the “priesthood line.” The priesthood line is how we received the scriptures in the past, and it’s how we receive His guidance today. As a missionary, I remember coming across a group of Christians who had a table up on campus. They were of all different Christian faiths, working together to spread the word. It was admirable. We tried talking to them, but they quickly denounced us as non-Christians. When I pointed out that they weren’t completely similar in their own beliefs of Christ, they quickly responded that they were similar in all of the important things. I found this extremely fascinating since some of them believed that baptism was essential to salvation and some of them did not believe this. You would think that this particular aspect would be classified as “important” since it was determining credentials for salvation, but I digress. Even within the same denomination, you can wander from congregation to congregation and find different beliefs.

This second spindle, this priesthood line, helps us know what the doctrine is. Yes, we do have random quotes from random priesthood leaders that are questionable, but true, canonized doctrine is repeated again and again and again and again. It is not hidden; we know what we believe. These two lines of communication help with the concept of fault tolerance.

Personal revelation

Now the fail safe of a priesthood line can be very helpful in finding out the doctrine of the kingdom. The personal line is still necessary; there are some revelations that only come from the Lord, and we all still have to receive our witness. However, the priesthood line can take us pretty far in establishing the stage.

But what about the personal decisions for which there is no doctrine? There is no “right” answer for what people should choose as careers. There isn’t any kind of doctrine about where we should live or how many kids we should have or who we should marry. There are guiding principles, but guiding principles aren’t always enough. I can be righteous as an accountant or as a fashion designer, but is there a specific direction I need to take? Maybe there isn’t a specific direction, but if there is, I definitely want to know about it.

So what are the fail safes for personal decisions? The priesthood line and personal line can help us with doctrine, but is there a fault tolerant system for our personal decisions? How do we know we’re on the right path if there is a “right” path for us to take? There are plenty of times when there isn’t necessarily a “right” option and we’ll be fine either way, but I’ve also lived long enough and been guided often enough to know He has specific instructions sometimes. What is my second spindle?

I kinda have two answers for this.

First, the Lord helped me understand a simple way to practice receiving revelation. I practiced it with the FSY kids I taught last summer. At FSY, we were given this incredible opportunity where the Lord wanted to speak to us and guide us and teach us. Not to mention, they were all given a journal to carry around anyway. That week, I challenged the kids to write down everything that even barely registered as a potential prompting. I told them that if a thought popped into their heads, they should write it down. They didn’t necessarily need to question whether it was a prompting. They should simply write it down. Was everything they wrote down going to be revelation? No. Would writing everything down help them establish the pattern? Absolutely. If you want to understand whether the Lord is speaking to you, you need a second spindle with which to compare it. Writing down everything could help you start to puzzle out those feelings very consciously and start to recognize the pattern of the Lord’s voice in your own life.

Second answer.

I can’t tell you what your second spindle looks like; it may take time to determine that. However, I can testify of a second spindle. If we learn nothing else from this fault tolerant system of the Lord, learn this: the Lord is capable of helping you know so have faith. When you have a big decision to make and you’re worried out of your mind about whether you’re doing the right thing in your life or whether you’re doing the right thing for your family, set your worry aside and trust the Lord’s ability to speak to you in a way that you can understand. If you don’t feel His voice, don’t fret. If you are regularly turning to Him, He will make His will clear to you if there is a will. Perhaps He will simply close a door that you were planning on taking, or He will open a different one. Perhaps He will guide your desires without you even knowing it, or perhaps you will get a big “warning” feeling that only goes away when you turn around. No matter how He chooses to answer you in any given circumstance, have faith and rejoice that the Lord has a second spindle that works very well. You can trust it.

And if all else absolutely fails, I testify of a third spindle. It’s called the atonement of Jesus Christ, and it makes up for mistakes. It turns all bad into good for those who are trying their hardest to follow the Lord. When I was getting ready to marry Conner and I desperately wanted an answer, I finally gave up and said, “If everything goes wrong and we get divorced and things go totally crazy, the Lord can’t be mad at me because I couldn’t have possibly tried harder to follow Him.” I don’t recommend getting married that way, and I have also learned a lot about marriage since then, but the key is this: you cannot truly fail when you remain close to the Lord. In the end, He can turn everything into a triumph. That third spindle is not fault safe; it is fault proof. It does not fail when we turn it on.

I testify of a Savior who revealed The Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. I testify that He included the coolest, smallest details that can give us so much insight. I testify that He saw all ahead of time and created systems with which to protect us (but not at the expense of our growth), and I testify that He did that because He loves us.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – 1 Nephi 16–22 – Autumn Dickson 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

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

by Zachary Wright

Introduction

For today’s introduction, I’d like to share a story from my own faith journey with you. In High School, I found myself in a dispute with a classmate who consistently challenged my faith. He didn’t believe in God, and he was very argumentative and combative regarding why he was right. I found myself thrown into a loop…it had been the first time I was forced to really consider my faith. I had deeply spiritual experiences, but those didn’t seem to answer his questions. I felt like I was on the defense, like my head was on fire. Everything I had ever believed in seemed to flip upside-down. I began poring over everything I had learned, trying desperately to find out what I could trust, and clinging to whatever truth I could find. In psychology, this is referred to as “Cognitive Dissonance,” and it’s something that critical thinkers need to be aware of in order to be successful.

Throughout this series, we’ve talked a lot about dealing with information, and processing it in a way that can help us to arrive at correct conclusions. However, lots of the data (especially about people-centered topics such as politics, history, and religion) we have comes from differing worldviews, and is loaded with differing presuppositions about life. This, naturally, will lead to some kind of conflict, because not all ideas are compatible with each other. This is further complicated by the fact that sometimes people can be closed-minded, or otherwise are unwilling/unable to accept the points you bring across. Critical thinkers need to learn how to deal with cognitive dissonance, because if you haven’t experienced cognitive dissonance yet, you will experience it eventually. It’s important to learn how to effectively navigate your ideas being challenged in a way that doesn’t make you feel miserable all the time, but also doesn’t prevent you from continuously learning. To do this, we’ll first explore what cognitive dissonance is. We’ll then look at it from a more faith-based perspective, and then, we’ll discuss how to better resolve cognitive dissonance. With our goals in mind, let’s get into it.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance has been described as “the most influential and extensively studied theory in social psychology”(1)- and for good reason. It was termed over 60 years ago (which in terms of modern psychology, is VERY old) by a psychologist named Leon Festinger. He described it as “an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction” (2). This is important to keep in mind, because unlike the common colloquial usage, cognitive dissonance is not “holding two contradictory ideas at once” (3). Instead, as Festinger indicated, it’s the mental condition that prompts us to want to reconcile conflicts in our minds.

A renowned fable may help illustrate this idea. There was a fox walking through the forest, and he stumbled across some beautiful, delicious-looking grapes. They were high up on a vine though, and so he tried jumping up and down to get them…to no avail. He tried and tried again, eventually stating to himself “They’re probably just sour grapes anyway, I shouldn’t waste my time on this” or something to that effect. He then gave up, having convinced himself to leave. This actually explains this psychological phenomenon rather well. The fox in this story was put into distress-cognitive dissonance-when he found that he was unable to get the grapes. To resolve said dissonance, he convinced himself that the grapes were sour to “justify” himself giving up.

There are also some very interesting, real-world examples of this occurring as well. In a follow-up experiment, Leon Festinger once again took it upon himself to explore the concept of cognitive dissonance. He took 71 psychology students (one at a time), and had them take 12 spools, and place them into a tray using only one hand. Then, using the same hand, the students were to take all of the spools out of the tray, and repeat the process for about 30 minutes. Then, they had to do a similar exercise where they had to turn wooden pegs a quarter turn for another 30 minutes. Basically, it’s designed to be boring. At the end of the experiment, an experimenter would pull them aside, and tell the participants that they needed help convincing others how exciting the experiment was. To one group of students, the experimenters offered $20, to another group, they offered $1, and to another group of students, they offered no compensation. Take a moment to guess which group reported the highest satisfaction with the experiment. If you guessed the group that was offered $20 gave the best report of the boring experiment, I don’t blame you. Interestingly enough, that’s not what happened. Instead, the group that was offered $1 rated the experiment most positively.

So, what happened? Well, in the analysis, they explained the following.

If a person is induced to do or say something which is contrary to his private opinion, there will be a tendency for him to change his opinion so as to bring it into correspondence with what he has done or said.

The larger the pressure used to elicit the overt behavior (beyond the minimum needed to elicit it) the weaker will be the above mentioned tendency. (4)

Put another way, the conclusion arrived at was that the participants changed how they viewed the experiment and that the participants who were most heavily rewarded were less likely to change their behavior. This makes sense…the students who got rewarded $20 (an amount that was far larger back in the 60s) didn’t need to change their opinion. They were already compensated for their time, and the dissonance has been resolved. However, those who only received one dollar didn’t get that satisfaction, so they had to resolve it a different way. This is the crux of what cognitive dissonance is.

However, this still leaves us with questions like “What do you feel when you experience cognitive dissonance?” or “What specifically can cause cognitive dissonance?” Some writers indicate that a person suffering from cognitive dissonance experiences “anxiety, embarrassment, regret, sadness, shame, and regret” (5). Some causes for cognitive dissonance include being forced to do something you believe is wrong, making decisions based on options that don’t seem appealing, or giving in to addictions (6). Again, all of this goes back to the idea that something prompts us to feel “bad” about something that is happening that goes against what we believe, or challenges the presuppositions that we have.

Dissonance in Faith Contexts

Religious discussion, like many other topics, can prompt cognitive dissonance. The example I used in the introduction is one of many stories wherein cognitive dissonance played a role in my behaviors and actions. One author doing a qualitative study on the feelings behind these “faith crises” in Christianity noted the following:

In the words of Durà-Vilà and Dein (2009), a Christian is susceptible to a period referred to as the, “Dark Night of the Soul,” which is described as a “loneliness and desolation in one’s life associated with a crisis of faith or profound spiritual concerns” (p. 544). This crisis of faith can cause great suffering and emotional distress and can even resemble symptoms of a depressive episode (e.g., feelings of guilt, loss of interest, anxiety). Efforts to participate in spiritual activities such as prayer, attending church, or fellowship with other believers can feel overwhelmingly difficult. Additionally, these spiritual practices can lack the meaning they once held for the believer. These crises of faith can be short-term, or last years, and can potentially become as severe as an individual abandoning his or her faith altogether. (7)

Those feelings sound familiar, don’t they? Basically, the argument being made is that those who are experiencing these feelings are having what many have called a “crisis of faith,” which prompts them to make decisions to resolve the negative feelings. These “Faith Crises” are often described by both members and former members as being among the most difficult parts of their lives. Remember, when someone begins to question the nature of their faith, they’re questioning the very nature of reality as we understand it. The negative feelings that come along with such questions are very real, and should not be ignored.

As we’ve learned though, those feelings are only part of the story, seeing as how cognitive dissonance is manifested not by the feelings alone, but also how people set out to “resolve” those feelings. Many members of the church who experience a “faith crisis” may have questions about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, and so they might peruse the Joseph Smith Papers to help gain insight into who Joseph Smith truly was. Others may have questions about whether or not God exists, and so they turn to the scriptures (as well as other sources), and ponder whether or not God exists. Others may even choose to leave the church, believing that the reasons to believe in the church’s truth claims are unsatisfactory. As you can see, when the dust settled in terms of my faith journey, I did not come to the conclusion that the church was false. Even so, the final option of abandoning organized religion seems to be one that many people (especially in my generation) seem to be embracing. (8)

It’s worth noting from a cultural perspective though that some people have issues calling this a “faith crisis.” Critics of the church might be more prone to blame the church and not their own faith, and members of the church sometimes get self-conscious at the prospect of losing faith. Instead, members of the church want to structure this as more of a “faith remodeling” focused on questions as opposed to some kind of crisis. (9) I can get behind this rhetoric, as I believe that asking questions about our own faith and restructuring it seems like a good practice to me. However, having been acquainted with my own feelings, and the feelings of others, of people navigating these issues, I also have no issue talking about it in terms of the strong emotions involved. Regardless of how you view it, the relationship between cognitive dissonance and the feelings associated with what many people call a “faith crisis” is worth analyzing.

Resolving the Dissonance

With such powerful emotions at play, it almost goes without saying that this topic should be taken seriously. There are a few things that people can do to resolve the dissonance. For example, psychologists suggest that cognitive dissonance is resolved in a few different ways, including:

Changing our behavior so that it is consistent with what we’ve learned.
Changing one of the dissonant thoughts in order to restore consistency.
Adding other (consonant) thoughts that justify or reduce the importance of one thought and therefore diminish the inconsistency.
Trivializing the inconsistency altogether, making it less important and less relevant. (10)

I think that breaking down the issue in this way is useful. Objectively, we need to do some kind of reorganization of our thoughts, whether by adding to, changing, or ultimately changing the authority of those thoughts. For example, I’ve made it clear that I don’t like raw tomatoes. If I’m forced to eat raw tomatoes, I can resolve the ensuing cognitive dissonance by either:

Just choose not to eat the tomato
Try to convince myself that the tomato is actually good
Adding a thought as to why I’m eating the tomato (perhaps I’m being paid to do it, or I don’t want to hurt the person’s feelings
Or I just dismiss the thought that I don’t like tomatoes, and choke them down anyways.

Now, addressing cognitive dissonance from that perspective is certainly not a bad approach. However, that still leaves us with the more practical question of “How can I help my friend or loved one”? You can tell them to change how they’re thinking or feeling, but that alone probably won’t do much good. As will soon be shown, a careful application of critical thinking in combination with spiritual direction can allow us to connect to those who are struggling in ways that are meaningful and effective. Specifically, Latter-day Saints should understand and care about this topic so they can empathize with those experiencing a faith crisis, help them identify what the root of their faith crisis is, and eventually help them recognize that the feelings they have are a natural part of a healthy, progressing, and ultimately fulfilling faith.

While a technical psychological definition is still up for debate, empathy is usually characterized by “a complex capability enabling individuals to understand and feel the emotional states of others, resulting in compassionate behavior.” (11) While it does not necessarily mean that you embody the anxiety, anger, or sadness that may arise during these crises, it does mean that you are emotionally present and that you are able to perceive the emotions that others are feeling accurately. (12) Consider the following commentary stated during the Annual Seminary and Institute Training and Institute Broadcast:

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Genuine empathy brings people together; it sparks connections and helps people feel they are not alone. It is a critical part of creating a sense of belonging. This attribute is a key to responding effectively to a student with a question and to effectively leading a group discussion where many students listen carefully with unspoken questions. (13)

An important aspect of empathy includes asking questions, and genuinely listening to people. We’ve discussed the importance of asking questions in terms of critical thinking, but getting to the root of what a person actually feels requires careful questions, and patient effort. Not only are you able to get to the root of what a person is feeling, but you in turn get to figure out exactly what a person is truly concerned about. Put another way, by figuring out what they are feeling, you figure out what they truly care about. In the last episode, I alluded to the idea that many people leave the church not because of historical issues or doctrinal issues themselves. Rather, they leave because of the feelings that are brought about by these issues. If you can address the feelings, you can figure out more how to help resolve the dissonance.

And that brings us to another very important facet to this conversation: Cognitive dissonance is not necessarily a bad thing. I’ve changed how I view cognitive dissonance (see what I did there?) in such a way that I now look at it as evidence of learning, and an opportunity to grow and develop my ideas. This is true in just about every aspect of life, but it’s especially important to remember when we talk about faith. I find experiences that we refer to as “faith crises” often work in a similar way. We find something that prompts questions and challenges us, and it prompts us to learn more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, or the history of the restored church, and it can provide us an opportunity to cling onto the peace that is found with the Savior. When we embody this pursuit of truth inherent within LDS theology, this aspect of critical thinking comes very naturally, and we should make full use of that advantage. Although it’s difficult to navigate the complexities of cognitive dissonance, connecting with trusted sources, open communication, continual learning, and consistent connection with our Heavenly Father resolves cognitive dissonance far better than anything else I’ve found.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cognitive dissonance is an important and recurring aspect of our journey to become critical thinkers. It has a long history, and pertains to many different contexts of our lives, including our identities as children of God. Even so, there are a few options at our disposal that can help us, and others, navigate the complexities of cognitive dissonance. Whether we are actively regulating our thoughts and opinions in a manner that is conducive to critical thinking, or we’re helping others by being empathetic, or even just becoming more comfortable with the complexities of life, cognitive dissonance does not need to be a stumbling block in our lives. If we’re able to navigate those feelings well, we’re all that much closer to becoming the kinds of thinkers, and believers that God wants us to be.

References:

Alfnes F., Yue C., Jensen H. H. (2010). Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 37, 147–163; Cited in Perlovsky L. (2013). A challenge to human evolution-cognitive dissonance. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00179; This article also references the “Fox and the Sour Grapes” story, which likewise originates from one of Aesop’s Fables.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/202002/dissonant-cognitions
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive dissonance. J. Abnor. Soc. Psychol, 58, 203-210.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738, see also https://health.clevelandclinic.org/cognitive-dissonance/
https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/bitstream/handle/10342/7462/WEBB-MASTERSTHESIS-2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://inallthings.org/why-theyre-leaving-and-why-it-matters-gen-zs-mass-exodus-from-church/
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/questions-of-faith-not-a-crisis-of-faith?lang=eng
https://positivepsychology.com/cognitive-dissonance-theory/
Riess H. (2017). The Science of Empathy. Journal of patient experience, 4(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373517699267
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of personality assessment, 91(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802484381
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/auxiliary-training/2021/01/11webb?lang=eng&id=p15#p15

Further Study:

“On Dealing with Uncertainty” by Bruce C. Hafen, link here

“Faith is Not Blind” by Bruce C. and Marie K. Hafen, link here

“Questions of Faith, Not a Crisis of Faith” by Molly Ogden Welch, link here

The post By Study and Faith – Episode 9: Cognitive Dissonance appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Saturdays and Sundays are safeguarded days for most people. Between school, work and other activities, our weeks get hectic and weekends are reserved for relaxing with family and friends and accomplishing tasks that could not be finished during the week. But faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with members of other religions, carve out time during their weekends to attend church meetings.

Church attendance is important for many reasons, not the least of which are to worship God, to feel the Spirit, and to keep God’s commandment to honor the Sabbath day. There are many other reasons to attend church meetings, such as renewing our covenants with God, learning the gospel, and joining a community of believers. Our lives can be exceedingly blessed by going to church, even (and maybe especially) when it feels like a sacrifice.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Is Going to Church Important? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Craig Lindquist

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Have you ever felt that the proverbial “windows of heaven” are too often fastened tightly shut for you? You would not be alone, as most of us have. Assuming that they are not shut because of serious misdeeds, what do we do when we need the revelation that flows through those windows but cannot get it? There is no easy answer. Even after much prayer, fasting, studying the scriptures, or conversations with priesthood leaders, answers can still be hard to find. Nevertheless, in our own struggle we can gain much understanding and appreciation for others who also search for answers from above.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Do I Deal with Questions I Don’t Have the Answers To? 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:In the time since General Conference, we have had several questions about the resurrection – whether our bodies will be resurrected in their perfect form, and what the difference would be between a Celestial versus a Terrestrial or Telestial resurrected body.

Answer from FAIR Volunteer David Smith:Resurrected BodiesIn his October 2023 general conference message, President Nelson reminded us: “Your choices today will determine three things: where you will live throughout all eternity, the kind of body with which you will be resurrected, and those with whom you will live forever.” President Nelson reemphasized scriptural teachings about resurrected bodies, as explained in a Church manual:

The scriptures are clear that all of God’s children will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15:22; Alma 11:42; 40:4). The eternal kingdom inherited by a resurrected person, as well as the nature of a person’s resurrected body, however, will be determined by his or her faithfulness and obedience to God’s laws (see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42; D&C 76:96–98; 88:22–24, 28–31). Those who will inherit the celestial kingdom will have bodies that are celestial, “whose glory is that of the sun” (D&C 76:70). Those in the terrestrial kingdom will have bodies that differ from those in the celestial kingdom, “even as [the glory] of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament” (D&C 76:71; see also D&C 76:78). Telestial bodies will have a lesser glory, “as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament” (D&C 76:81). (“Chapter 28: Doctrine and Covenants 76:50–119,” in Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual [2018])

Restored to a Perfect FrameWe know from ancient and modern prophets that in the resurrection we shall receive our bodies as they were except in a perfected, flawless state. Here are just a couple of relevant quotes: “The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, . . . and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body.” (Alma 11:43–44) * “Every fundamental part of every body will be restored to its proper place again in the resurrection, no matter what may become of the body in death. If it be burned by fire, eaten by sharks, no matter what. Every fundamental part of it will be restored to its own proper place.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Chapter 3: The Plan of Salvation,” in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith) Procreation Only Among Exalted Beings*We also learn through modern revelation that the opportunity to have children after the resurrection is a privilege available only to those who have an exalted body (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:16–19). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation; by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood; they will cease to increase when they die, that is, that they will not have any children after the resurrection; but those who are married by the power and authority of the Priesthood in this life, and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. (“History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843],” page 1551, entry for 16 May 1843, josephsmithpapers.org )

Echoing these teachings, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated:

So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” reprinted in Ensign, April 2002)

Differences in Resurrected BodiesAlthough we do not have much clear revelation what the difference is between Celestial/exalted bodies and other resurrected bodies, we do know that one difference is the ability (or lack thereof) to have children. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation 2:287–288)

In light of the doctrines quoted above, I interpret this statement by President Smith to mean not that these resurrected bodies will have been changed so that they no longer have any gender but rather that they will not be able to do fundamentally what men and women can do through a difference in gender (i.e., procreate).The post FAIR Questions: What did President Nelson mean by “the kind of body with which you will be resurrected” in his General Conference talk? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Craig Lindquist

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

A friend recently asked about my thoughts on making repentance less intimidating. My immediate answer was, “Well, perhaps we should get President Nelson to stop using the words ‘daily’ and ‘repentance’ in the same sentence!”1 We both had a chuckle, but while pondering his question, I recalled my first experience with repentance. It was both challenging and liberating.

MY EXPERIENCE WITH REPENTINGAs a young man I stole a tool from a local merchant. Later, I began to feel a desire to set my life right with the Lord. This required a visit to my bishop, who, despite my misgivings, was kind and loving. He taught me about the Lord’s love for me and His gratitude for my repentance. He also explained the necessity of making things right. I soon found myself in a checkout line of that same store explaining to the cashier that I wanted to pay for a tool I had stolen years before. Not knowing what to do, she called the manager over and the two of them talked it over with me. But not in private! I can still feel the stares of those waiting in line.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Make the Repentance Process Less Intimidating? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

While it is relatively easy to stay in contact and communicate with people across the globe, creating and maintaining deep personal relationships takes time and effort. Similarly, the Savior is always close to us, waiting for us with open arms, but it takes more than checking in now and then to develop a deep personal relationship with Him.

Why We Need a Personal Relationship with Christ

Wilford Woodruff urged, “I would here exhort all the Latter day Saints who hear me this day to study well the position you are in, and search your hearts and see if we are in the favour of the Lord our God, and then let us increase continually in faith, in hope, in righteousness, and in every virtuous principle . . . in order to prove us as the friends of God.”1

Speaking of being the friends of God, Elder James E. Faust (1920–2007) said, “Having such a relationship can unchain the divinity within us, and nothing can make a greater difference in our lives as we come to know and understand our divine relationship with God.”2

By drawing closer to Christ, we can unlock our divinity, reach our potential, and be strengthened to become as God is.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Develop a Stronger Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By Maddie Christensen

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

In today’s tumultuous world it can be difficult to make decisions and know what is right. As Latter-day Saints, we have the gift of the Holy Ghost to help us. Through the Holy Ghost, we can know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:5).

Wilford Woodruff was a great example of recognizing spiritual promptings and acting on them. He once shared:

While on my way east I put my carriage into the yard of one of the brethren in Indiana, and Brother Orson Hyde set his wagon by the side of mine, and not more than two feet from it.

Dominicus Carter, of Provo, and my wife and four children were with me. My wife, one child and I went to bed in the carriage, the rest sleeping in the house.

I had been in bed but a short time when a voice said to me: “Get up, and move your carriage.” It was not thunder, lightning or an earthquake, but the still, small voice of the Spirit of God the Holy Ghost.

I told my wife I must get up and move my carriage. She asked: “What for?” I told her I did not know, only the Spirit told me to do it.

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Recognize the Spirit? 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.

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

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 was a real treat for me. I also picked up some new books, including one I’ve cited essays from on multiple occasions, so that makes me happy.

There were some fantastic presentations that I will 100% be citing in the future, and I learned a lot, which is always fun for me. Those of us sitting in the back right corner completely geeked out over a few of the presentations, and I can’t wait for the full transcripts and notes to be available. A friend called it “Nerdfest 2023” and he wasn’t wrong, but it was a great time.

One of the scheduled guests had a medical emergency and couldn’t speak—I hear she’s going to be okay, thankfully—and they filled her slot with an impromptu Book of Mormon panel featuring the amazing Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, and Kerry Hull. It was a real highlight seeing those scholars all together like that, even though I’m also sorry we missed the original presentation.

And lastly, I wanted to offer my sincere congratulations to both Dan Peterson for his lifetime achievement award and to Jennifer Roach for being 2023’s recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith award. Both are very well-deserved and couldn’t happen to more lovely people.

Anyway, we’re still on the difficult topic of race and the Priesthood. The scholarship surrounding this subject has grown by leaps and bounds since the 1960s and ‘70s, but there are still some big questions we don’t have the answers to yet. Some people—including some of my friends—are pretty comfortable making bold declarations on this topic, but I’m not one of them. I don’t like making definitive statements about what happened when I don’t believe the evidence is clear enough to justify making definitive statements. So, I’ll make those clear, unambiguous statements when I feel like the evidence can corroborate what I’m saying, and I’ll refrain from making them when I feel like the evidence is unclear.

This week, the two sub-headings are on slavery among the Saints, and the Church’s stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, two topics that I do feel comfortable making strong statements about.

Obviously, like the rest of you, I think that slavery is an appalling institution, and I really struggle with the fact that there were some members—including some apostles—who owned slaves. I don’t understand how you could read the Book of Mormon and come away with the belief that that’s okay. However, I do also think that the leaders of the Church were in a difficult situation with regard to this issue when they arrived in Utah territory. And as I’ve said, I’m not in a position to judge because I don’t know their hearts and minds, and I didn’t grow up in their society.

Anyone who has studied even a tiny bit of US history can tell you that slavery was the main hot-button political issue between approximately 1820-1870. It was a prominent issue before that as well, but it was the main political focus during the early years of the Church. It’s one of the primary reasons that led the to the trouble in Missouri, as Missourians incorrectly believed the Saints were trying to organize a slave rebellion.

In fact, slavery was such a contentious issue in and around Missouri, Congress had to create a special piece of legislation called the Missouri Compromise before allowing Missouri to join the Union as a state. One of the by-products of that Compromise was that the US government began adding new states in an alternating fashion, one slave state followed by one free state, so as not to tip the balance of power in Congress.

This was an obvious factor in Utah Territory’s government, as they had to consider what it would mean for a future bid for statehood.

Another factor they had to consider was that slave-holders had joined the Church and headed West to join the rest of the Saints. This left an open question of the legality of holding slaves in the new territory. While the numbers of slave-holders and slaves were never large, they were still prominent enough that the question would need to be addressed one way or the other. They couldn’t just ignore the issue and hope it’d go away.

The morality of slavery was already leading to large splits in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian sects, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was trying to hold itself together after the recent murder of its leader and a forced migration westward. The Church had already just recently fractured twice: once over the Kirtland Safety Society, and once when a minority of members opted to stay behind and leave the Church rather than follow the rest of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. The Church wasn’t in a position yet where it was strong enough to endure another split over the question of slavery. And, unfortunately, many of the members believed that while the ill treatment of slaves was abhorrent, slavery itself was an institution created by God that they had no right to end without divine decree.

The final major complication was that the Native American tribes in the Utah Territory were engaged in a bustling slave trade into Mexico. There is at least one account of some of these slave traders murdering a young slave child in front of the newly arrived Latter-day Saints after they refused to buy the child from them.

After incidents such as those, local LDS leaders started encouraging the members to buy Native American slaves to save their lives, and also to hold the foreign trade at bay by keeping it local. I don’t fully understand the logic behind the latter policy, but it was something Brigham Young preferred so he could keep an eye on it. Some of the Native slaves were adopted as foster children into the families, while many others unfortunately were used as indentured servants.

Utah is the only state/territory in the Union where Native American slavery was legal, and in fact, it was one of several reasons why statehood was delayed. It can be difficult to understand how they didn’t see anything wrong with this, but they were born and raised in a society where that was unfortunately both typical and justified in popular rhetoric.

Slavery in Utah was a different animal than slavery in the South was. There were two laws governing slavery in the territory, one for African-American slaves, and one for Native American slaves.

There were some differences between the two laws, but they were both designed to eventually eliminate slavery altogether. Slaves had to come into the territory willingly and couldn’t be sold or forced to move out of the territory if they didn’t want to leave. Education was required for all slaves. If masters slept with their slaves, even if it was consensual, or they neglected to feed, clothe, or shelter them, or if they abused the slaves, the contracts were null and void and the slaves were to be freed. There were also fines and potential prison sentences for masters if they violated their contracts in any way. There were legal recourses for the slaves and term limits on the slavery imposed, which was very different from Southern slavery. It was more akin to indentured servitude.

Unfortunately, some people did abuse these laws and looked for loopholes, and some of the slaves were treated very badly. The intent, however, was to be better than those in the South and to eventually eliminate the practice entirely.

So, with all of that background in mind, let’s look at what the LFMW has to say about slavery among the Saints:

Slavery

Seeing California as an abundant supply source for Utah, in 1851, President Brigham Young sent a company of 437 saints, lead by Apostles Amasa M. Lyman and Charles C. Rich, to settle in Rancho San Bernardino, California. This company included a large number of slaves.

“As respects [to] slavery in the territory, we were assured that there was little of it there, yet it is there. Some slaves had been liberated by their owners since they were taken to Utah; others still remain slaves. But the most of those who take slaves there pass over with them in a little while to San Bernardino, a Mormon settlement in California … How many slaves are now held there they could not say, but the number relatively was by no means small. A single person had taken between forty and fifty, and many had gone in with smaller numbers.” (The Latter Day Saints’ Millennial Star, 1855, vol.17, p.63)

This is indeed what the report says. While slavery was illegal in California under the Compromise of 1850, the residents of San Bernardino tended to ignore that law. Latter-day Saints were among those who continued to hold slaves in the area.

Again, this is a difficult mindset to understand. Civil disobedience certainly has its place in society, but to engage in it in favor of slavery is just incomprehensible to us living in our day and age. I’m glad I don’t have to be the one to judge, because I don’t personally know how to weigh those attitudes against the good someone does.

Civil Rights

In February of 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination according to race, religion, or sex. Four years later, Rev. Martin Luther King was martyred for his role as a leader in the movement. After his death, black preachers continued to call for full integration of blacks into white restrooms, buses, schools, jobs, and neighborhoods.

As a church claiming to be led by Jesus Christ himself, I would expect it to be on the front line in the fight for equal rights for all people.

Now, this is an interesting statement, and I’d want to ask Thomas Faulk why he’d expect that.

One of the reasons the Children of Israel didn’t all recognize the Savior for who He was is because He wasn’t fighting for the civil rights of the Jewish people. He wasn’t leading a military revolt against the Romans to free His people, or anything of the kind. Instead, He taught them to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s, making a clear delineation between the kingdom of men and the kingdom of God. He taught them to turn the other cheek and ignore offenses made against them. He even continued a form of segregation, refusing to teach the Gospel or even to heal people from other communities, instead only preaching to the Jews. It wasn’t until after His death and resurrection that He allowed spreading the Gospel to the rest of the world.

For all of my critics, no, I’m not saying that I think segregation is a good thing. I’m very much in favor of civil rights for all people. What I’m saying is that we need to stop assigning our own thoughts and beliefs to the Savior. This is a big problem in our society today, and we need to be careful that we’re not putting words in His mouth.

While of course the Savior expects us to treat all people with love and charity, He did not push openly to change secular law. And, as difficult as it may be, treating all people with love and charity also means treating people with intolerant views of others with that same love and charity.

I don’t personally blame our prior leaders for not wanting to draw the attention of the federal government, because that had never gone well for them in the past. Our leaders were continuing the same approach they’d held since the 1800s: focusing on building up the kingdom of God and leaving civil matters to local and federal authorities. They were rendering unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s.

Eventually, they realized that by not speaking up, they were giving people the wrong idea and decided to reassess their strategy.

Instead the Church did nothing; in fact, they actually tried to prevent it.

Not exactly. Some members of the Church did nothing, and other members tried to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act. But actions of individual members, even those high up in the leadership of the Church, are not the actions of the Church itself. The Church issued a statement in General Conference in 1963, read by Hugh B. Brown, supporting civil rights for all citizens.

In January 1964, member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, Delbert L. Stapley, wrote to LDS Michigan Governor, George Romney. Governor Romney would later campaign to be President of the United States, as did his son, Mit Romeny [sic]. In his letter, Elder Stapley urged Governor Romney not to support the Civil Rights Act as it would bring the integration of blacks into society.

Yes, he did. You can read the full letter here. However, this is a personal letter written by an individual. He even says in the letter that he wasn’t writing it in his official capacity as an apostle:

After listening to your talk on Civil Rights, I am very much concerned. Several others have expressed the same concern to me. It does not altogether harmonize with my own understandings regarding this subject; therefore, I thought to drop you a note—not in my official Church position, but as a personal friend. Only President McKay can speak for the Church.

This was one friend writing a letter to another, and he took pains to clearly say that he was speaking as an individual, not as a Church leader.

Faulk then quotes another portion of Stapley’s letter:

“I am sure you know that the Prophet Joseph Smith, in connection with the Negro problem of this country, proposed to Congress that they sell public lands and buy up the Negro slaves and transport them back to Africa from whence they came. I am sure the Prophet, with his vision and understanding, foresaw the problems we are faced with today with this race, which caused him to promote this program.

When I reflect upon the Prophet’s statements and remember what happened to three of our nation’s presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, “those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel,” has and will continue to be fulfilled.” (Delbert L. Stapley, Letter to Gov. George Romney, January 23, 1964. https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter#page/n0/mode/2up)

In this letter Elder Stapley warned Governor Romney that support for civil rights was against the will of the Lord as revealed through Joseph Smith. Stapley further cautioned that punishments are in store for those who seek equality in such ways. As evidence for such dire warnings, Stapley wrote that three U. S. Presidents who had fought for equality and civil rights met an untimely death – Lincoln and Kennedy by assassination and Grant by cancer.

Yes, he did. It’s not a good letter, but it also wasn’t written on behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is not the official Church position on the legislation; it is one man’s opinion.

I don’t personally know much about Elder Stapley or his personal views beyond this one letter, so I’m not going to comment on any of that. I’ll just say that I disagree with his views on this matter, and I don’t believe that any of the current leadership of the Church would have any problem with me saying so.

President Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk in general conference after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and before the Church changed its stance on the issue:

Nope. The Church had already publicly announced that it supported civil rights for all citizens four years before this conference address was given.

“There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America. (President Ezra Taft Benson, Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh, General Conference, Ensign, October 1967)

Anyone who knows anything about our latter-day prophets knows that back in the 1960s President Benson was very outspoken on his views against Communism. It is well-known that while he was not a member of the John Birch Society (JBS), he was close friends with its founder and aligned closely with many of their beliefs. Among other things, the JBS spread the view that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist who was working to agitate racial tension in order to fracture American society.

There is some good counsel in this talk, but there’s also a lot of over-the-top rhetoric that would not fly in General Conference today. There’s a reason we’re counseled against hyper-partisanship and extreme political opinions these days.

Again, President Benson was allowed his personal political opinions, even if many of us today would raise our eyebrows at those opinions. This was not the official position of the Church. In fact, in January of 1963, the Church had issued a statement distancing itself from the John Birch Society.

That is two statements in 1963 alone refuting these claims of Thomas Faulk.

He continues:

The Civil Rights Act brought equal treatment for all people in this country and ended legal segregation. To refer to it as “the so-called civil rights movement” is to belittle its great significance.

I agree, but I also acknowledge that other people are allowed to hold different opinions on that matter.

Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia and to refer to someone or something as communist during this time was a very derogatory statement.

It wasn’t just a derogatory statement, it was in effect a charge of crimes against the United States government. And it wasn’t just President Benson who believed this. The FBI had a file on Reverend King over this same issue, as Benson may well have known as a member of President Eisenhower’s cabinet.

President Benson does not sound like the Lord’s prophet bringing a message of love.

He wasn’t “the Lord’s prophet” at the time, and wouldn’t be for another 18 years. People can grow and change. It’s the entire point of the Atonement, to effect a mighty change of heart and become better, more godly people. I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to utilize the Atonement, let alone an apostle of God.

It seems that the basis of these prejudice doctrines may have began with the culture of racism held by early general authorities and perpetuated by the following leaders until the direction the nation was moving forced the hand of the Church.

Again, this is inaccurate. These are not “doctrines,” they are opinions held by individuals. And nobody “forced the hand of the Church.”

Under the First Amendment, in the United States churches are mostly allowed to run themselves as they see fit. The government did not force our church to accept civil rights legislation, and neither did outside forces.

While public pressure can sometimes encourage our leaders to reconsider certain public policies, it cannot force them to do so. Revelation does not happen in a vacuum, which means that guidance often comes in answer to questions we ask Heavenly Father. It works the same way for the prophets and apostles, so speaking up can hold a degree of influence in that regard.

But, as we’ve also seen on multiple occasions, the Lord works on His own timetable. If He does not agree that the time is right for a change, no change will be made.

Our church largely stayed away from social issues during the 20th Century, but as soon as the NAACP requested a meeting with Church leaders and discussed this issue with them, those leaders issued a statement in support of civil rights for all. That was the beginning of a very long working relationship between the NAACP and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which President Nelson is still continuing today.

Distancing Itself From the Past

Published in 2013 on LDS.org is an article named, Race and the Priesthood.

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.” (Race and the Priesthood, December 6, 2013. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng)

This latest manifesto is shocking for the rejection of teachings by past prophets as just “theories.”

Only if you don’t believe in modern prophets and on-going revelation, which we do. Also, calling it a “manifesto,” while technically true under the definition of the word, is hyperbolic. It’s a loaded term in today’s society, meant to encourage thoughts of terrorists and criminals.

On matters where God was silent, well-meaning but wrong individuals, including past leaders, came up with explanations that ultimately proved to be incorrect. Those explanations were passed down from one generation to the next in ignorance, with younger generations believing they were the result of revelation when they weren’t.

When more information regarding this came to light, current leaders recognized that it was in fact not due to revelation, but instead due to personal belief and oral tradition. Upon that realization, they stated this information clearly.

That’s a good thing, you guys. It’s not an area for criticism. Correcting past mistakes and outdated teachings is exactly what prophets are supposed to do.

Contained in this quote from the article, the Church blatantly contradicts itself when disavowing:

Again, it’s not a contradiction, it’s a clarification that those teachings were never based on revelation.

“…that black skin is a sign of disfavor or curse…”

“A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith)

“…that it reflects actions in a premortal life…”

“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.” (President George Albert Smith)

“… that mixed-race marriages are a sin…”

“If the white man belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot.” (President Brigham Young)

“…that blacks…are inferior in any way to anyone else…”

“…some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” (President Brigham Young)

We’ve already discussed each of these quotes in detail in prior installments, so I’m not going to go through them all again.

I will just say that it’s incredibly odd to me that Faulk expects Church leaders to continue allowing untrue beliefs to flourish among the Church membership instead of correcting them. He’s essentially arguing that the Church should never correct past teachings, even when new information comes to light showing that those teachings are not true.

What’s even the point of having modern-day prophets, if they don’t speak to our day and age and instead, just continue repeating teachings of 200 years ago? Why have an open canon, if circumstances don’t change and society never grows? Why pray for personal revelation, if all of the information we need has already been stated before?

What a weird position to take.

With this article, the Church disavows 4 points of doctrine that have been in place for 150 years and invalidates the words of the prophets by calling their teachings just “theories.”

Nope. With that essay, the Church outlined all of the information we have on the subject and explained that prior leaders had passed along what they believed was revelation, but was actually just explanations given in the absence of revelation. Opinion was passed down as fact by people who didn’t know better.

Today, we do know better, and the Church wants to make sure every member knows that.

Teachings by past prophets are valuable when they’re based on revelation and the scriptures. Teachings by past prophets are not valuable when they’re based on hearsay and speculation.

Each of those past prophets and apostles taught many true, important things that we still uphold today. The Gospel Topics Essay doesn’t invalidate their teachings on any of those truths. It simply points out that on this topic, they were wrong.

Why would anyone want to belong to a church that doesn’t correct past mistakes and instead, clings to past teachings even when everyone knows they’re wrong? I sure don’t want to belong to a church like that, and I doubt any of you do, either.

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 into them, so that we can all approach them with a little more knowledge than we may have previously held. That doesn’t make them easier to digest. Some of them are pretty awful, and it’s incredibly difficult for me to understand how someone can hold those views about other children of God.

However, I want to make one other thing very clear: I will gladly condemn these words and attitudes, but I will not condemn the people espousing them. That’s not my place. As I pointed out in my last post, some of these men were incredibly blessed and favored by the Lord. They were not perfect and they made their share of mistakes, but I will not hold them to standards of perfection that the Lord refuses to hold them to. If He’s willing to show them grace despite their flaws, all that means is that He’s willing to do the same for me despite my flaws. So, I’m going to extend them the same charity that He shows me, and assume that they were trying their best to serve the Lord even though I find some of these statements to be pretty appalling.

This was a difficult post for me to research and write. It hurt my heart to read some of these talks and quotations. It was a good reminder that we shouldn’t follow prophets and apostles blindly, and that we don’t follow them because they’re perfect or even necessarily correct in everything they teach us. We follow their teachings because they were called of God to expound on His teachings and to help point us back toward Him. There’s a reason we’re counseled to pray about it when they teach us something that doesn’t sit right with us.

Sometimes, those teachings won’t feel right because they’re conflicting with our own assumptions. Their teachings are correct in those instances, but our hearts aren’t, and we need to do the work to get our hearts right with God. We need to pray for enlightenment and understanding in those cases. Other times, what those teaching won’t feel right because they’re not correct.

We need to learn how to tell the difference, and it takes practice. But it’s important, because nobody is perfect except the Savior and the Father. The rest of us get it wrong occasionally, and that includes prophets and apostles. That shouldn’t be a shock to any of us, because you only have to read the first few chapters of the Bible to see that prophets aren’t perfect, and you only have to read the Gospels or the book of Acts to see that the apostles aren’t perfect either.

They are wise men with a lifetime of serving God behind them, and they’re right far more often than they’re wrong. They’re also right far more often than the rest of us are. Because of that, we need to follow their counsel far more often than we don’t. We just need to remember the very wise words of Elder Ballard:

…[I]t is important to remember that I am a General Authority, but that does not make me an authority in general!

My calling and life experiences allow me to respond to certain types of questions. There are other types of questions that require an expert in a specific subject matter. This is exactly what I do when I need an answer to such questions: I seek help from others, including those with degrees and expertise in such fields.

I worry sometimes that members expect too much from Church leaders and teachers—expecting them to be experts in subjects well beyond their duties and responsibilities. The Lord called the apostles and prophets to invite others to come unto Christ—not to obtain advanced degrees in ancient history, biblical studies, and other fields that may be useful in answering all the questions we may have about scriptures, history, and the Church. Our primary duty is to build up the Church, teach the doctrine of Christ, and help those in need of help.

(And thank you to Ben Spackman for providing the reference to that quote, which I’ve been trying to find for a while now.)

Now, some of you are probably thinking, “Sure, but what about when it’s the doctrine they get wrong?”

Unfortunately, that happens sometimes too. It’s more rare, but it happens. It happened to Peter, who thought that the Savior was going to lead a rebellion against the Romans and that Gentile converts needed to obey the Law of Moses. It happened to Jonah, who tried to call down the power of Heaven to destroy the people of Nineveh instead of acknowledging their repentance. It happened to Abraham, who nearly destroyed an entire city over a misunderstanding. It even happened to Joseph Smith, who wrote an op-ed for the Messenger and Advocate in 1836 saying that he believed the enslavement of the black race was decreed by Jehovah and that abolitionists were fighting against the design of God by trying to free them. (He later thankfully changed his mind.)

Some of the things our past leaders taught about black people and the Priesthood restriction were wrong. Some of them are offensive and difficult to read. That does not make them bad people, and it doesn’t mean they were not called of God. It just means they were wrong about this.

Critics will often point to the claim that Church leaders can never lead the Church astray as an argument against the idea that they aren’t perfect. They say that means the prophets and apostles can never make a mistake. But they’re misunderstanding the quote. “Leading the Church astray” is leading us into widespread apostasy to the point where we lose Priesthood authority. That didn’t happen in this case, and in fact, the Lord has promised that the Priesthood will never again be taken from the Earth.

Having said all of this, I’m going to jump on in because there are unfortunately a lot of these statements left to get through.

President George Albert Smith

“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time … The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre‑mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.” (George Albert Smith, Statement by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on the Negro Question, August 17, 1949)

The document this quote comes from often gets labeled as an official First Presidency statement on the question of race and the Priesthood, but it’s not one. This wasn’t something that was read out over the pulpits and printed in official Church publications the way that other First Presidency statements are treated. So, I appreciate that Faulk didn’t label this as an official statement, the way so many other places do.

According to the B.H. Roberts Foundation, it’s actually part of a form letter that would sometimes get sent out in response to letters asking about the Priesthood restriction:

In regards to the 1949 statement, the First Presidency does not allow us to provide copies of their correspondence. However, we can confirm that the following text was used by the first Presidency in responses to inquiries about the priesthood restriction for several years beginning in 1949. The text was never issued publicly but, rather, was used as standard language in private correspondence.

FAIR has the full text of the statement:

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

The first thing I want to point out is that Wilford Woodruff’s statement here is actually taken from his notes on Brigham Young’s rather infamous speech given to the Utah territory legislature in 1852. It wasn’t even his comment to begin with.

The second thing I want to highlight is that there are two different ways to read this statement. You could read it the way that critics of the Church always frame it, that the First Presidency was saying that black people weren’t valiant in the pre-existence and their restriction from the Priesthood was a punishment for that.

Trying to use Brigham Young’s words to make that point is pretty disingenuous, however, since Young dismissed that idea outright:

No, they were not, there were no neutral [spirits] in Heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides. … All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles.

Obviously, we don’t believe that black skin is a mark of a spiritual curse today, but it was a common belief in Brigham’s day. The more important point is that he entirely rejected the idea that any of God’s children on Earth had been less-than-valiant in the pre-existence.

This is more than a little ironic, since Orson Pratt, the man many critics uphold as the racially progressive model the Church should have followed instead of Brigham Young, taught, “Among the two-thirds who remained [after the Devil was cast out], it is highly probable that there were many who were not valiant in the war [in Heaven], but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven.”

The other way of reading that First Presidency statement relies heavily on some of Brigham’s other thoughts. You see, he believed that when Cain murdered Abel, he deprived Abel of his posterity and “of extending his heavenly kingdom by multiplying upon the earth.” Brigham believed that those who had been meant to have been from Abel’s lineage had already been assigned to him. So, they would all have to be reassigned to other lineages, be born, and also receive their temple ordinances before any of Cain’s posterity would be able to receive theirs. Those descendants of Cain were aware of that decision in the premortal life, but that “rather than forsake him they were willing to bear his burdens and share the penalty imposed upon him,” and come to Earth even knowing it would mean they would have to wait to receive the Priesthood and temple ordinances. They wanted a body so badly, they were willing to accept whatever trials they had to in order to achieve that goal.

When that form letter talks about how everyone born into mortality had kept their first estate and how the privilege was so great, spirits made that choice regardless of what handicaps they would have to endure, it echoes Brigham’s beliefs that black people wanted the privilege of a body so badly, they were willing to wait for the blessings of the Priesthood in order to have it. This way of reading that letter actually says that they were so valiant that they were willing to endure extra hardships on Earth in order to receive all of the blessings available to them in Heaven after they received their bodies. That was the choice made in the pre-existence, not the choice to be neutral or less valiant than white members had been.

I obviously have never met any of the men in the 1949 First Presidency. I don’t know what prejudices they held or how they intended this letter to be read. All I can do is point out that there’s more than one way to look at it.

The B.H. Roberts foundation also has an extended version of this letter that seems to back up some of this:

Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation.

Not all intelligences reached the same degree of attainment in the pre-earth life.

And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born….

And we will prove them herewith to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. (2nd Article of Faith.) If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.
All spirits are born innocent into this world: Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.
The negro was a follower of Jehovah in the pre-earth life. (There were no neutrals.)

To me, this all leans more toward the second interpretation of this statement than the one the critics love to assign to it. It’s still not a great or ideal explanation, and I’m not trying to claim that it is.

But this is the benefit of a church that believes in on-going revelation. We believe that if earlier prophets get something wrong, later prophets will eventually correct it. It’s exactly what happened when Wilford Woodruff had his famous revelation on the sealing ordinance, which restructured the way sealings had been done since before Joseph Smith was murdered. And it’s what has happened here with these upsetting racial teachings.

In the years since the 1978 revelation on the Priesthood, attitudes have shifted considerably and scholarship has grown in leaps and bounds. We know a lot more than we did back then, both in terms of personal progress and in the knowledge of our Church’s history.

The First Presidency in 1949 shared what they believed was true. It was their interpretation of the scriptures and their knowledge passed down from prior generations. We now know that their interpretation of those scriptures was incorrect. But it’s important to remember that when they shared that interpretation, it was done in ignorance, not malice.

President Joseph Fielding Smith

“That negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 1940)

Putting this quote in more context, it says:

Man had his agency and because of it one-third of the hosts rebelled. We naturally conclude that others among the two-thirds did not show the loyalty to their Redeemer that they should. Their sin was not one that merited the extreme punishment which was inflicted on the devil and his angels. They were not denied the privilege of receiving the second estate, but were permitted to come to the earth-life with some restrictions placed upon them. That the negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born. Yet, like all other spirits who come into this world, they come innocent before God so far as mortal existence is concerned, and here, under certain restrictions, they may work out their second estate. If they prove faithful in this estate, without doubt, our Eternal Father, who is just and true, will reward them accordingly and there will be in store for them some blessings of exaltation.

The full quote is equally as difficult to read as the edited version, and Joseph Fielding Smith contradicted not only Brigham Young but also his own father by giving this statement. I don’t know how or why he came to believe this idea.

This teaching in particular is incredibly offensive to me. I have friends whom I love very much who are of African-American ancestry, and the thought of anyone thinking this of them is deeply upsetting to me.

But he was born in 1876, in a very different time period than I was. He grew up with different attitudes and beliefs. And in fact, his views began to change toward the end of his life, and he actually softened somewhat on this issue.

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 1940)

This portion was taken from a chapter that was sometimes removed from later editions of the book.

Putting it back in context doesn’t make it any easier to swallow, but it does show a slightly softer side of a man who could be very firm and unretractable:

…Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, “and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.”

And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent.” (Moses 7:8, 12.) In just it should be said that there have been among the seed of Cain many who have been honorable and who have lived according to the best light they had in this second estate. Let us pray that the Lord may bless them with some blessings of exaltation, if not the fulness, for their integrity here.

It’s paternalistic, and he goes out of his way to call black people inferior more than once, but I also don’t think he was intentionally trying to be rude. I think he was trying to be kind, and it came out very badly.

However, I’m sure that later generations will think ours is pretty patronizing in some ways, too. So, again, I don’t agree with it, I’m not going to defend it, but I’m also not going to condemn him for saying it. That’s between him and our Father in Heaven.

Apostle Mark E. Peterson

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn’t any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do.” (Elder Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems as They Affect the Church, address given at BYU, August 27, 1954. Marriott Library University of Utah, Mark E. Peterson Papers)

This quote and the next one are taken from the same talk, so I’ll address this below.

“In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant” (Elder Mark E. Peterson, lecture at BYU, 1954)

First, I do think it’s pretty dishonest to cite these as two different quotes from two different sources when they’re taken from the same talk. This was a talk given to BYU faculty at a teachers’ convention, not an official statement of doctrine during an event like General Conference.

Second, this talk is a very difficult one to read. I personally really struggled with it, I’m not going to lie. It was hard to read, and it was hard to understand the connections he was making between his different sources.

FAIR has a good take on it. I’m a little short on space so rather than quote from their article, I’ll just mention some of the highlights and encourage everyone to read the full thing.

Petersen based his claim on D&C 132:16:

Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

Basically, he meant that because at that time, black people weren’t able to be sealed in the temple, they’d have to live as ministering servants in the next life. This statement being directed at black people not only contradicts the entire purpose for work for the dead, but also contracts nearly every prophet from Joseph Smith onward. Those ministering angels are not determined by race, and work for the dead is not withheld from the righteous people who would have enjoyed temple blessings had they been able to access them during this life.

FAIR goes on to give multiple quotes refuting this idea, and points out that not everything said by an apostle is official doctrine.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie

“Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them … Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp.527-528)

Yeah, Elder McConkie said that. His teachings were based in large part on those of his father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith. I want to point out that Faulk omitted some portions that make these statements slightly less egregious:

The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living, heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man. (Way to Perfection, pp. 97-111.)

And, after the last sentence:

Certainly the negroes as children of God are entitled to equality before the law and to be treated with all the dignity and respect of any member of the human race. Many of them certainly life according to higher standards of decency and right in this life than do some of their brothers of other races, a situation that will cause judgment to be laid “to the line, and righteousness to the plummet” (Isa. 28:17) in the day of judgment.

He was trying to say that there were good, righteous black people who were more righteous than those of other races, and who had been led to the truth by God because they were willing to hear His voice and listen to His Spirit, and who would be blessed with all of the blessings of Heaven one day.

It wasn’t phrased well and the doctrine he outlined wasn’t accurate, but I actually have a lot of respect for Elder McConkie. As soon as he realized he was wrong, he publicly owned it. he admitted his error and became an early and fierce advocate of the 1978 Priesthood revelation. He spoke in favor of its passage when it came time for the general assembly to vote on it; he helped write the text of Official Declaration 2; and he was the one who encouraged the Brethren to release that declaration immediately rather than waiting until October’s General Conference, because he didn’t want to give Satan the chance to do anything to derail it.

President David O. McKay

“The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God … Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s preexistent state.” (Pres. David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner. Letter of the First Presidency Clarifies Church’s Position on the Negro – Dec. 15, 1969, The Improvement Era, Feb. 1970, p.71)

This is a prime example of why it’s good to read the full document instead of just relying on a cherry-picked quote. This letter also says:

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. … 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 pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in 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.

Targeting David O. McKay specifically on this subject is short-sighted and tells me that Faulk didn’t do anywhere near the level of research that he claimed to do. Either that, or he knows better but has no problem at all lying to his audience.

At one point, President McKay told Marion D. Hanks that he’d pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but hadn’t received the answer he wanted. Elder Adam S. Bennion reported that McKay had prayed “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.” But he didn’t give up.

As reported by FAIR and also found in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonismby Gregory Prince:

Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson,**“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

He prayed and prayed to reverse the Priesthood restriction, only for the Lord to finally tell him to stop asking because it wasn’t going to happen under his tenure as leader of the Church. Regardless of what you believe or feel about the origins of the restriction, President McKay is not the one to attack for it. We know that some of the justifications he repeated for the restriction were not correct, but he tried as hard as he could to have that restriction lifted.

In closing, I just want to wrap up with some additional words from Elder McConkie’s famous talk, “All Are Alike Unto God”:

The gospel goes to various peoples and nations on a priority basis. … Not only is the gospel to go, on a priority basis and harmonious to a divine timetable, to one nation after another, but the whole history of God’s dealings with men on earth indicates that such has been the case in the past; it has been restricted and limited where many people are concerned. For instance, in the days between Moses and Christ, the gospel went to the house of Israel, almost exclusively. By the time of Jesus, the legal administrators and prophetic associates that he had were so fully indoctrinated with the concept of having the gospel go only to the house of Israel, that they were totally unable to envision the true significance of his proclamation that after the Resurrection they should then go to all the world. They did not go to the gentile nations initially. In his own ministration, Jesus preached only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and had so commanded the Apostles. … With some minor exceptions, the gospel in that day went exclusively to Israel. The Lord had to give Peter the vision and revelation…. The Lord commanded them that the gospel go to the Gentiles; and so it was. There was about a quarter of a century, then, in New Testament times, when there were extreme difficulties among the Saints. They were weighing and evaluating, struggling with the problem of whether the gospel was to go only to the house of Israel or whether it now went to all men. Could all men come to him on an equal basis with the seed of Abraham?

There have been these problems, and the Lord has permitted them to arise. There isn’t any question about that. We do not envision the whole reason and purpose behind all of it; we can only suppose and reason that it is on the basis of our premortal devotion and faith.… We have revelations that tell us that the gospel is to go to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people before the Second Coming of the Son of Man. And we have revelations which recite that when the Lord comes he will find those who speak every tongue and are members of every nation and kindred, who will be kings and priests, who will live and reign on earth with him a thousand years. That means, as you know, that people from all nations will have the blessings of the house of the Lord before the Second Coming.

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet.Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

He’s absolutely right. Those comments from the past, as difficult as they can be to read and accept, simply don’t matter in a Church that believes in ongoing revelation. That’s the key that we need to hold on to. It’s the entire reason we have prophets and apostles in the first place.

And, despite the occasional errors that can pop up in the statements by those prophets and apostles, we are better for having them. They are a blessing to every one of us. I am so grateful to my Father in Heaven for sending us these men who willingly spend hours on their knees, pleading and pleading with Him to grant the changes that would make our lives better.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 21: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By Craig Lindquist The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project. We live in a day of confusion, even chaos. The world over, people are searching for truth on a host of subjects—but how can anyone know? It is not an easy search. Who do we trust? Where do […]

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Find and Evaluate Sources of Truth? 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

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

Mission Leadership Q&A on June 25, 2023, at 7 p.m. MST Do you have a question you’ve been hoping to ask mission leaders? Now is your chance! Join us for a fun evening of questions and answers right from your own couch! Register here.

The post Join us for a virtual fireside! appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By Maddie Christensen The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project. In today’s digital age, the Internet has become an indispensable tool for accessing information on any topic imaginable. With just a few keystrokes and a click of a button, one can easily find answers to any question […]

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Find Answers to Gospel Questions on the Internet? 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

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

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ has been called the keystone of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members have been continually encouraged to read, study, and ponder the Book of Mormon’s contents since it was first translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph himself said that “a man would get closer to God by abiding by its precepts.” But how can we know this is true?

All members of the Church have faced or will face this question at least once in their lives, and every individual will find an answer in their own unique way. But we can learn from the experiences of others to help us get started in our search for truth.

Wilford Woodruff, an early prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was just 26 years old when he first heard of and read the Book of Mormon. He continually shared his testimony for the rest of his life. While Wilford never recorded the exact experience he had when learning of the Book of Mormon, he did record several actions he had taken previously to understand the will of God in his life. Speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ, he wrote:

I believed the same gifts, graces, miracles and power would be manifest in one age of the world as in another, when God had a church upon the earth . . . These principles were riveted upon my mind from the perusal of the Old and New Testaments, with fervent prayer that the Lord would show me what was right and wrong, and lead me in the path of salvation, without any regard to the opinions of man, and the whisperings of the Spirit of the Lord for the space of three years, taught me that he was about to set up his church and kingdom upon the earth in the last days. . . . When I heard [the missionaries] preach[,] My brother Azmon and I believed their testimony, entertained the elders and offered ourselves for baptism the first sermon we heard. We read the Book of Mormon, and I received a testimony that it was true. 1

From this explanation, we can learn three things that Wilford Woodruff did, and that we can do, to learn of the truthfulness of this testament of Jesus Christ.

First, read. Wilford Woodruff had been reading and studying the Book of Mormon. To know if something is true, we first need to know what it is. We will never know if a story is true unless we read it first. Wilford had also studied the Bible and knew other truths of the gospel of Christ.

Second, pray. Wilford Woodruff “fervently” prayed to Heavenly Father to know what was true. He sought truth from the font of all truth. As we seek direction from God, He has promised that He will answer and help direct our paths.

Third, trust. Wilford Woodruff had been searching for the truth for a few years before he found it. Some wait a lifetime while others wait a short time, to feel that the Book of Mormon is true. But all who receive an answer trust in their Heavenly Father that they will receive a personal witness, and trust in themselves to listen and hear what the Lord is telling them.

As we seek to believe and know of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, we will be directed in our efforts to receive revelation from God, and “he shall direct [our] paths.” 2

Some original text has been edited for clarity and readability.

Endnotes

Autobiography 1858 Deseret News, p. 1, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/autobiography.
Proverbs 3:6.

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project. 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 from 1833 to 1898. 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. For more information, visit wilfordwoodruffpapers.org.

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Gain a Testimony of the Book of Mormon? appeared first on FAIR.

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

The Lori Vallow murder trial has begun, and the Chad Daybell murder trial will likely take place later this year. Each trial is expected to last several weeks, and to bring up many of Vallow and Daybell’s extremist religious beliefs. There has already been a great deal of public discussion of their ideas like reincarnation (which they called “multiple mortal probations”), a prophesied “Davidic Servant,” a group of 144,000 servants foreseen in the Biblical book of Revelation, end times calamities, and their interpretation of scripture to justify violence. People have also been curious about the “Preparing A People” website and conferences that hosted Daybell and Vallow as speakers and podcasters.

Because FAIR receives questions from Church members and others who are confused about Church teachings and beliefs, we realized there is a need for faithful information on these topics. Church members may be curious about Daybell and Vallow’s beliefs that use scriptural or doctrinal concepts that are somewhat familiar, but not taught at Church. Members may also face curious or hostile questions from others who follow news from the trial and think all Church members share Vallow and Daybell’s beliefs. Journalists may need background information to help contextualize and explain what they learn from the trial.

To fill this need, we have prepared a series of articles explaining several of Daybell and Vallow’s alleged beliefs. We explain how they are fringe beliefs, not mainstream or common among Church members, and not taught or endorsed by Church leaders. These materials may be updated as we receive more questions and as more information is released during the trial.

If anyone has further questions or needs further clarification, please contact FAIR and our volunteers will help you.

The post New Resources Available on Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell and Religious Extremism appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

By David W. Smith

In the October 2022 general conference, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf announced an updated version of the youth standards guidebook For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices. Elder Uchtdorf explained that the booklet “has been updated and refreshed to better cope with the challenges and temptations of our day.”

With the purpose of pointing youth to Christ, this new version is focused on “teach[ing] you eternal truths of His restored gospel” and “how to make righteous choices based on those eternal truths. . . . It focuses on values, principles, and doctrine instead of every specific behavior.” [1]

Have the Standards Been Relaxed?

Because the updated guidebook lacks many of the behavior-specific instructions of the previous version, some people feel that the new guidebook allows youth to do many things they were previously prohibited from doing. Or in other words, they feel the standards are “being relaxed” or “being weakened.”

For example, one young man approached his father and “said his friends told him that Elder Uchtdorf announced in conference that now tattoos are OK,” and so this young man wanted to get one. [2] This young man thought the standards had been relaxed because the guidebook no longer contained a specific prohibition against tattoos.

However, a lack of behavior-specific instructions does not mean the standards have been relaxed. In fact, the opposite is true: the standards have been enhanced. Young Men General President Steven J. Lund addressed the idea of relaxing standards and responded, “It’s never really been that way, has it? When we speak of a higher and holier way, that calls for us to be more vigilant about making sure that we’re complying to what Heavenly Father would have us do.” [3]

President Lund further explained:

We’re moving to a higher and holier way, where the guidance that we receive from the brethren, from the Church, from each other, is less prescriptive and more spiritually-based. We’re being asked to, you know, not look to somebody else to decide what our standard should be, but recognizing the weight of membership and the weight of holiness that belongs to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will by itself prescribe how we behave and how we are, how we dress and how we comport ourselves.

Sister Michelle D. Craig of the Young Women General Presidency affirmed this: “I think it’s important to know that it’s not a relaxing of standards . . . But now we hope that they’re very intentional about getting on their knees and praying to find out, ‘What does this look like in my life?’” [4]

Instead of having more relaxed standards, the new guidebook requires a more diligent form of discipleship.

Principles and Doctrines

Returning to the experience of the young man: his father invited him to listen to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk (the young man hadn’t watched that session of conference) and read the updated guidebook. After doing so, the son approached his father again:

I [the father] asked, ‘Did Elder Uchtdorf announce that tattoos are OK?’ He [the son] said, ‘No. In fact, he said, The Lord is not saying, “Do whatever you want.”’ I asked, ‘Does the guide say tattoos are OK?’ He said, ‘It says we are supposed to honor the sacredness of our bodies, even when that means being different from the world. It says that we must make wise decisions — especially when they can have lasting effects on our bodies. But, Dad, it doesn’t say we can’t.’

I responded: ‘It doesn’t say we can’t rob a bank either but that doesn’t make it a smart choice. What does your discipleship call on you to do? You know how I feel about it. Maybe it is time to ask how Heavenly Father feels about it?’

At this point the experience ends, and the son may or may not have decided to get a tattoo. But “the point is not what these particular youth decided. Rather, it is to emphasize how these parents used questions to guide the youth toward values, principles and doctrines. Most importantly, they asked their children to seek personal revelation.” And that is the model we should follow for ourselves and when helping others choose how to apply the standards.

President Russell M. Nelson exhorted: “Set a standard for the rest of the world. . . . Embrace being different. The booklet entitled ‘For the Strength of Youth’ should be your standard. It is the standard that the Lord expects all His youth to uphold.” [5]

Role of Parents and Other Adults

So what should parents and other adults do? They first provide counsel and wisdom to youth. The new guidebook encourages youth to “be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.” [6]

The guidebook also reminds youth that “having questions is not a sign of weakness or lack of faith. . . . Seek answers in the scriptures, in the words of God’s prophets, from your leaders and faithful parents, and from God Himself. If answers don’t come right away, trust that you will learn line upon line. Keep living by what you already know, and keep seeking for truth.” [7] So parents and others shouldn’t discourage questions or accuse youth of being faithless when asking honest questions. (Of course, there is a difference between faithful questions and faithless questions, or put another way, “the term question is not synonymous with the term doubt.”) [8]

Parents and others can also ask questions to youth to prompt spiritual seeking. The Young Women General Presidency reminded us that “our desire is to see them [the youth] turn to their Father in Heaven for answers and learn ways to strengthen their individual relationship with Him.” [9] As adults ask questions like “What do you already know about the topic or question?” and “How did Jesus Christ live the truth/principle?”, the youth will be inspired to find answers from divine sources.

The Young Women General Presidency also reminded us, “It is important during this process that we are not too quick to give our own responses to their questions.” In fact, the most important thing parents and leaders can do is not give the answers but rather help youth recognize when the Spirit is giving the answers. One young woman noted, “So what can leaders do? They can maybe help us learn what it’s like for you when you feel the Holy Ghost. Talk to us about that and tell us specific stories about it. . . . I think the whole point of ‘For Strength of Youth’ is to learn this lesson so we can make choices based on what the Holy Ghost is telling us.” [10]

One way parents and leaders can help youth recognize the Spirit is to ask “a few simple questions like, ‘What did you learn from that choice? Would you do anything different next time? Did it bring you closer to Jesus Christ or take you further away from Him?’” These types of questions “are essential in helping them continue to process what is happening for them. The Holy Ghost can help them see things ‘as they really are’ (Jacob 4:13) when they pause to take a moment and review what they are learning and experiencing.” [11]

Hope of Israel

So instead of providing long lists of things to do and things not to do, the updated guidebook teaches the doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and invites youth to seek revelation about how to act on that doctrine. The result will be a generation of members who have more experience than any previous generation in studying Christ’s restored doctrine and seeking revelation for their lives. And that will be sorely needed, as President Russell M. Nelson warned in his April 2018 general conference address on revelation: “In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” [12]

We see that this updated guidebook is focused on helping youth “take unto [them] the whole armour of God, that [they] may be able to withstand in the evil day” (Ephesians 6:13). The final piece of the armor is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). And so we arrive at the imagery in the beloved hymn “Hope of Israel”:

Hope of Israel, rise in might
With the sword of truth and right, . . .
Onward, onward, youth of Zion;
Thy reward the victor’s crown. [13]

Notes

[1] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Jesus Christ Is the Strength of Youth,” October 2022 general conference.

[2] Young Men and Young Women General Presidencies, “Young Men and Young Women general leaders: Changing how we talk with youth about standards,” The Church News, 26 October 2022.

[3] In Sarah Jane Weaver, “Episode 106: The Young Men general presidency on how the new ‘For the Strength of the Youth’ guide helps youth choose Christ,” The Church News, 18 October 2022.

[4] In Sydney Walker, “‘Parents, we need to be all in,’ Young Women general presidency says of new ‘For the Strength of Youth’ guide,” The Church News, 5 February 2023.

[5] Russell M. Nelson, “Hope of Israel,” worldwide youth devotional, 3 June 2018; as cited in Walker, “Parents, we need to be all in.”

[6] “Your body is sacred,” For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices.

[7] “Truth will make you free,” For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices.

[8] “Answering Gospel Questions,” Gospel Topics in Gospel Library. See also Adam Kotter, “When Doubts and Questions Arise,” Ensign, March 2015.

[9] Young Women General Presidency and advisory council, “Young Women general presidency: Using the ‘For the Strength of Youth’ guide to increase discipleship,” The Church News, 10 February 2023.

[10] In Walker, “Parents, we need to be all in.”

[11] Young Women General Presidency, “Using the ‘For the Strength of Youth’ guide to increase discipleship.”

[12] Russell M. Nelson, “Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives,” April 2018 general conference.

[13] “Hope of Israel,” Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985), no. 259.

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 For the Strength of Youth: A Higher and Holier Way appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Habakkuk – For our dayby Jennifer Roach, LMHC

Habakkuk is the book you never knew you needed.

The problem of evil is a question every generation must grapple with. If God exists, why does he allow school children to be killed in a shooting? If God is good, how can he let people suffer as they do? If God cares about his children, how can poverty, disease, and violence rampage us as they do?

Habakkuk grappled with this question too. In his day the question was, “If God loves us, why do the Babylonians terrorize us?” I offer the following reading of Habakkuk – for his day, and for our day – as an answer to the problem of evil.

| For Our Day – The Complaint | King James – The Complaint | | I wake up early and read the papers. Another shooting. No, two more. Violence all around.I pray and tell God about the violence and wonder why he does not save us from it. | Verse 2. How long, Lord, must I call for help,but you do not listen?Or cry out to you, “Violence!”but you do not save? | | And not just in the news. Family members doing wrong to each other. Destruction of faith and love. We’re swimming in conflict. It’s everywhere. | 3. Why do you make me look at injustice?Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?Destruction and violence are before me;there is strife, and conflict abounds. | | The laws don’t help. The legal system doesn’t either. We all see how much is going wrong in the world, but no one can do anything. It feels like wickedness is winning. | 4. Therefore the law is paralyzed,and justice never prevails.The wicked hem in the righteous,so that justice is perverted. | | The Lord’s Response | The Lord’s Response | | Oh, you’ve noticed the violence.Well, watch this, you wouldn’t believe it, even if you were told.I let violence happen. You cry, “How can God let this happen?”There are dreaded people who are intent on violence.They’ll amaze you with how violent they are.They care nothing about you or me, they only care about the damage they can do.I let violence exist in your world.And you cannot understand why. | 5 – 11. “Look at the nations and watch—and be utterly amazed.For I am going to do something in your daysthat you would not believe,even if you were told.6 I am raising up the Babylonians,that ruthless and impetuous people…7 They are a feared and dreaded people;they are a law to themselves…9 they all come intent on violence….11 Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—guilty people, whose own strength is their god.” | | The 2nd Complaint | The 2nd Complaint | | God, I don’t understand. You are an eternal and holy God.I know that your eyes are too pure to even look at this level of evil.I know that you can’t tolerate wrongdoing.So, I’m very confused, why do you let all this violence happen?Your children suffer.Why do you let the wicked get away with this?I will wait for your answer | 12 – 13. Lord, are you not from everlasting?My God, my Holy One, you will never die.You, Lord, have appointed them to execute judgment;you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?Why are you silent while the wickedswallow up those more righteous than themselves? | | The Lord’s 2nd ResponseChapter 2 | The Lord’s 2nd ResponseChapter 2 | | You are only seeing part of the picture. Violence only seems to be prevailing.These violent men are never satisfied by the evil they do – they always want more.That’s why it keeps happening.They can’t get enough – in fact it is impossible for them to ever get enough.There is no end to their stealing.They can’t steal enough.There is no end to their plundering.They can’t plunder enough.There is no end to shedding blood.They can’t get enough blood.They indulge in too much vanity.They love the shedding of blood.The thirst of violence is never satisfied.You wake up and see that another act of violence has been done and ask me, “Why is this happening? And “When will this end?”You can not understand how strongly violence hungers for more.But the Lord is in his Holy Temple. | Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time… 6 Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long?….9 Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil!…12 Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! 13 Behold, is it not of the Lord of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity? 14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea….17 For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein.20 But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. | | Habakkuk’s Prayer for TodayChapter 3 | Habakkuk’s PrayerChapter 3 | | The Lord does not give Habakkuk an explanation of the problem of evil.He could have.In fact, Habakkuk is just like us – he asked for the explanation. “Why do you make me look at suffering?”But God knew that the explanation would not satisfy Habakkuk. Just like it would not satisfy us.God could have explained all the theology behind evil. He could have explained why evil always thirsts for more and is never satisfied.But he knew that answer would not satisfy us.Instead, God give Habakkuk a vision of Himself, in all this glory. And he asks Habakkuk to be satisfied with that answer.The point being that evil and violence are never satisfied. So no explanation of them could ever really satisfy either.So God reminds Habakkuk who He really is. That he rules the universe. And he asks Habakkuk to allow this vision of Him to suffice. He asks Habakkuk to not be like evil – something that is never satisfied – and to accept the answer he has been given God. | 2 O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid…3 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. 4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power. 5 Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals went forth at his feet….7 I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction: and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble. 8 Was the Lord displeased against the rivers?…Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers….10 The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high. 11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear….13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed; thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. 18 Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.19 The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds’ feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments. |

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me Week 49 – Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Paul W. Hess In late October 2022, a writer named Ben Schneiders published an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, followed by a 60 Minutes Australia broadcast he produced one day later in a coordinated media campaign that paints a dark and accusing picture of finances in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Australia. […]

The post Defamation Down Under: Responding to the Aussie Allegations 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

General Conference is coming up in 4 days! It will be held October 1-2, and will have morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday and Sunday, along with an evening session for everyone on Saturday. More information is available here. In preparation, we are doing a daily countdown with posts from different people explaining how they […]

The post FAIR’s Countdown to Conference – 4 Days! appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

General Conference is coming up in 8 days! It will be held October 1-2, and will have morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday and Sunday, along with an evening session for everyone on Saturday. More information is available here. In preparation, we are doing a daily countdown with posts from different people explaining how they […]

The post FAIR’s Countdown to Conference – 8 Days! appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

General Conference is coming up in 10 days! It will be held October 1-2, and will have morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday and Sunday, along with an evening session for everyone on Saturday. More information is available here. In preparation, we are doing a daily countdown with posts from different people explaining how they […]

The post FAIR’s Countdown to Conference – 10 Days! 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

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. Tarik D. LaCour, Intro to Mormon Natural Theology Tarik D. LaCour is a Ph.D student in philosophy and MA student in neuroscience […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #80 – Tarik D. Lacour, “Intro to Mormon Natural Theology” 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

for FAIR Newsletter 7 2022 by Steve Densley Over time, I have come to look forward to General Conference more and more. It seems that now, more than ever, we need the wisdom and guidance that comes from those who have been set apart by God to instruct us. Of course, I do not always […]

The post “Was that a revelation?” General Conference and Agents of the Divine 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

FAIR, a volunteer organization that provides information about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has prepared a thorough explainer regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks. President Oaks was president of BYU from 1971 to 1980. During that time, psychology graduate student Max McBride conducted research on aversion therapy, […]

The post Aversion Therapy at BYU 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

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. Brittany Chapman Nash, Let’s Talk About Polygamy The video of this presentation can be watched on our YouTube […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #67 – Brittany Chapman Nash, “Let’s Talk About Polygamy” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Book of Abraham is an incredible book that contains many truths about the gospel. But there are often questions about the Book of Abraham that can be difficult to understand or answer. There is a feeling among some critics that the Book of Abraham is evidence that the Church is not true. With this […]

The post “Ask the Egyptologist” Virtual Fireside for Sustaining Members on Dec. 1 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 the presentations from the conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #63 – Carl Trueman, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

These three presentations are important to families and Church leaders of all faiths. We hope you will watch them and share them with your Latter-day Saint, and non-Latter-day Saint, friends. Jeffrey Thayne – “Worldview Apologetics: Revealing the Waters in Which We Swim” (transcript) Carl Trueman – “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, […]

The post Three Important FAIR Conference Presentations to Help Parents, Leaders, and Other Teachers of Children and Youth appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A Letter to my Seminary and Institute Students by Louis Herrey My dear young friends, This week I had the chance to meet with several of you. As always, it is a joy to be around you. I deeply appreciate not only your attendance, but also your participation. You might not think your comments matter […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 37 – Doctrine and Covenants 98–101 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Cassandra Hedelius Late last year, I started brainstorming suggestions for who we could invite to present at the 2021 FAIR conference. We usually look for presenters to counter criticisms of the church on issues like polygamy, Book of Mormon translation, and race. But in addition to these, I wanted this conference to provide […]

The post Three Conference Presentations Now Available to Help Parents, Leaders, and Other Teachers of Children and Youth appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Part 1: Manipulations & Dishonesty in the CES Letter by Sarah Allen Editor’s Note: This post introduces a long series of rebuttals to the CES Letter. New parts will be forthcoming on this blog. You may notice this post is largely the same as the post that appeared last week. This post is an […]

The post The CES Letter Rebuttal, Part 1 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

“Ye Were Also In The Beginning With The Father” By Kara Dawson D&C 93 teaches in two separate verses that “ye were also in the beginning with the Father” (v.23) and “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (v.29). […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 35 – Doctrine and Covenants 93 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What is this “pro tip” that is almost universally practiced by doctors? Receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition to being a faithful Latter-day Saint, I’m a physician. I have many doctor friends. The statistic referenced in the title (which came from this AMA survey) matches what my anecdotal experience tells me — doctors are getting […]

The post 96% of US physicians have done something to stay healthy. Only 57% of US adults have followed their lead. appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Every church leader or parent has been confronted with the same basic argument— “You can’t make me put my phone away! What ever happened to agency?” “I can date before I’m 16 if I want to because I have agency!” “You can’t tell me to wear a mask at church. I have my agency!” “The […]

The post Defending Agency appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

As anyone knows who has been camping, it takes a lot of work to kindle a fire and to keep it burning brightly, especially when confronted with the challenges of wind or rain. Likewise, it takes constant spiritual effort to kindle and maintain the fire of faith in the face of criticism and doubt. Just […]

The post Kindling the Fire of Faith appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[Cross-posted from Mike Ash’s personal blog.] My first book attempted to assuage the faith-crisis concerns of struggling Latter-day Saints. The work continues. The First Step At the risk of sounding boastful, I’ve authored three books (with a fourth on the way) and hundreds of articles (both in print and on-line) in the hopes of reinforcing […]

The post Shaken Faith Syndrome: Early to the Party, But Still Relevant appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

I was raised by two parents who loved science. My father was a biology teacher. He was a favorite at the high school, with lots of silly and whacky exercises that helped the students remember the material. I recall one phone call from a Yale university student who called to thank my dad for his […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 14 – Easter appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Richard E. Turley Jr. was named as the new managing director of the Public Affairs Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 26, 2016. Prior to his appointment, he served for eight years as assistant Church historian and recorder. He also served for eight years as managing director of the Family and Church […]

The post FAIR Voice Podcast #31: Murder Among the Mormons with Richard Turley appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

FairMormon has a service where questions can be submitted and they are answered by volunteers. If you have a question, you can submit it at http://www.fairmormon.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. (The names used in the answer have […]

The post FairMormon Questions: How should we respond when we feel men and women are unequal at church? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2020 conference, held in August. If you would like to watch the video of this and all the other presentations from our 2020 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Mark Ashurst-McGee, Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible, His Use […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #61 – Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Joseph Smith’s ‘New Translation’ of the Bible, His Use of Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, and the Question of Plagiarism” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference. If you would like to watch the presentations from our 2019 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. (Use coupon SPRING2020 and get the entire conference for $10!) We are also now selling tickets to the 2020 (Virtual) FairMormon […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #58 – Elder Bruce C. and Sister Marie K. Hafen, “Faith is Not Blind” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[Editor’s note: Latter-day Saint Charities just released their 2019 Annual Report, available here.] FairMormon has a service where questions can be submitted and they are answered by volunteers. If you have a question, you can submit it at http://www.fairmormon.org/contact. We will occasionally publish answers here for questions that are commonly asked, or are on topics […]

The post FairMormon Questions: Is the church excessively “hoarding” money that should be given to charities? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[Cross-posted from Ben Spackman’s blog, where background is given about how this almost became an Ensign article.] While rereading the Book of Mormon, I discovered something surprising: Captain Moroni took time away from constructing important physical defenses in order to prepare “the minds of the people to be faithful” (Alma 48:7). As a volunteer institute teacher, I’m […]

The post How to Build Resilient Faith appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference. If you would like to watch the presentations from our 2019 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Matt Roper/Kirk Magleby, Time Vindicates the Prophet Transcript available here. Matthew P. Roper (M.S. in Sociology, Brigham Young University) was a […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #50 – Matt Roper/Kirk Magleby, “Time Vindicates the Prophet” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Early on in life, Jennifer Roach was raised in a broadly Evangelical Christian setting. Being taught the Bible early on, Jennifer has had a love for sacred scripture. Her inquisitive nature and her spiritual passion took her to Divinity School, where she earned a Masters Degree in Divinity. Through her studies, she became interested in […]

The post From Anglican Minister to Relief Society Sister – Interview with Jennifer Roach appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference held in August. If you would like to watch the presentations from our 2019 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. René Krywult, Fear Leads to the Dark Side: How to Navigate the Shallows of (Mis)Information Transcript available here. […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #44 – René Krywult, “Fear Leads to the Dark Side: How to Navigate the Shallows of (Mis)Information” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Dennis B. Horne Some months ago I noticed the comments of a critic of the Church posted on a (highly critical) chat-site forum. This person wanted to engage with me in a debate about Church history and doctrine in hopes of causing doubt or loss of faith. His opening catch-phrase was clever, something like, […]

The post Seeking Truth appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Delisa Hargrove, cross-posted from LDS Blogs After my morning routine, I grabbed my phone off the charger ready to dive into the day. Soon, I saw the red low battery warning flashing. Huh? How could that be? I knew I’d just unplugged the phone. I walked back into the bedroom to inspect and also […]

The post Am I Plugged Into the Source? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference held last month. If you would like to watch the rest of the presentations from our 2019 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Matthew McBride, Answering Historical Questions with Church History Topics Matthew McBride is the Director of […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #39 – Matthew McBride, “Answering Historical Questions with Church History Topics” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference that was held last week. You can still purchase the video streaming if you would like to watch all the presentations. Elder Craig C. Christensen, Foundations of Our Faith Elder Craig C. Christensen was sustained as a General Authority Seventy of […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #36 – Elder Craig C. Christensen, “Foundations of Our Faith” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

George B. Handley is a humanities professor at Brigham Young University. He has a BA from Stanford University and an MA and PhD from UC Berkely. This book, part of the Maxwell Institute’s “Living Faith” series, is a collection of personal essays he has written about “the seamlessness of humanities and belief, intellect and faith” […]

The post Book Review: If Truth Were a Child: Essays appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The post FairMormon Questions: Why does Nephi quote from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. Please join us for the 2019 FairMormon Conference coming up August 7-9! You can attend in person or purchase the video streaming. John Lynch, Strengthen Thy Brethren: Bolstering Those in Faith Crisis Transcript available here. John Lynch is a Silicon Valley sales and marketing executive specializing in high-tech […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #28 – John Lynch, “Strengthen Thy Brethren: Bolstering Those in Faith Crisis” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). We take this literally for the words “way” and “life,” but what if we also took it literally for the word “truth”? In their book Who What is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith, that is exactly what authors Jeffrey […]

The post Book Review – Who is Truth? Reframing Our Questions for a Richer Faith appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[A review of the book can be found here.] Tad R. Callister is author of the book “A Case For The Book of Mormon. Tad Callister received a bachelor of science degree in accounting from Brigham Young University, a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California–Los Angeles, and a master’s degree in tax law […]

The post Tad Callister Interview – A Case For The Book of Mormon appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Faith is Not Blind is a book by Elder Bruce C. and Sister Marie Hafen and published by Deseret Book. This book addresses the many ways that individuals encounter the challenges to developing faith or the language of testimony. In preparing to serve missions, while on a mission, or when someone returns from missionary service, […]

The post Faith is Not Blind – Interview with Elder and Sister Hafen appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Members of the Church and interested outsiders have noted that the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ recently announced a change of its policy regarding same-sex behavior and the blessing or baptism by custodial parents in same-sex relationships.[1] Such changes in policy are not unexpected. As President Boyd K. Packer taught: Procedures, programs, […]

The post A Look at the Church’s Change of Policy on Same-Sex Couples and their Children appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[A review of the book can be found here.] Not having all the answers is more blessed. (p. 29) In our quest for faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a tremendous and indispensable asset. But not because it offers all the answers to every possible question. Even—perhaps especially—within the restored gospel, […]

The post Three Excerpts from “Answers Will Come: Trusting the Lord in the Meantime” by Shalissa Lindsay appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[Excerpts from the book can be found here.] The main thing that FairMormon as an organization tries to do is to provide reasonable answers to questions and criticisms in an easily digestible format. However, there are some questions that don’t seem to have satisfying answers at this time. These are the questions that require us […]

The post Book Review: Answers Will Come: Trusting the Lord in the Meantime appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The post FairMormon Questions: First Presidency Statement on Temples appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Bruce C. Hafen was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy until 2010 when he was given Emeritus status. Prior to that, he was a president of BYU-Idaho and dean of the BYU Law School. He also was recently the president of the St. George Temple. Marie K. Hafen, his wife, taught at […]

The post Book Review: Faith is not Blind appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The post FairMormon Questions: Is it true that most historians that look into the life of Joseph Smith eventually leave the Church? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Our volunteers have been very busy transcribing the presentations from the conference held in August. The following transcripts are now available: Taunalyn Rutherford, “For We Shall See Him as He Is”: Understanding Mormon Women in India Brad Wilcox, “Have You Been Saved By Grace?” How Do We Respond? Randall Spackman, Chronological Structure and Symbolism in […]

The post Some 2018 FairMormon Conference Transcripts Now Available appeared first on FAIR.

Questions Archives - FAIR: Recent Episodes

FAIR