FAIR - User contributions [en]

Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-14T04:46:47Z

SpencerMarsh:

Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-14T04:46:16Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Origins of the Plural Marriage Revelation

2026-04-14T04:45:16Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Polygamy Sandbox|Plural Marriage]] | [[Joseph Smith's Introduction and Practice of Plural Marriage|Joseph Smith's Introduction]] | Origins of Revelation
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Joseph Smith's introduction and practice of plural marriage have been the source of speculation and criticism since he first introduced plural marriage. This page gathers all the questions that have arisen and responds to them.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did Joseph Smith receive the revelation on plural marriage?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Joseph's first introduction to the concept of plural came during the 1829 translation of the Book of Mormon====
Of the little we do know, much comes from later reminiscences. Later memories are not useless, but memory can change, and can be influenced by what people later came to believe or desire. Such data must be used with caution.

There are enough scattered bits of evidence, however, that let us form some tentative conclusions.

The first specifically-LDS encounter with plural marriage was the 1829 Book of Mormon. The prophet Jacob rebuked the Nephites for their practice of having many wives and concubines. Jacob forbade this practice, and declared monogamy to be the norm unless "I will…raise up seed unto me…." <ref>Jacob 2:27–30.</ref>

It is not clear that the early Saints contemplated any exceptions to this command in their own case, until ''after'' Joseph had taught plural marriage. As late as May 1843, Hyrum Smith (not yet converted to Joseph's plural marriage doctrine) attempted to rebut rumors of plural marriage by citing the condemnation in Jacob 2.<ref>Levi Richards Journal, 14 May 1843; cited by {{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=54}}; Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, ''Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith'', 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 141, 332.</ref>

====Evidence points to a 1831 date for the revelation to Joseph regarding plural marriage====
There are no contemporaneous records which tell us when Joseph first taught plural marriage, or when he first had a revelation endorsing it. One account has Brigham Young placing the revelation to Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith in 1829 while translating the Book of Mormon.<ref>Brigham Young, quoted in Charles L. Walker, "Diary," (Harold B. Lee Library, BYU, 1855–1902), 25–26.</ref>

Most scholars have rejected this early date. Brigham was not even a member at this time, so he would have heard such a story second-hand at best, and may well have misunderstood the timing. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that portrays plural marriage positively, so there is little which would inspire Joseph and Oliver to ask questions about it, and such questioning seems to have been a prerequisite to Joseph and Oliver's early revelations on baptism, the priesthood, and other matters. The journal which records the 1829 date may be in error, since there is another, earlier record in which Brigham Young opines that Joseph had the plural marriage revelation "as early as in the year 1831." <ref>Journal History, 26 August 1857; cited by Hyrum Leslie Andrus, ''Doctrines of the Kingdom'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Desert Book Co., 1999), 489n436.</ref>

Other evidence also points to an 1831 date. Joseph undertook his revision/translation of the Bible, and was working on Genesis in February–March 1831.<ref>Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": ''Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, a History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975), 64–67. Also discussed in Danel W. Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Polygamy before the Death of Joseph Smith" (Purdue University, 1975), 67 and Danel W. Bachman, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 5 (1978): 24. This view is endorsed by Todd Compton, "Fanny Alger Smith Custer: Mormonism's First Plural Wife?," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 22/1 (Spring 1996): 178–181.</ref> Hubert Howe Bancroft was the first to suggest this theory,<ref>Bachman, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis," 22n11 notes that Roberts' ''History of the Church'' introduction (5:xxix) and Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Utah (San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft Co., 1889), 161 were the first to posit the role of Joseph's revision of the Bible in the plural marriage revelation.</ref> while Joseph Noble,<ref>Joseph Noble, cited in Millennial Star 16:454.</ref> B.H. Roberts,<ref>Joseph Smith, ''History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'', ed. Brigham H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1980), 5:xxix.</ref> and Joseph F. Smith <ref>}Joseph F. Smith at funeral of Elizabeth Ann Whitney; cited in ''Deseret Evening News'' (18 February 1882).</ref> have agreed. The obvious approval of the polygamous patriarchs in Genesis is a more likely stimulus for Joseph's questions to the Lord about plural marriage than the Book of Mormon's generally negative view.

====Joseph was probably teaching the idea of plural marriage to a limited circle by the end of 1831====
The date of 1831 is reinforced by a letter written years later by W.W. Phelps. Phelps reported that on 17 July 1831, the Lord told Joseph "It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just." Phelps then said that he asked Joseph three years later how this commandment could be fulfilled. Joseph replied, "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpha, ''by revelation''." <ref>W.W. Phelps, ''Letter to Brigham Young'', 1861, original in Church Archives, emphasis in original; cited by B. Carmon Hardy, ''Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise, Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier'' (Norman, Okla.: Arthur H. Clark Co., 2007), 36–37</ref> Phelps' recollection is reinforced by Ezra Booth, an apostate Mormon. In November 1831, Booth wrote that Joseph had received a revelation commanding a "matrimonial alliance" with the natives, though he says nothing about plural marriage per ''se''.<ref>Ezra Booth, Letter to the editor, ''Ohio Star'' (10 November 1831).</ref>

Since Joseph's explanation to Phelps came three years later, this does not help us date the receipt of the revelation specifically. It may be that Joseph did not understand the import of the July 1831 revelation any more than Phelps did. On the other hand, Orson Pratt reported that Joseph told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle but that the time to practice it had not yet come.<ref>Orson Pratt, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_13/Celestial_Marriage_(Pratt) "Celestial Marriage,"] ''Journal of Discourses'', reported by David W. Evans (7 October 1869), Vol. 13 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1871), 192–193.</ref> Lyman Johnson also reportedly heard the doctrine from Joseph in 1831,<ref>Lyman Johnson as recounted by Orson Pratt, reported in "Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith," ''Millennial Star'' 40/50 (16 December 1878): 788; cited in Bachman, "Mormon Practice of Polygamy", 56.</ref> as did a plural wife who recalled late in life that in 1831 Joseph told her that he had been commanded to one day take her as a plural wife.<ref>Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells, Summer 1905, LDS Archives; cited by Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 65.</ref> Mosiah Hancock reported that his father was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832.<ref>{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=644}}; citing Mosiah Hancock Autobiography, 61–62.</ref>

Some authors have suggested that Phelps' late recollection is inconsistent with other things that he wrote earlier. Richard Van Wagoner argues that:

<blockquote>
the Phelps letter has been widely touted as the earliest source documenting the advocacy of Mormon polygamy, [but] it is not without its problems. For example, Phelps himself, in a 16 September 1835 letter to his wife, Sally, demonstrated no knowledge of church-sanctioned polygamy: "I have no right to any other woman in this world nor in the world to come according to the law of the celestial kingdom." <ref>{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=3n2}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It seems, though, that the problem is more in Van Wagoner's reading of the data. Phelps says nothing about "church-sanctioned polygamy," one way or the other. He merely tells his wife that ''he'' has no right to any other woman. This was certainly true, since Joseph Smith had introduced no other men to plural marriage by September 1835. In fact, Phelps' remark seems a strange comment to make unless he understood that there were circumstances in which one could have "right to" another woman.<ref>Phelps would publicly teach the idea of eternal marriage soon thereafter: "[W]e came into this world and have our agency, in order that we may prepare ourselves for a kingdom of glory; become archangels, even the sons of God where the man is neither without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord…" - WW Phelps to O[liver] Cowdery, "Dear Brother in the Lord," ''Latter-day Saint Messenger & Advocate'' 1/9 (June 1835): 130. See discussion of the Phelps material in Bachman, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis," 28–29</ref>

Joseph F. Smith gave an account which synthesizes most of the preceding data:

<blockquote>
The great and glorious principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates. Among them were Oliver Cowdery and Lyman E. Johnson, the latter confiding the fact to his traveling companion, Elder Orson Pratt, in the year 1832. (See Orson Pratt's testimony.)" (Andrew Jenson, ''The Historical Record'' 6 [Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1887]: 219) <ref>Joseph F. Smith (comment made 4 March 1883) in "Utah Stake Historical Record, 1877–1888," LDS Archives;Richard and Pamela Price, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy—Vision Articles [from Vision Magazine, Vol. 32–46, 48–51, 53–56], vol. 2 (E-book: Price Publishing Company, n.d.), [http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/olivercowdery.htm "LDS Leaders Accused Oliver Cowdery of Polygamy"].</ref>
</blockquote>
The bulk of the evidence, therefore, suggests that plural marriage was known by Joseph by early 1831. The Prophet was probably teaching the idea to a limited circle by the end of that year.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Under what circumstances was D&C 132 committed to writing?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Hyrum Smith asked Joseph to commit the doctrine to writing, because he believed that he could thereby persuade Emma of its truth====
Hyrum Smith asked Joseph to commit the doctrine to writing, because he believed that he could thereby persuade Emma of its truth. Joseph did as Hyrum asked, but warned his brother that even this would not help persuade his wife.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Joseph and Emma Smith's Struggle with Plural Marriage

2026-04-14T04:44:59Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Polygamy Sandbox|Plural Marriage]] | [[Joseph Smith's Introduction and Practice of Plural Marriage|Joseph Smith's Introduction]] | Joseph and Emma's Struggle
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
One of the most difficult aspects of plural marriage is taking stock of Joseph and Emma Smith's struggle with the implementation and practice of plural marriage.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Emma Smith not told about some of Joseph Smith's wives?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Joseph did not always tell Emma immediately about some of his plural relationships====
Joseph and Emma were in a complex and unique situation with regard to plural marriage—Emma had been warned by Joseph's revelation that if she refused to allow Joseph to obey the commandment he had received, he might proceed without her permission.

We also know relatively little about what Emma knew, and when she knew it. We should be cautious in assuming that the critical or anti-Mormon narrative of Joseph constantly sneaking around behind Emma's back is accurate.

====Emma had periods where she accepted plural marriage, and then later rejected it====
One critic of the Church claims, "Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy, and lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice." <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}</ref> It is certainly true that Joseph did not disclose all of his plural marriages precisely when they happened. For example, he had been sealed to Emily and Eliza Partridge already, and Emma later had one of her periods of acceptance of plural marriage, on condition that she get to choose the wives. <ref>"I will give you two wives if you will let me choose them," – Emma to Joseph, as per "Incidents of the early life of Emily Dow Partridge," written beginning December 1876, finished 7 January 1877, BYU Special Collections; cited by {{Book:Ehat:Thesis 1981|pages=60}} </ref> She chose Emily and Eliza, and so they were resealed to Joseph without disclosing that they were already sealed. Emma's change of heart didn't last long, and she soon had Joseph break off contact with the girls, and expected them to renounce the covenants they had made. <ref>{{Book:Compton:In Sacred Loneliness|pages=409}}</ref>

====Ultimately, Joseph had to choose between obeying Emma and obeying God====
There are also other examples. It's difficult to know exactly what Emma knew, and when she knew it, because she would later insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage. So, we have to kind of piece together the evidence from fairly fragmentary sources.

Was Joseph justified in this? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. If one doesn't believe that Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage, then the whole enterprise was probably a bad idea. If Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage (as he repeatedly testified that he had been), then ultimately he had to choose between obeying Emma and obeying God. And, Joseph seems to have been determined to obey God.

The best way to contextualize this is to now look at the evidence against [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives/ lustful desires motivating Joseph] and [https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Did_Joseph_Smith_coerce_women_to_marry_him/ coercion of women he approached into marrying him].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Emma aware of the possibility that Joseph Smith could take additional wives without her consent?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Emma was warned about the possibility that Joseph could take wives even without her consent====
Emma was warned about the possibility that Joseph could take wives even without her consent. <ref>{{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975|pages=164–166}} </ref> The D&C 132 revelation was Joseph's written instructions on the matter, put into writing at the request of his brother Hyrum, who felt he could use it to persuade Emma that plural marriage was a true principle. <ref>{{Book:Smith:History of the Church|vol=5|pages=xxxiii}}</ref> However, there's an important line in there that speaks to the circumstance in which Joseph found himself with regard to Emma:

<blockquote>
Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife ({{s||D&C|132|65}}).
</blockquote>

====The Law of Sarah: Wives were to be first taught the revelation to see if they would accept it. If they accepted it, then they elected new wives for their husband. If they rejected plural marriage, then the Lord picked wives for the man====

In short, the Lord brings up something called "the Law of Sarah"--this refers to Sarah, wife of Abraham, who in order to fulfill the covenants made to Abraham, was willing to seek out another wife (Hagar) for her husband. So, the principle seems to be that wives were to be first taught the revelation, and see if they would obey. If they accepted the law of plural marriage, then they elected new wives for their husbands. If they didn’t accept plural marriage, then God elected new wives for men. The previous verse reads:

<blockquote>
And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law ({{s||D&C|132|64}}
</blockquote>

====If Emma rejected the teaching, then Joseph was exempt from the Law of Sarah====
Thus, Joseph (who held the keys--and the only one who did so at the time, see {{s||D&C|132|7}}) was to teach Emma--which he did. But, ultimately, if she refused to accept the revelation, then "he is exempt from the law of Sarah"---i.e., he no longer requires her approval or acceptance.

This is a stern doctrine, and we can all probably sympathize with Emma's situation. But, it is not clear that the alternative is any better, ''if'' one believes Joseph was acting by revelation--ultimately, either a mortal's will has to trump, or God's does. So, Joseph was to teach Emma, but if she ultimately refused, then Joseph was to obey, even in the face of her disobedience. She could not choose for him.

It may be that this clause did not apply to any other situation--the scripture says that it applies to a "man...who holds the keys of this power," and only the President of the Church did or does. So, this was likely not much of a model for others; it was very much an issue just between Joseph and Emma. One can see that throughout--the whole revelation is really targeted at helping solve ''their'' problems. (Joseph F. Smith would later say that if the revelation had not been written in that context, it would have been different, and perhaps more useful in a sense.) <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Joseph F. Smith|vol=20|disc=4|start=29|end=30}}</ref>

====We can and should have considerable sympathy for Emma, since she was in a very difficult situation====
She may ultimately have taken a harder road (leaving the Church, marrying outside the Church, lying about Joseph's teaching of plural marriage, raising an illegitimate child of her second husband's as her own child, etc.) to learning the same sorts of things that plural marriage would have taught her. As Brian Hales has pointed out, she had the hardest job (in a way) because she was the only woman who was faced with a revelation from her husband commanding it:

<blockquote>
Emma may have also confronted the fear that perhaps she was inadequate to bind Joseph's affections, leading him to desire other companions and thus introducing the possibility that he could have been deceived by those desires. None of the first wives of other polygamists would have experienced this trial, because none of the other first wives were married to the man who received the polygamy revelation. All other pluralists could hold the Prophet and his teachings responsible....unlike Emma, they could more easily dismiss the question of whether their husband's adoption of plurality was related to their own contributions to the marriage or that they were somehow deficient. <ref>{{Book:Hales:Joseph Smith's Polygamy 2|pages=136}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Emma believed in Joseph as a prophet but could not bear plural marriage====
On the other hand, though, we must remember that Emma had many experiences that others did not have. (When asked by some women in the midst of the plural marriage at Nauvoo if she still believed Joseph was a prophet, she replied, "[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Emma_Smith#Conclusion|Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it]]." <ref>{{Book:Compton:ISL/Short|pages=251}}</ref>) She accompanied Joseph to retrieve the golden plates. She wrote for him during the initial translation of the Book of Mormon. She participated in sacred ordinances, and knew Joseph and his calling in an intimate way that few if any others did, and continued to insist to her death that he had been a prophet. <ref>Mary Audentia Smith Anderson (editor), "Memoirs of Joseph Smith III (1832–1914)," ''The Saints Herald'' (2 April 1935): 431–434.</ref> So, perhaps it is not surprising that she was tested in ways that few others were. And, Joseph may well have not handled it perfectly. He likely did did his best, but it was an agonizing situation without ideal options. As Richard Bushman noted:

<blockquote>
I see their [Joseph and Emma's] relationship as tragic. She believed in him but could not bear plural marriage. He loved her but could not resist his own revelation. They were both heroic actors on a large stage trapped in terrible moral dilemmas. <ref>Richard L. Bushman, [http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/11/14/m_interviews_richard_lyman_bushman Interview with Millennial Star Blog], 14 November 2005; conveniently reprinted in {{Book:Bushman:On the Road with Joseph Smith|pages=72}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{SummaryItem
|link=Emma_Smith's_reaction_to_Joseph_Smith's_plural_marriages
|subject=Emma's reactions to Joseph's plural marriages
|summary=Plural marriage was Emma's great trial, and a cause of significant tension between her and Joseph during his life, and her and the Church of Jesus Christ after his death.
}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What modern lessons can we learn from Emma and Joseph Smith’s struggle with plural marriage?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Joseph Smith: "it is quite as necessary for you to be tried [even] as Abraham and other men of God"====

These observations provide perhaps the most useful lesson for the modern members, since Joseph Smith told the Twelve, soon before his death: "'You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried [even] as Abraham and other men of God, God will feel after you, and He will take hold of and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.' ." (Cited by John Taylor, JD 24:197).

Harold B. Lee said of this statement:

<blockquote>
Now I want to bear testimony to you that every one of us [the Twelve] has had that kind of testing. Some of us have been tried and have been tested until our very heart strings would seem to break. I have heard of persons dying with a broken heart, and I thought that was just a sort of a poetic expression, but I learned that it could be a very real experience. I came near to that thing; but when I began to think of my own troubles, I thought of what the Apostle Paul said of the Master, "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" ({{b||Hebrews|5|8-9}}).

Don't be afraid of the testing and trials of life. Sometimes when you are going through the most severe tests, you will be nearer to God than you have any idea, for like the experience of the Master Himself in the temptation on the mount, in the Garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross at Calvary, the scriptures record, "And, behold, angels came and ministered unto him" ({{b||Matthew|4|11}}). Sometimes that may happen to you in the midst of your trials. <ref>{{Book:Lee:Teachings of Harold B. Lee|pages=192}}</ref>
</blockquote>

We should not, then, judge Joseph or Emma too harshly. Who says but what we would face similar trials with as much grace as they did? And, hopefully we won't face ours in a fishbowl, like they did.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How did Emma react to plural marriage?===
| state = closed
| content = [[File:Polygamy ensign august 1992.jpg|thumb|right|350px]]
====Emma was aware of Joseph's plural marriage and sometimes gave permission, but did much to try and thwart it====
Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind.<ref>Emma gave permission for at least the marriages of Eliza and Emma Partridge, and Sarah and Maria Lawrence. See {{sacredloneliness1|start=409, 475}}</ref> Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet:

<blockquote>
Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.<ref>{{sacredloneliness1|start=261}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Emma did teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young====
Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic calling; she did, however, teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young. Torn between two certitudes—her conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling, and her hatred of plural marriage—Emma had difficult choices to make for which we ought not to judge her.

But, the critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

<blockquote>
I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.<ref> Mary Audentia Smith Anderson (editor), "Memoirs of Joseph Smith III (1832–1914)," ''The Saints Herald'' (2 April 1935): 431–434.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Allen J. Stout: "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness"====
<blockquote>
Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"<ref>Allen J. Stout, "Allen J. Stout's Testimony," ''Historical Record'' 6 (May 1887): 230–31; cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in ''Heroines of the Restoration'', edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Emma Smith: "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it"====

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

<blockquote>
Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."<ref>Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in ''Heroines of the Restoration'', edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.; quoting Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 161.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Emma Smith: "I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting"====
Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

<blockquote>
I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side...I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.<ref>Emma Hale Smith, Blessing (1844), Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Emma Smith promised “annihilation” if she didn’t accept plural marriage?===
| state = closed
| content = ====The revelation is not entirely clear on what this means====
It is claimed that "In the revelation [D&C 132] Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.'"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy|pages=29}}</ref>

Here are the verses of Doctrine and Covenants 132 in question:
:54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
:55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

One can see that the commandment given to Emma was to "to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else". This likely is a reference to adultery and/or being sealed to another man and not to accepting the plural marriage commandment. She is to remain faithful and supportive of her spouse. The punishment for committing adultery or being sealed to another man is that she will be "destroyed". The next verse is likely the one that refers to plural marriage though it's not entirely clear. It sets off a new clause with that "But". Plus, a different kind of consequence is promised for not accepting plural marriage. The consequence is that Joseph would "do all things for her; even as he hath said". A much more mild

Keep in mind that that same punishment is promised to both men and women that don't abide strictly by the new and everlasting covenant by either committing adultery or are sealed illegally. This from verse 26 of the revelation:

:Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; '''but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption''', saith the Lord God (emphasis added).

This same promise is given in verses 41–42 and verse 63 of the revelation. But what exactly does it mean to "destroy in the flesh"?

Other uses of the word "destroy" in the revelation are used in relation to those that are not sealed by priesthood authority ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.14?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:14]), in relation to those that Emma elects for Joseph to be sealed to and who have pretended to moral purity yet weren't morally pure ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.52?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:52]), in relation to Joseph and what will happen to his property if he put it out of his hands ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.57?lang=eng Doctrine and Covenants 132:57]),<ref>The reference to "property" does appear to be an oblique reference to women. The language will appear stereotypically sexist to many viewers. So is Doctrine & Covenants 132 sexist? Men and women sealed together are promised to share the same amount of power once they are out of the world in the revelation. See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19-20?lang=eng verses 19–20]. See also our page on this: [[Is polygamy sexist?]]. The language in verse 57 is certainly influenced by Joseph's legal milieu which followed a more patriarchal system of marriage that included laws for protecting a man's property including, as they were then legally considered, women. We need to remember that Heavenly Father speaks unto prophets "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). So the revelation follows Joseph's legal language and understanding. That does not, however, mean that that is how God valued women ''morally''. Thus the revelation itself does not need to be seen as sexist. It doesn't intend to assign more moral value inherently to men over women. God values us all equally and it is made clear by the revelation that he intends to give us the same blessings once we become gods. The legal environment of that time is what is making its way into the revelation though. We should be very grateful for activists and legal scholars that have reshaped our understanding of marriage and the legal framework around it to not make women property.</ref> and in relation to those women that are taught the principle of plural marriage but will not, like Sarah did, elect new wives for their husbands to be sealed to and have children in the covenant with ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.64?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 132:64]).

In these instances, "destroy" seems to mean either "create extreme psychological torment for" or "not give exaltation to" a particular person. The author is not aware, of the many people that we know that have committed adultery, of anyone who has been killed by God or struck down by him via lightning after committing adultery and being sealed to their first wife. Perhaps that should inform our understanding of "destroy" in this revelation and make it not mean "strike down with fire and utterly annihilate".

The revelation doesn't really settle the question for us. Joseph was promised this at the end of the revelation:
:66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

So perhaps our Heavenly Father will reveal more about exactly what the revelation means at a future date. The textual clues that already exist as well as personal experience can certainly delimit the logical number of options for possible interpretation, but we would be wise to not shut out the possibility of further light and knowledge settling the question for us definitively. Since we don't know and likely can't know, it's not rational to fret anxiously over what this verse actually meant. What we can know is that following the commandment to practice plural marriage was a moral imperative for the Lord. The commandment to enter into eternal sealings as men and women is required for our becoming gods. Failure to follow the lord's "word which is his law" results in the consequence of either a deprivation of the fulness of mortal/earthly felicity possible and/or the deprivation of God's fulness and nature that he has promised to those that keep his commandments.

{{SeeAlso|Plural marriage and the Bible#What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?|l1=What are the "works of Abraham" and how does this relate to plural marriage?|Is polygamy sexist?|l2=Is polygamy sexist?|Plural_marriage_as_a_requirement_for_exaltation|l3=Is practicing plural marriage necessary for exaltation or salvation?}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was a pregnant Eliza R. Snow pushed down the stairs by Emma Smith, resulting in a miscarriage?===
| state = closed
| content = ====The historical and logistical problems with this story make it unlikely to be true====

There is little evidence that the stairs incident happened as described.

Evidences that "Eliza had conceived Joseph’s child and miscarried," George D. Smith, the author of ''Nauvoo Polygamy "...but we called it celestial marriage" '' tells us, are "fragmented" and "questions cloud the story." Despite this, "the secondary sources are convincing in their own right" (p. 130). Here again, the author’s representation of the data and references to those who disagree leave much to be desired. He cites other authors while giving no indication that they disagree with his reading. For example, from an essay in BYU Studies he cites the Charles C. Rich version of a pregnant Eliza "heavy with child" being shoved down the stairs by a furious Emma. Nowhere does he tell the reader that these authors concluded that the story given the present evidence was untenable:

<blockquote>
But where are we? Faced with a folk legend, with genuine documents that tell no tales, and dubious ones that contradict themselves and the contemporary accounts, perhaps it is best for us to respond as we must to many paradoxes of our history: consider thoughtfully and then place all the evidence carefully on the shelf, awaiting further documentation, or the Millennium, whichever should come first.<ref>Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al., "Emma and Eliza and the Stairs," ''BYU Studies'' 22/1 (Fall 1982): 86–96. Compare Smith, ''Nauvoo Polygamy'', 131 n. 195.</ref>
</blockquote>

====The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it due to an attack by Emma is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal====
Newell and Avery’s biography of Emma places the story into doubt:

<blockquote>
The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it [due to an attack by Emma] is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal. While her Victorian reticence probably would have precluded mention of her own pregnancy, if she were indeed carrying Joseph’s child, other evidence in the journal indicates that she may not have been pregnant. Eliza’s brother Lorenzo indicated that by the time she married Joseph, she was "beyond the condition of raising a family." Also if she was "heavy with child" as the Rich account states, she would not have been teaching school, for even legally married women usually went into seclusion when their pregnancies became obvious. Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would not have been probable had she suffered a miscarriage.<ref> Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 136. Compare Smith, ''Nauvoo Polygamy'', 132 n. 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

====RLDS perspective====
The award for most humorously ironic use of a source in this section goes to the author's citation of Richard Price. The author argues that "most convincing of all is to think that these stories were circulating widely and Eliza never considered to clarify or refute them." He attributes this insight to Price (p. 134 n. 207). He believes that the "most convincing" aspect of the story is that Eliza never rebutted it. Uncorrected rumor or gossip is more convincing than the absence of diary or behavioral evidence for a pregnancy as outlined by Newel and Avery? If I do not rebut an unfounded rumor, does this mean I give it my consent? This seems a strange standard. Joseph and the members of the church tried to rebut the rumors spread by the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits, yet the author treats them as valuable insights. The Saints, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

The author’s citation of Price might lead the reader to believe that Price agrees with Smith’s reading—that Eliza Snow never rebutted the story because it was true. But Price claims exactly the opposite.<ref>Richard Price and Pamela Price, "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed Down the Mansion House Stairs," in Richard Price, chap. 9 of "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy: How Men Nearest the Prophet Attached Polygamy to His Name in Order to Justify Their Own Polygamous Crimes." (n.p.: Price Publishing Co., 2001), {{link|url=http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp9.htm}} (accessed 5 November 2008). FairMormon's consultants do not sustain Price's view, however, that Joseph Smith did not practice or teach plural marriage.</ref>

In addition to the indignity of having his work cited for a view that is the reverse of his own, Price suffers further. An RLDS conservative, Price is committed to the stance that Joseph did not teach or practice plural marriage.<ref>On Price’s break from the RLDS (now Community of Christ) mainstream, see: William D. Russell, "Richard Price: Leading Publicist of the Reorganized Church’s Schismatics," in ''Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History'', ed. Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 319–37.</ref> Far from endorsing Smith’s view of the stairs incident, Price is adamant that the story is false. Though the author spends a page explaining why Joseph and Emma may have moved to the Mansion House earlier than thought (as the stairs story requires), he ignores Price’s diagram and argument for the story’s impossibility based on the Mansion House’s layout.<ref>Compare Price and Price, "Eliza Snow Was Not Pushed," with George D. Smith’s opinion in ''Nauvoo Polygamy'', 133.</ref> The author can hardly have been unaware of it since the same Web page contains the argument to which he makes reference. FairMormon does not agree with Price on all points—his dogged insistence that Joseph did not practice plural marriage cannot be sustained by the evidence, which often leads him to make unwarranted leaps—but the author ought to at least engage Price’s critique and fairly represent his views.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Since first wives were generally to grant permission for sealings to subsequent wives, did Joseph’s later sealing to Emma mean that Emma no longer held the role of “first wife?”===
| state = closed
| content = ====If the wife of the person who holds the keys to plural marriage rejects plural marriage, her husband is to follow the commands of God to him without her permission====
Joseph's revelation in D&C 132 explicitly states that if the wife of the person who holds the keys to plural marriage rejects plural marriage, her husband is to follow the commands of God to him without her permission.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Smith offer to trade Emma Smith for Jane Law to William Law?===
| state = closed
| content = ====This claim rests on a single, unreliable hostile source. Other hostile sources (including William Law) deny the tale====
This question arises because of a somewhat opaque verse in the Doctrine and Covenants section on plural marriage. (The revelation was written down at Hyrum Smith's request, who believed that he could persuade Emma Smith of the doctrine's provenance from God.) The verses in question read:

<blockquote>
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice....54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. ({{s||D&C|132|51,54}}.
</blockquote>

No one is certain as to what this refers. William Clayton, Joseph's scribe and secretary, wrote in his contemporaneous journal:

<blockquote>
This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came…and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too.<ref>{{Book:Clayton:Journal|date=23 June 1843|pages=108}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have seen this as Emma claiming she would practice plural marriage (a strange idea, given how she felt about it), and these readers have then extended the reading to include a belief that she was threatening to marry William Law. Others have seen these verses (perhaps more plausibly) as Emma simply threatening divorce if Joseph didn't cease plural marriage. In this reading, Joseph would have agreed to a divorce--both were probably speaking somewhat in the heat of the moment—and the Lord in D&C 132 makes it clear that he does not endorse Joseph's offer of (or agreement to) a divorce.

The idea of Joseph offering William Law to Emma springs out of an anti-Mormon work. As D. Carmon Hardy noted:

<blockquote>
Belief that the prophet contemplated a 'spiritual swap' of wives with William Law, based on Joseph Jackson's statement in his exaggerated Narrative, 20–21, should be viewed with caution. The best review of the matter remains Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 176–77.<ref>{{Book:Hardy:Works of Abraham|pages=65, note 99}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It becomes clear how shaky the evidence is when one drills down to the ultimate source of the idea. The source of this charge seems to be a book by Joseph H. Jackson. Jackson claimed to have insinuated himself into Joseph's counsels, and claimed Joseph had told him that he was going to attempt to "get Mrs. William Law for a spiritual wife…for the purpose of affecting his object [Joseph] got up a revelation that Law was to be sealed up to Emma, and that Law's wife was to be his; in other words there was to be a spiritual swop [sic]…[Joseph] had never before suffered his passion for any woman to carry him so far as to be willing to sacrifice Emma for its gratification."<ref>{{CriticalWork:Jackson:Narrative/Full title|pages=[https://archive.org/stream/adventuresexperi00jack#page/21/mode/2up 21-22]}}</ref>

However, Jackson appears on no Church membership records, and Joseph's early opinion was that he was "rotten hearted." Note that D&C 132 was given almost a year prior to Jackson's claimed revelation.<ref name="enigma">See {{Book:Newell Avery:Mormon Enigma}}{{Rp|176-177}} The conclude that "Its meaning [the verse in D&C 132] remains a mystery.</ref>

====Testimony that contradicts the claim====
William Law himself denied that Joseph ever attempted such a swap:

<blockquote>
Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably opposed to polygamy in any and every form…[but Law did believe] that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a ''substitute'', for him, by way of ''compensation'' for his neglect of her, on condition that she would stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his ''young wives in peace'' and keep some of them in the house.<ref name="enigma"></ref>{{Rp|176}}
</blockquote>

Law thus saw the verse as referring to divorce, not a swap.

It is also interesting that another anti-Mormon writer (and former wife of Brigham Young) Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote:

<blockquote>
One particular passage [of D&C 132] is said to refer to a matrimonial scene in which a threat was held out that the life of the Elect Lady should be terminated [84] by poison. She is here commanded to "stay herself, and partake not" of that which Joseph had offered her. It is, however, only right to add that the Mormon exponents of the Revelation say that this passage refers to an offer which Joseph had made to sacrifice his own personal feelings, and to accede to a divorce between Emma and himself. In these few lines more is disclosed of the Prophet's domestic life and difficulties than he probably was aware of. I give these paragraphs in full, that the reader may judge for himself. [She then cites D&C 132:51–60]<ref>{{CriticalWork:Young:Wife No. 19|pages=84}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Ann Eliza wasn't old enough to have direct personal knowledge about plural marriage in Nauvoo, but her parents (who also later apostatized) were there--so this may well reflect their insights. At the very least, she too would have had reason to condemn Joseph Smith if Joseph had offered a wife swap, but she didn't. In fact, she understood the mysterious verses quite differently.

Most historians have thus not given much weight to this idea. It is probably best seen as anti-Mormon folk history. It still crops up now and again among those who either don't know the data well, or who are working with a lascivious picture of Joseph and so this "fits" how they think he behaved.

====William Law and complicating the picture====
The story is complicated by the issue of William Law (who was a counselor to Joseph in the First Presidency before he apostatized and helped write the Nauvoo Expositor) and his wife, Jane. There are various versions of that story, and so they get tangled up in this issue.

<blockquote>
It is not clear whether or not William and Jane were ever sealed. Alexander Neibaur, a close friend of the Prophet, said that "Mr Wm Law--wisht to be Married to his Wife for Eternity Mr [Joseph] Smith said would Inquire of the Lord, Answered no because Law was a Adultereous person. Mrs Law wandet to know why she could not be Married to Mr Law Mr S said would not wound her feeling by telling her, some days after Mr Smith going toward his Office Mrs Law stood in the door beckoned to him more the once did not Know wheter she bekoned to him went across to Inquire yes please to walk in no one but herself in the house. she drawing her Arms around him if you wont seal me to my husband Seal myself unto you. he Said stand away & pushing her Gently aside giving her a denial & going out. when Mr Law came home he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph, he then demanded what had[pass[ed] Mrs L then told Joseph wandet her to be Married to him." (Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, Church Archives. See also Hyrum Smith's statement in Nauvoo Neighbor, Extra, 17 June 1844, regarding Law's adulterous conduct.) Yet at Law's trial of excommunication, Jack John Scott, a Canadian convert, testified that to ameliorate conditions between William and Joseph (possibly because of the accusations that the Prophet had made advances to Jane Law) Joseph Smith had sealed William Law and his wife (Minutes of meeting, 18 April 1844, Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives).<ref name="cook">{{BYUS|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5507 William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter]|vol=22|pages=footnote 82|num=1|date=Fall 1982}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This could be Joseph just spin-doctoring, but his account told to Neibaur was done privately, and wasn't used in public to discredit Law or his wife. This, to me, adds to its plausibility. It didn't really benefit Joseph if he were to lie in private to a very few about Law, while Law was making such public trouble for Joseph. Here's Hyrum Smith's evidence (and many regarded Hyrum as impeccably honest):

<blockquote>
Councilor Hyrum Smith continued—Jackson told him he (Jackson) meant to have his daughter, and threatened him if he made any resistance. Jackson related to him a dream, that Joseph and Hyrum were opposed to him, but that he would execute his purposes; that Jackson had laid a plan with four or five persons to kidnap his daughter, and threatened to shoot any one that should come near after he had got her in the skiff; that Jackson was engaged in trying to make bogus, which was his principal business. Referred to the revelation read to the High Council of the Church, which has caused so much talk, about multiplicity of wives; that said revelation was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days. That when sick, William Law confessed to him that he had been guilty of adultery, and was not fit to live, and had sinned against his own soul, &c., and inquired who was Judge Emmons? When he came here he had scarce two shirts to his back; but he had been dandled by the authorities of the city, &c., and was now editor of the Nauvoo Expositor, and his right hand man, was Francis M. Higbee, who had confessed to him that he had had the——! [the blank at the end likely refers to a venereal disease contracted by Higbee from a prostitution ring run by John C. Bennett]<ref>{{HoC|vol=6|pages=434-436 (10 June 1844)}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Law, in his turn, claimed "[Joseph][ha[s] lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and[ha[s] found her a virtuous woman".<ref>Law Diary, 13 May 1844</ref>

The best reconstruction may be Cook's:

<blockquote>
A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that Neibaur's account (cited above), though reasonably accurate, is simply incomplete. Obviously, Jane Law's frustration over not being permitted to be eternally sealed to her husband might have prompted her to request eternal marriage to the Mormon leader (say, in late 1843), and (as per Neibaur) she was rebuffed. Subsequently, possibly to gratify and assuage the Laws, Joseph might have finally agreed to seal the couple near Christmas 1843 (as per John Scott). Then later, just before or soon after the Laws' excommunication, Joseph Smith might have sought to have Jane Law sealed to him in an attempt to keep her from following her apostate husband (as per Law's diary and other published sources noted above). Bathsheba W. Smith, one of the anointed quorum who was conversant with all the ramifications of plural marriage in Nauvoo, believed that Jane Law may well have been sealed to the Prophet (Bathsheba W. Smith Deposition, Eighth Circuit Court, 1892 Temple Lot Case, carbon copy of original, Church Archives). However, if this were the case, it was short-lived because Jane, who was expecting her sixth child, did remain with her husband, William Law. In July 1867, John Hawley reported that Wilford Woodruff had said, "When Brigham Young got the records of the Church in his hands, after the death of Joseph Smith, he found by examination that . . . [William] Laws wife and [Francis] Higbys wife and[L[yman] Wights wife and [Robert D .] Fosters wife had all been Sealed to Joseph, as their Husbands could not Save them" (John Hawley, Autobiography, January 1885, p. 97, RLDS Library-Archives).<ref name="cook"></ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Plural Marriage in Utah

2026-04-14T04:44:20Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Plural marriage|Plural Marriage]] | Utah
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
This page gathers and responds to all questions surrounding the practice of plural marriage in Utah by leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did early Church leaders admit that there were many difficulties with plural marriage that caused “problems” and “great sorrow”?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Plural marriage, like any social system, had challenges—but critics often present selective quotations====
Critics sometimes claim that early Latter-day Saint leaders “admitted” that plural marriage was marked by conflict and sorrow. To support this assertion, they frequently cite statements from leaders such as Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young. However, a closer examination of the full context of these remarks shows that they were not confessions of systemic failure or misery, but pastoral counsel addressing ordinary human weaknesses.
One oft-cited statement from Kimball reads:

:There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances.

When presented in isolation, this quotation is framed as evidence of pervasive domestic strife within plural families. Yet when read in context, Kimball’s remarks were part of a broader sermon urging Saints to seek the Spirit of God, cultivate peace, and avoid contention in their homes.

He admonished his listeners to read scripture, stay engaged in productive pursuits, and “stop your quarrelling.” His reference to contention between wives was illustrative—not a sweeping indictment of plural marriage. In fact, he immediately clarified that such behavior was absent in well-ordered households, including his own and those of other Church leaders. The thrust of his message was that spiritual maturity and common sense eliminate unnecessary conflict—hardly an admission of unavoidable “great sorrow.”

====Brigham Young’s remarks addressed human nature, not the failure of plural marriage====
Critics also cite a statement from Brigham Young recounting that one of his wives once said:

:I wish my husband's wives would leave him, every soul of them except myself.

Again, isolated from its setting, this comment is portrayed as confirmation of jealousy and misery within plural marriage. However, the broader discourse paints a different picture.

In that sermon, Young was emphasizing the high level of respect shown to women in Latter-day Saint society. His reference to a wife’s candid remark illustrated a point about natural human feelings—particularly the universal tendency toward exclusivity in marriage relationships. Significantly, Young generalized the sentiment as something felt “more or less, at times” by women of all ages. This was not a lament about plural marriage uniquely producing sorrow, but an acknowledgment of ordinary human emotions.
The remainder of the discourse stressed kindness, courtesy, and respect toward women in the community. Far from describing a system collapsing under strain, Young portrayed a society striving—however imperfectly—to live religious principles while accommodating human nature.

====Context matters====
Plural marriage was a complex social institution that required patience, selflessness, and spiritual commitment. Early Church leaders did not deny that it demanded sacrifice. But acknowledging human weakness, occasional jealousy, or the need for harmony is not the same as admitting systemic “great sorrow.”

When read in full context, the cited sermons by Kimball and Young function as moral exhortations—encouraging unity, peace, and charity—not as confessions that plural marriage was inherently dysfunctional. Selectively extracting emotionally charged lines from lengthy sermons risks misrepresenting both the speakers and their intent.

A fair reading of the historical record shows leaders counseling their communities on how to overcome challenges—not conceding that those challenges defined the institution itself.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young and Joseph Smith say that polygamists were permitted to go beyond the bounds of normal social interaction?===
| state = closed
| content = Critics have argued that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young described plural marriage in terms that imply freedom to step beyond ordinary moral or social limits. This interpretation relies heavily on Brigham Young’s later recollection of a conversation with Joseph Smith regarding the introduction of plural marriage.

A close reading of the historical material, however, shows that the word “bounds” is being misunderstood.

====What did Joseph mean by “bounds”?====
In recounting his early hesitation about plural marriage, Brigham Young remembered worrying that he might take an additional wife and later falter, thereby jeopardizing his salvation and harming his family. According to his account, Joseph Smith reassured him:

:''There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation.''

Some have read “bounds” here as though it meant moral limits—restrictions beyond which normal rules no longer apply. But that is not how Brigham understood the term.

In early nineteenth-century usage, “bounds” could refer not merely to prohibitive limits but to the full scope or extent of one’s assigned obligations. In Brigham’s telling, Joseph was not suggesting that he was now free to transgress moral standards. Rather, he was affirming that Brigham had already fulfilled the duties required of all disciples to such a degree that his ultimate salvation was secure. The “bounds” were not lines he could now step over without consequence; they were the encompassing obligations he had faithfully met.

Importantly, Joseph told Brigham he was already “past these bounds” before entering plural marriage. That fact alone undermines the interpretation that polygamy itself was the “boundary” being crossed. The reassurance was about Brigham’s proven faithfulness—not permission to suspend moral norms.

====Not license, but added responsibility====
In the same discourse, Brigham described how difficult the command was for him personally:

:''Joseph said to me, ‘I command you to go and get another wife.’ I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything…''

This is not the language of someone viewing plural marriage as liberation from moral restraint. It is the language of a man who experienced the command as a heavy and painful duty. His reaction underscores that plural marriage was, in his view, an enlargement of responsibility—not a relaxation of standards.

The imagery of “bounds” fits naturally in this framework. Brigham had already striven to fulfill all that God required of him. Now, the circumference of his duty was expanding. It was not that he was stepping “outside” moral law; rather, more was being asked within it.

====A parallel account: Heber C. Kimball====
A similar dynamic appears in the experience of Heber C. Kimball. He, too, reportedly feared that accepting plural marriage might overwhelm him spiritually. Joseph sought divine reassurance and relayed that if Kimball were ever in danger of apostatizing, God would “take him to himself.”

Again, the pattern is consistent: plural marriage was perceived as so demanding that it would not be required of those whose salvation might genuinely be imperiled by it. The promise was protective, not permissive. It was meant to calm fears of failure—not to suggest that moral barriers no longer applied.

====Did plural marriage suspend normal rules?====
The claim that Brigham Young conceded that “normal rules governing social interaction” did not apply to Joseph Smith does not reflect the plain thrust of the narratives. Neither Joseph nor Brigham describes plural marriage as an exemption from morality. Instead, they portray it as an Abrahamic test—difficult, counterintuitive, and spiritually weighty.

For its earliest practitioners, plural marriage was framed not as indulgence, but as sacrifice. The recurring themes are reluctance, anxiety, prayer, and submission—not freedom from restraint. To read “bounds” as moral fences being gleefully leapt over is to import a modern assumption foreign to the speakers’ own understanding.

When the sources are allowed to speak in their full context, “bounds” refers to divinely assigned duties already fulfilled—not to social norms discarded.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young boast about his ability to get more wives even though he already had 50-60?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Do the cited sources show “boasting”?====
Critics sometimes allege that Brigham Young brazenly boasted about his ability to attract additional wives, even while already married to dozens of women. When the cited sermons are examined in context, however, the claim does not hold up. The remarks in question appear either humorous, rhetorical, or theological—not expressions of vanity or sensual pride.

As is often the case, isolated lines are detached from their setting and presented in the most sensational possible light. A fuller reading tells a different story.

====Journal of Discourses 5:210====
In the first cited passage, Brigham Young was speaking about the return of Thomas B. Marsh to the Church. His comments were made in a comparative and somewhat playful tone, contrasting Marsh’s aged and infirm condition with his own vigor.

He said:

:''Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.''

Read in isolation, this sentence may sound like self-congratulation. In context, however, Young’s point was theological and rhetorical. He immediately attributed vitality and youthfulness to the influence of the Spirit of God, declaring that “‘Mormonism’ keeps men and women young and handsome.” His emphasis was on spiritual vitality—not romantic conquest.

The remark functions as humorous hyperbole designed to underscore his theme. It is not a literal attempt to solicit wives or parade marital prospects. Indeed, in the very same discourse, he lightly teases Marsh—suggesting that plural marriage need not trouble him because he doubted Marsh “could get one wife.” The tone is unmistakably conversational and joking.

Framed within the sermon’s broader message, the statement reinforces Young’s claim that faithfulness brings spiritual vigor. It does not read as a serious boast about romantic opportunity.

====Journal of Discourses 8:178====
The second quotation comes from a passage in which Young reportedly declared that he would have “wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom…”

Once again, context is crucial. This language reflects Latter-day Saint teachings about eternal increase and exaltation—not earthly marriage statistics. The imagery of “million” wives and children is clearly hyperbolic and eschatological, pointing toward a theological vision of eternal posterity rather than temporal polygamous expansion.

To treat such language as a literal, present-day boast misreads the genre and tone of nineteenth-century Mormon preaching. The rhetoric is expansive and symbolic, typical of discussions about eternal progression and divine inheritance.

====What do the sources actually show?====
Neither cited discourse presents Brigham Young as gloating over his marital situation or publicly scheming for additional wives. In one case, the statement is a humorous aside in a sermon about spiritual vitality. In the other, the language is overtly theological, describing eternal increase.

Careful readers will recognize that nineteenth-century sermons often combined wit, exaggeration, doctrinal instruction, and pastoral encouragement. Extracting a single vivid phrase without its rhetorical setting can distort its meaning.
When the full context is considered, the claim that Brigham Young “boasted” about collecting more wives is not supported by the very sources used to advance it.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Brigham Young say that women have no right to meddle in the Kingdom of God?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Was Brigham dismissing women—or speaking about priesthood governance?====
A statement by Brigham Young that women “have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God” is sometimes cited as evidence that he was authoritarian or dismissive of women. When the fuller context of the remark is examined, however, his meaning becomes clearer—and far more specific—than the isolated phrase suggests.

As quoted in Mormon Hierarchy by D. Michael Quinn (and subsequently used by Sally Denton), the fuller statement reads:
:''[women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.''

Far from questioning women’s competence, Brigham explicitly affirms that many women were “more sagacious & shrewd & more competent” than men in financial and practical matters. His statement distinguishes between two spheres: temporal affairs (where he openly praises women’s abilities) and priesthood governance (which he reserves to ordained male leaders, consistent with Latter-day Saint structure at the time).

In this light, “meddling” refers not to women thinking, organizing, or contributing—but to assuming priesthood authority or directing priesthood governance.

====Historical setting matters====
The remark appears to have been made in a period of internal Church tension following the death of Joseph Smith. During this time, questions of authority and organization were particularly sensitive. Some scholars have suggested that the statement may have been influenced by earlier conflicts involving Emma Smith and the Relief Society, especially in matters intersecting with priesthood decisions.

Brigham’s follow-up comment further clarifies his concern:

:''When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern.''

His emphasis is on centralized priesthood direction during a fragile period of Church leadership. The issue under discussion was governance and keys—not women’s intellectual, financial, or spiritual capability.

====Avoiding presentism====
To modern ears, language such as “have no right to meddle” can sound harsh or exclusionary. It is important to read such statements within their nineteenth-century setting. Concepts of gender roles—held not only by Brigham Young, but by most men and women of his era—differed significantly from contemporary expectations.

At the same time, it is worth noting that Brigham Young supported women’s education and professional training in ways that were comparatively progressive for his day. He encouraged women to pursue schooling and even facilitated training for female physicians in the eastern United States—an unusual step in mid-nineteenth-century America.

====What was Brigham actually asserting?====
Brigham Young’s statement was not a declaration that women were incapable, unintelligent, or unworthy. In fact, he plainly said the opposite regarding many practical matters. His assertion was structural and ecclesiastical: priesthood keys and governance belonged to ordained holders of priesthood authority.

One may debate or disagree with that framework, but the historical record shows that his comment addressed questions of priesthood jurisdiction—not women’s general competence or value.

When the full context is considered, the quotation reflects a dispute about ecclesiastical order during a pivotal moment in Church history—not a blanket condemnation of women’s abilities or contributions.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does an 1886 revelation from John Taylor say that polygamy will never be taken away by God?===
| state = closed
| content = John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng uploaded] to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:<ref>John Taylor, “[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27],” ''Church History Catalog'', MS 34928, accessed June 17, 2025, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Mormonr, “[https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” accessed June 17, 2025, online at mormonr.org</ref>

<blockquote>My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have not commanded men, that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen.</blockquote>
----
====Historical Context====
The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”<ref>Ken Driggs, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-prosecutions-begin-defining-cohabitation-in-1885/ The Prosecutions Begin: Defining Cohabitation in 1885],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 21, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 109–112.</ref>

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives.<ref>David L. Bigler, ''[https://archive.org/details/forgottenkingdom0000bigl_o6o4/page/314/mode/2up Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896]'' (Utah State University Press, 1998), 314–316.</ref> Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/anti-polygamy-legislation?lang=eng Antipolygamy Legislation],” ''Church History Topics'', accessed June 26, 2025, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/0O4NVz-SX2vQb/text_of_the_1882_edmunds_act Text of the 1882 Edmunds Act],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at bhroberts.org; U-S-History.com, “[https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at u-s-history.com. Men and women were incarcerated alike under this law: men for unlawful cohabitation, and women for refusing to testify against their husbands. To read more about the women imprisoned under this law, see Lorie Winder Stromberg, “Prisoners for ‘The Principle’: The Incarceration of Mormon Plural Wives, 1882–1890,” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 2: From Joseph Smith's Martyrdom to the First Manifesto, 1844–1890'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2013), 298–325; Belle Harris, ''[https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/belle-harris?lang=eng The Prison Journal of Belle Harris]'', ed. Kenneth Adkins, Thomas C. Clark, Catherine Reese Newton, et. al (Church Historian’s Press, 2023).</ref>

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.<ref>Driggs, “Defining Cohabitation,” 109–124.</ref>

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.<ref>Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019), 24–33.</ref>

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles.<ref>Elden J. Watson, “[https://bhroberts.org/files/2NpGnj/scan-Y8y8Jd-2NpGnj.pdf?r=Y8y8Jd&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..cHXUvLOlsqWN4ZUQ.fKr2fIqFxwc7EqwVmNDg2W4Nq9IAu67W2EN0hlCwl0pIq24EBS1zPpL9C984yABDfUKrY-YENpq_4TA5_43-4jykJphY_XyFyQWLfYDLloh_pi-tQmUG-8u8Zw1eUSQ56uHAC0vHjJelExrRHrEmj-rac1yTXkRU0ELIwPGTzDqbal28wiihZPDPluJjmiWXVNNJ6Q2oNdwA5TSz-zr1_NkgTVGPM3eN-v-7EIX3QHs7cY0mLCF55kVoBikq3AkCLeD3nGXGLi3h53pNc8oi5CHBQS12VDvtB3DGJJ2IvaJeXQiwfUMmNCZ49e7qheLdMofjZcCXixqc9E4fROulkSodcEB6igNRKiJf6TmI3iK-BDGnnVCvPE0yA77lCgemMIBPKKC5OR9tu1uOq5bwTVsJJ4g.NyWAO_lvyB53WiXaDh_Y-g President John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” Different Thoughts 3 (March 1989): 4–8, as cited by bhroberts.org.</ref> Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage],” ''Gospel Topics Essays'', October 22, 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.</ref>

====Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?====
Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation.”</ref>

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives.<ref>B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) publish official statement denouncing the practice of plural marriage in the Church],” accessed June 25, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed this during John W. Taylor’s excommunication hearing in 1911, when he said, “It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian's Office, this was but a short time ago.” B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-ddMFvg/reprint_of_minutes_of_membership_trial_of_john_w_taylor_mentions_the_quorum_discussion_around_the_1886_taylor_revelation Reprint of minutes of membership trial of John W. Taylor; mentions the quorum discussion around the 1886 Taylor revelation],” accessed June 27, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another ''carefully worded denial'' like those made during the early days of plural marriage.<ref>Samuel W. Taylor, ''[https://archive.org/details/kingdomornothing0000tayl/page/368/mode/2up The Kingdom or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon]'' (Macmillan, 1976), 369–370; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt87tmi7xJQ&t=1989s The Hidden Polygamy Revelation of 1886, Explained, ft. Stephen Smoot],” June 25, 2025, 33:09–40:38, online at youtube.com; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=200s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 3:20–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders.<ref>For example, historian D. Michael Quinn was granted access to the revelation while working on a landmark article in 1985. D. Michael Quinn, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/ LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 18, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 9–105.</ref> At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation”; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=318s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 5:18–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

====The New and Everlasting Covenant====
Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”<ref>Brigham Young, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/12/47#230 The Object of Gathering––Practical Religion––The Love of God––Our Covenants],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, and D. W. Evans (Albert Carrington, 1869), 12:230.</ref>

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”<ref>Brian C. Hales, “[https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 3: Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy from 1890 to the Present'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2015), 70, 72.</ref>

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”<ref>Revelation to John Taylor, 25–26 June 1882, in ''Revelations given to John Taylor, 1882–1884'', MS 41, Church History Catalog. Digital access must be requested by the individual [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/71550f40-40e2-4f22-a513-d9efed66649a/0?view=browse here].</ref>

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the '''Law''' of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the '''principle''' of plural marriage.”<ref>John Taylor, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/24/27#229 The Work of God––The Events of the Times––Gathering––Temple Ordinances––The Object of Marriage––Plural Marriage––A Terrible Lesson––Laws of God Must Be Enforced––The Priesthood––Parties, Cliques, Rings, Murmurers––Israel],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (John Henry Smith, 1884), 24:229.</ref>

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 84:54–57.</ref>

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

====The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture====
It is common for critics to insist that '''“the new and everlasting covenant”''' can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

* The Old Testament frequently referred to the '''“everlasting covenant”''' which God had established with Noah ({{b||Genesis|9|8-16}}), and Israel ({{b||Ezekiel|37|26-28}}).
* Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the '''“everlasting covenant”''': Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... ({{b||Hebrews|13|20}}).
* In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a '''new and an everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning” ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|22|1}}).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not ''exclusively'' refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the '''covenant''', and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

;Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831): I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine '''everlasting covenant''' into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|45|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831): Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you '''mine everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831): Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving '''mine everlasting covenant''', even the fulness of my gospel... ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|66|2}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832): [Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither '''the everlasting covenant'''... ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|76|101}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832): And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the '''new covenant''', even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|84|57}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832): [In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the '''everlasting covenant'''....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|88|131-133}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833): When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and ''covenant with an everlasting covenant'', they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|101|39}}).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|}}).

The revelation on plural marriage ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|132||}}) describes a similar idea:

<blockquote>
4 For behold, I reveal unto you '''a new and an everlasting covenant'''; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to '''the new and everlasting covenant''', it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|4-6}})
</blockquote>

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

<blockquote>
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|7}}).
</blockquote>

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 64, esp. note 15. Franklin D. Richard's [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/26/37#343 use in October 1885] is the sole use in the ''Journal of Discourses,'' 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (Daniel H. Wells, 1886), 26:343.</ref> (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

====Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?====
There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Christopher C. Jones, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor ‘John the Revelator’: The Written Revelations of John Taylor],” in ''Champion of Liberty: John Taylor'', ed. Mary Jane Woodger (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 295–296. The thirteen individuals reported to have attended the eight-hour meeting were John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, Amy Woolley, Julia E. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Daniel R. Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, George Earl, and Samuel Sedden. The five men allegedly ordained to continue in plural marriage were Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and Lorin C. Woolley.</ref>

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.<ref>Reports of Joseph Smith meeting with John Taylor the night the revelation was received did some rather early, but the later elaborations did not come until much later. See Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 76–90. To read more about the post-Manifesto period and the rise of Fundamentalist Mormonism, see Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019).</ref>

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 88–89.</ref>

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 107.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How were divorces formalized among Mormons on the frontier in the 19th century?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce====
It is true that some nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints remarried without first obtaining a formal civil divorce. Modern readers sometimes assume that such cases must therefore constitute adultery. That assumption, however, reflects contemporary legal expectations—not the legal and social realities of antebellum America.

On the American frontier, particularly among the poor and geographically mobile, remarriage without a formal divorce was not uncommon. Courts were often distant, expensive, or practically inaccessible. Legal divorce procedures varied widely from state to state, and jurisdictional confusion was frequent.

This is where the danger of presentism arises. As noted by Lynn Hunt, former president of the American Historical Association:

:''“Presentism,” observed American Historical Association president Lynn Hunt, “at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior. . . . Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards.”'' <ref>Lynn Hunt, "Against Presentism," ''Perspectives'' 40/5 (May 2002); available online at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0205/ (accessed 2 December 2008).</ref>
Evaluating nineteenth-century marital practices by twenty-first-century procedural expectations risks precisely this distortion.

====To remarry without a formal divorce was not unusual in antebellum America====
Critics sometimes highlight cases such as Louisa Rising, who married Edwin Woolley without first divorcing her legal husband, or Eleanor McLean, who married Parley P. Pratt before securing a formal divorce. These examples are presented as though they demonstrate uniquely shocking behavior among the Saints.

Yet legal historians paint a broader picture. One scholar has observed:

:''“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”'' <ref>Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.</ref>

Another historian, Hendrik Hartog, writes in ''Man & Wife in America: A History'':

:''“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”'' <ref>Hendrik Hartog, ''Man & Wife in America: A History'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87.</ref>

These observations do not excuse wrongdoing; rather, they illustrate that marital formalities were far less standardized and enforceable than modern readers might assume. Remarriage without formal divorce paperwork was part of a broader American pattern, not a uniquely Mormon innovation.

====The legal machinery of divorce was often weak or inaccessible====
The Latter-day Saints were frequently impoverished and lived in frontier environments where state institutions were fragile or newly organized. Women who joined the Church and migrated west—often leaving non-member husbands behind—were especially unlikely to have the means or geographic access necessary to secure a civil divorce.

Moreover, marriage during this period was shaped heavily by communal recognition. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'':

:''“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband's support, wife's service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”'' <ref>Nancy F. Cott, ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.</ref>

It is also worth remembering that because Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Latter-day Saint leaders exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, marriages conducted under their supervision had as much (or more) formal oversight as many traditional marriages in America during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Without this broader historical context, modern readers may be led to assume that nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint marital practices were unusually reckless or “loose.” The historical record, however, shows that their experience reflected common legal and social realities of the American frontier.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?===
| state = closed
| content = ====To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in pre-Civil War America====
Some critics of Mormonism emphasize that certain Latter-day Saints did not secure formal civil divorces before remarrying—whether monogamously or pluralistically. The implication is that this reflects a cavalier or lawless attitude. Such claims, however, often overlook the broader legal and social realities of nineteenth-century America.
The Saints were frequently poor and spent much of their history on the frontier, where the machinery of civil government was limited, inconsistent, or difficult to access. Women who joined the Church and migrated west without their husbands were especially unlikely to pursue costly and complicated civil proceedings—particularly when property rights were minimal and courts distant. Without this context, modern readers may be led to assume misconduct where the historical record shows commonplace legal informality.
It also bears noting that because leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, such unions operated under a form of recognized ecclesiastical oversight. In many frontier settings, that supervision was at least as structured as civil marriage administration elsewhere in America during the same period.
Legal historians have made clear that informal remarriage was not uniquely Mormon. One non–Latter-day Saint scholar observed:
:''“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”'' <ref>Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.</ref>
Similarly, historian Hendrik Hartog wrote in ''Man & Wife in America: A History'':
:''“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”'' <ref>Hendrik Hartog, ''Man & Wife in America: A History'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87.</ref>
In short, remarriage without formal divorce documentation—particularly among poor and mobile populations—was part of a broader American pattern. Nor, in many cases, were estranged husbands geographically available to participate in legal proceedings even if the wife had wished to initiate them.
====Marriage in 19th century America was not a "free-for-all"====
None of this means that marriage in nineteenth-century America was chaotic or unregulated. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'':
:''“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband’s support, wife’s service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”'' <ref>Nancy F. Cott, ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.</ref>
Community recognition and performance of marital obligations often mattered more than strict compliance with formal state procedures. When nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint practices are evaluated within that broader American context, they appear far less anomalous than critics sometimes suggest.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What was the prevalence of polygamy in Utah and how many wives did most polygamist males have?===
| state = closed
| content = ====About 15–20% of families were polygamous, and most had only two wives====
G. D. Smith’s desire to correct underestimates in some Latter-day Saint publications should not become license to exaggerate the norm—whether in reference to groups or individuals (such as Johnson)—in the opposite direction.

Most polygamists in Utah had only two wives. About 15–20% of families were polygamous, though the impact on the Latter-day Saint experience was profound:

:''“Excluding inactive men, ‘over a third of all husbands’ time, nearly three-quarters of all women-years, and well over half of all child-years were spent in polygamy before 1880.’”'' <ref>Larry Logue, "A Time of Marriage: Monogamy and Polygamy in a Utah Town," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 11 (1984): 25; cited by B. Carmon Hardy, ''Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise'' (Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark Co., 2007), 143–44.</ref>

G. D. Smith provides considerable statistical information, but he exaggerates even there. Of Benjamin F. Johnson—described as “representative of the mainstream in LDS practice”—Smith writes that he “eventually married seven wives—a few short of the model of ten talents” (p. 166). But was seven wives truly “mainstream” in Latter-day Saint polygamy?

Both Stanley S. Ivins and Kathryn M. Daynes produced careful estimates of plural wife distribution among Utah polygamists. Their findings are summarized below:
<wt>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:60%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Number of wives
!width="20%"|Ivins (%)<ref>Stanley S. Ivins, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," ''The Western Humanities Review'' 10 (Summer 1956): 229–30; reproduced "exactly as it appeared" in his "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 35/4 (Fall 1967): 313–14, 316. See the anonymously authored article "Tribute to Stanley S. Ivins," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 35/4 (Fall 1967): 307–9.</ref>
!width="20%"|Daynes (%)<ref>Kathryn M. Daynes, ''More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 130.</ref>
|-
|2||66.3||66
|-
|3||21.2||21.3
|-
|4||6.7||8
|-
|5||3||4.7
|-
|6 or more||<3||Included in "5"
|}
</wt>
These data show that roughly two-thirds of polygamists had exactly two wives. More than 80% had no more than three. Men with as many as seven wives comprised well under 5% overall.

====The claim that seven wives represents some type of "mainstream" is erroneous====
The claim that seven wives represents a “mainstream” pattern is therefore mistaken—such prolific pluralists were exceptional. Smith later writes that because institutional Church histories have minimized the incidence and profile of polygamy, “it is easy to imagine that most men who entered polygamy did so in a cursory way. In reality, the typical Utah polygamist whose roots in the principle extended back to Nauvoo, had between three and four wives” (pp. 286, 289).

This framing obscures two important points.

First, polygamists with roots in Nauvoo constituted a small minority of the broader Utah population. Most men who entered polygamy did not belong to this early adopting core. Second, even three or four wives was not typical across the entire polygamist population—much less seven. The overwhelming majority had only two, and a large majority had no more than three.

Indeed, most Latter-day Saint men never practiced plural marriage at all. Probably only 15–20% of Latter-day Saint families were polygamous, “with variations from place to place and from decade to decade.” <ref>Davis Bitton, ''Historical Dictionary of Mormonism'', 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 147.</ref> As Davis Bitton summarizes, plural marriage was significant but far from universal.

Smith acknowledges Ivins’ data elsewhere (though he does not engage Daynes’ work), but places the discussion in a different context (pp. 535–36), minimizing its corrective force against claims of “mainstream” large-scale plural families.
Johnson exceeded even the average of Nauvoo’s early adopters, who themselves had more wives, on average, than the vast majority of Utah polygamists. He may have been “mainstream” within that highly select Nauvoo cohort—but polygamy itself was limited to a relatively small circle there and was never “mainstream” for the Church as a whole. Most Utah polygamists never approached the marital scale of those earliest practitioners.

Attempts to extrapolate patterns from Nauvoo to all of Latter-day Saint history are therefore problematic.

Smith also argues that before 1890 “the number of [polygamy] practitioners had expanded exponentially,” pointing to Orderville, Utah, where 67% of residents belonged to plural households (pp. 535–36). Yet this statistic requires context. As noted by Lowell Ben Bennion, Orderville was unusual. Its participation in the United Order economic experiment likely encouraged commitment to plural marriage. Unlike most Mormon settlements, many young men in Orderville entered plural marriage at or near their first marriage.
Nearby Kanab, by contrast, had less than half as many polygamists. Southern Utah generally showed higher plural marriage rates than Utah as a whole, again reflecting local religious and communal dynamics rather than statewide norms.<ref>Lowell "Ben" Bennion, "The Incidence of Mormon Polygamy in 1880: ‘Dixie’ Versus Davis Stake," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 11 (1984): 34–36.</ref>

In short, while plural marriage profoundly shaped nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint society, it involved a minority of families, and most participating men had only two wives. Cases such as Johnson’s were exceptional except within the small, early-adopting Nauvoo circle.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Plural Marriage in Utah

2026-04-14T04:44:04Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Plural marriage|Plural Marriage]] | Utah
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
This page gathers and responds to all questions surrounding the practice of plural marriage in Utah by leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did early Church leaders admit that there were many difficulties with plural marriage that caused “problems” and “great sorrow”?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Plural marriage, like any social system, had challenges—but critics often present selective quotations====
Critics sometimes claim that early Latter-day Saint leaders “admitted” that plural marriage was marked by conflict and sorrow. To support this assertion, they frequently cite statements from leaders such as Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young. However, a closer examination of the full context of these remarks shows that they were not confessions of systemic failure or misery, but pastoral counsel addressing ordinary human weaknesses.
One oft-cited statement from Kimball reads:

:There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances.

When presented in isolation, this quotation is framed as evidence of pervasive domestic strife within plural families. Yet when read in context, Kimball’s remarks were part of a broader sermon urging Saints to seek the Spirit of God, cultivate peace, and avoid contention in their homes.

He admonished his listeners to read scripture, stay engaged in productive pursuits, and “stop your quarrelling.” His reference to contention between wives was illustrative—not a sweeping indictment of plural marriage. In fact, he immediately clarified that such behavior was absent in well-ordered households, including his own and those of other Church leaders. The thrust of his message was that spiritual maturity and common sense eliminate unnecessary conflict—hardly an admission of unavoidable “great sorrow.”

====Brigham Young’s remarks addressed human nature, not the failure of plural marriage====
Critics also cite a statement from Brigham Young recounting that one of his wives once said:

:I wish my husband's wives would leave him, every soul of them except myself.

Again, isolated from its setting, this comment is portrayed as confirmation of jealousy and misery within plural marriage. However, the broader discourse paints a different picture.

In that sermon, Young was emphasizing the high level of respect shown to women in Latter-day Saint society. His reference to a wife’s candid remark illustrated a point about natural human feelings—particularly the universal tendency toward exclusivity in marriage relationships. Significantly, Young generalized the sentiment as something felt “more or less, at times” by women of all ages. This was not a lament about plural marriage uniquely producing sorrow, but an acknowledgment of ordinary human emotions.
The remainder of the discourse stressed kindness, courtesy, and respect toward women in the community. Far from describing a system collapsing under strain, Young portrayed a society striving—however imperfectly—to live religious principles while accommodating human nature.

====Context matters====
Plural marriage was a complex social institution that required patience, selflessness, and spiritual commitment. Early Church leaders did not deny that it demanded sacrifice. But acknowledging human weakness, occasional jealousy, or the need for harmony is not the same as admitting systemic “great sorrow.”

When read in full context, the cited sermons by Kimball and Young function as moral exhortations—encouraging unity, peace, and charity—not as confessions that plural marriage was inherently dysfunctional. Selectively extracting emotionally charged lines from lengthy sermons risks misrepresenting both the speakers and their intent.

A fair reading of the historical record shows leaders counseling their communities on how to overcome challenges—not conceding that those challenges defined the institution itself.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young and Joseph Smith say that polygamists were permitted to go beyond the bounds of normal social interaction?===
| state = closed
| content = Critics have argued that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young described plural marriage in terms that imply freedom to step beyond ordinary moral or social limits. This interpretation relies heavily on Brigham Young’s later recollection of a conversation with Joseph Smith regarding the introduction of plural marriage.

A close reading of the historical material, however, shows that the word “bounds” is being misunderstood.

====What did Joseph mean by “bounds”?====
In recounting his early hesitation about plural marriage, Brigham Young remembered worrying that he might take an additional wife and later falter, thereby jeopardizing his salvation and harming his family. According to his account, Joseph Smith reassured him:

:''There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation.''

Some have read “bounds” here as though it meant moral limits—restrictions beyond which normal rules no longer apply. But that is not how Brigham understood the term.

In early nineteenth-century usage, “bounds” could refer not merely to prohibitive limits but to the full scope or extent of one’s assigned obligations. In Brigham’s telling, Joseph was not suggesting that he was now free to transgress moral standards. Rather, he was affirming that Brigham had already fulfilled the duties required of all disciples to such a degree that his ultimate salvation was secure. The “bounds” were not lines he could now step over without consequence; they were the encompassing obligations he had faithfully met.

Importantly, Joseph told Brigham he was already “past these bounds” before entering plural marriage. That fact alone undermines the interpretation that polygamy itself was the “boundary” being crossed. The reassurance was about Brigham’s proven faithfulness—not permission to suspend moral norms.

==Not license, but added responsibility==
In the same discourse, Brigham described how difficult the command was for him personally:

:''Joseph said to me, ‘I command you to go and get another wife.’ I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything…''

This is not the language of someone viewing plural marriage as liberation from moral restraint. It is the language of a man who experienced the command as a heavy and painful duty. His reaction underscores that plural marriage was, in his view, an enlargement of responsibility—not a relaxation of standards.

The imagery of “bounds” fits naturally in this framework. Brigham had already striven to fulfill all that God required of him. Now, the circumference of his duty was expanding. It was not that he was stepping “outside” moral law; rather, more was being asked within it.

====A parallel account: Heber C. Kimball====
A similar dynamic appears in the experience of Heber C. Kimball. He, too, reportedly feared that accepting plural marriage might overwhelm him spiritually. Joseph sought divine reassurance and relayed that if Kimball were ever in danger of apostatizing, God would “take him to himself.”

Again, the pattern is consistent: plural marriage was perceived as so demanding that it would not be required of those whose salvation might genuinely be imperiled by it. The promise was protective, not permissive. It was meant to calm fears of failure—not to suggest that moral barriers no longer applied.

====Did plural marriage suspend normal rules?====
The claim that Brigham Young conceded that “normal rules governing social interaction” did not apply to Joseph Smith does not reflect the plain thrust of the narratives. Neither Joseph nor Brigham describes plural marriage as an exemption from morality. Instead, they portray it as an Abrahamic test—difficult, counterintuitive, and spiritually weighty.

For its earliest practitioners, plural marriage was framed not as indulgence, but as sacrifice. The recurring themes are reluctance, anxiety, prayer, and submission—not freedom from restraint. To read “bounds” as moral fences being gleefully leapt over is to import a modern assumption foreign to the speakers’ own understanding.

When the sources are allowed to speak in their full context, “bounds” refers to divinely assigned duties already fulfilled—not to social norms discarded.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young boast about his ability to get more wives even though he already had 50-60?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Do the cited sources show “boasting”?====
Critics sometimes allege that Brigham Young brazenly boasted about his ability to attract additional wives, even while already married to dozens of women. When the cited sermons are examined in context, however, the claim does not hold up. The remarks in question appear either humorous, rhetorical, or theological—not expressions of vanity or sensual pride.

As is often the case, isolated lines are detached from their setting and presented in the most sensational possible light. A fuller reading tells a different story.

====Journal of Discourses 5:210====
In the first cited passage, Brigham Young was speaking about the return of Thomas B. Marsh to the Church. His comments were made in a comparative and somewhat playful tone, contrasting Marsh’s aged and infirm condition with his own vigor.

He said:

:''Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congregation that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.''

Read in isolation, this sentence may sound like self-congratulation. In context, however, Young’s point was theological and rhetorical. He immediately attributed vitality and youthfulness to the influence of the Spirit of God, declaring that “‘Mormonism’ keeps men and women young and handsome.” His emphasis was on spiritual vitality—not romantic conquest.

The remark functions as humorous hyperbole designed to underscore his theme. It is not a literal attempt to solicit wives or parade marital prospects. Indeed, in the very same discourse, he lightly teases Marsh—suggesting that plural marriage need not trouble him because he doubted Marsh “could get one wife.” The tone is unmistakably conversational and joking.

Framed within the sermon’s broader message, the statement reinforces Young’s claim that faithfulness brings spiritual vigor. It does not read as a serious boast about romantic opportunity.

====Journal of Discourses 8:178====
The second quotation comes from a passage in which Young reportedly declared that he would have “wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom…”

Once again, context is crucial. This language reflects Latter-day Saint teachings about eternal increase and exaltation—not earthly marriage statistics. The imagery of “million” wives and children is clearly hyperbolic and eschatological, pointing toward a theological vision of eternal posterity rather than temporal polygamous expansion.

To treat such language as a literal, present-day boast misreads the genre and tone of nineteenth-century Mormon preaching. The rhetoric is expansive and symbolic, typical of discussions about eternal progression and divine inheritance.

====What do the sources actually show?====
Neither cited discourse presents Brigham Young as gloating over his marital situation or publicly scheming for additional wives. In one case, the statement is a humorous aside in a sermon about spiritual vitality. In the other, the language is overtly theological, describing eternal increase.

Careful readers will recognize that nineteenth-century sermons often combined wit, exaggeration, doctrinal instruction, and pastoral encouragement. Extracting a single vivid phrase without its rhetorical setting can distort its meaning.
When the full context is considered, the claim that Brigham Young “boasted” about collecting more wives is not supported by the very sources used to advance it.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Brigham Young say that women have no right to meddle in the Kingdom of God?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Was Brigham dismissing women—or speaking about priesthood governance?====
A statement by Brigham Young that women “have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God” is sometimes cited as evidence that he was authoritarian or dismissive of women. When the fuller context of the remark is examined, however, his meaning becomes clearer—and far more specific—than the isolated phrase suggests.

As quoted in Mormon Hierarchy by D. Michael Quinn (and subsequently used by Sally Denton), the fuller statement reads:
:''[women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands.''

Far from questioning women’s competence, Brigham explicitly affirms that many women were “more sagacious & shrewd & more competent” than men in financial and practical matters. His statement distinguishes between two spheres: temporal affairs (where he openly praises women’s abilities) and priesthood governance (which he reserves to ordained male leaders, consistent with Latter-day Saint structure at the time).

In this light, “meddling” refers not to women thinking, organizing, or contributing—but to assuming priesthood authority or directing priesthood governance.

====Historical setting matters====
The remark appears to have been made in a period of internal Church tension following the death of Joseph Smith. During this time, questions of authority and organization were particularly sensitive. Some scholars have suggested that the statement may have been influenced by earlier conflicts involving Emma Smith and the Relief Society, especially in matters intersecting with priesthood decisions.

Brigham’s follow-up comment further clarifies his concern:

:''When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern.''

His emphasis is on centralized priesthood direction during a fragile period of Church leadership. The issue under discussion was governance and keys—not women’s intellectual, financial, or spiritual capability.

====Avoiding presentism====
To modern ears, language such as “have no right to meddle” can sound harsh or exclusionary. It is important to read such statements within their nineteenth-century setting. Concepts of gender roles—held not only by Brigham Young, but by most men and women of his era—differed significantly from contemporary expectations.

At the same time, it is worth noting that Brigham Young supported women’s education and professional training in ways that were comparatively progressive for his day. He encouraged women to pursue schooling and even facilitated training for female physicians in the eastern United States—an unusual step in mid-nineteenth-century America.

====What was Brigham actually asserting?====
Brigham Young’s statement was not a declaration that women were incapable, unintelligent, or unworthy. In fact, he plainly said the opposite regarding many practical matters. His assertion was structural and ecclesiastical: priesthood keys and governance belonged to ordained holders of priesthood authority.

One may debate or disagree with that framework, but the historical record shows that his comment addressed questions of priesthood jurisdiction—not women’s general competence or value.

When the full context is considered, the quotation reflects a dispute about ecclesiastical order during a pivotal moment in Church history—not a blanket condemnation of women’s abilities or contributions.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does an 1886 revelation from John Taylor say that polygamy will never be taken away by God?===
| state = closed
| content = John Taylor, third President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was in hiding from federal agents in 1886 over the Church's then-current practice of plural marriage. During that time, President Taylor received a revelation that some interpret to mean that the Church would never abandon the practice of polygamy. Many in the Fundamentalist branches who live the practice today believe that their leaders were present when John Taylor secretly commissioned them to continue it. This is problematic considering the Church's abandonment of plural marriage beginning in 1890.

While previous generations have been uncertain of the revelation’s text and provenance, Church historians have confirmed the revelation’s authenticity and, in 2025, the original revelation was digitized and [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0?view=browse&lang=eng uploaded] to the Church's online catalogue of historical documents hosted on its website.

The text of the revelation reads:<ref>John Taylor, “[https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/3aec2ea6-fdeb-4866-9529-47e27f9cd3b9/0/0?lang=eng John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27],” ''Church History Catalog'', MS 34928, accessed June 17, 2025, online at catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org; Mormonr, “[https://mormonr.org/qnas/vFgD6f/john_taylors_1886_revelation John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” accessed June 17, 2025, online at mormonr.org</ref>

<blockquote>My Son John, You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, and how far it is binding upon my people; Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant, or I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years, and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times, and furthermore; It is now pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters; nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And I have not commanded men, that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen.</blockquote>
----
====Historical Context====
The federal government of the United States had opposed Latter-day Saint plural marriage for decades, and that opposition continued to escalate. In March 1881, for example, during his inauguration address, President James A. Garfield condemned the Church because it “offends the moral sense of manhood” for allowing polygamy and not allowing those who practiced it to be punished under the law. After his assassination several months later, Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, also condemned polygamy as an “odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom.”<ref>Ken Driggs, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-prosecutions-begin-defining-cohabitation-in-1885/ The Prosecutions Begin: Defining Cohabitation in 1885],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 21, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 109–112.</ref>

While anti-polygamy legislation and commentary did use the term “polygamy,” it should be noted that early Saints very carefully differentiated between polygamy (what they saw as something foreigners engaged in), adultery, “spiritual wifery” (what John C. Bennett engaged in), and celestial or plural marriage. “Polygamy” is a broader term that can be further broken down into polyandry (a woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (a man with multiple wives). Though the phrasing used by the Saints began to change once they arrived in Utah Territory, the preferred term used by the Church today is still “plural marriage.“

In February 1882, apostle and First Presidency member George Q. Cannon was denied his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives because he had multiple wives.<ref>David L. Bigler, ''[https://archive.org/details/forgottenkingdom0000bigl_o6o4/page/314/mode/2up Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847–1896]'' (Utah State University Press, 1998), 314–316.</ref> Just a month later, the Edmunds Act was passed by Congress, making polygamy a felony and disenfranchising those who engaged in the practice. Additionally, it eliminated the need to prove an illegal marriage had taken place, as it also prohibited “unlawful cohabitation.” Polygamists were unable to serve on juries or hold public office, and the bill also targeted those who merely supported polygamy, such as the bulk of Latter-day Saints who accepted plural marriage but did not live the practice themselves. All elected positions in Utah were voided and new elections were required, and eventually, more than one thousand Latter-day Saints were imprisoned under the act.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/anti-polygamy-legislation?lang=eng Antipolygamy Legislation],” ''Church History Topics'', accessed June 26, 2025, online at churchofjesuschrist.org; B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/0O4NVz-SX2vQb/text_of_the_1882_edmunds_act Text of the 1882 Edmunds Act],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at bhroberts.org; U-S-History.com, “[https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882],” accessed June 18, 2025, online at u-s-history.com. Men and women were incarcerated alike under this law: men for unlawful cohabitation, and women for refusing to testify against their husbands. To read more about the women imprisoned under this law, see Lorie Winder Stromberg, “Prisoners for ‘The Principle’: The Incarceration of Mormon Plural Wives, 1882–1890,” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 2: From Joseph Smith's Martyrdom to the First Manifesto, 1844–1890'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2013), 298–325; Belle Harris, ''[https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/belle-harris?lang=eng The Prison Journal of Belle Harris]'', ed. Kenneth Adkins, Thomas C. Clark, Catherine Reese Newton, et. al (Church Historian’s Press, 2023).</ref>

President Cannon’s brother, Angus Munn Cannon, was arrested in January 1885. In December of that same year, his final appeal failed to overturn his conviction. Just four days after the decision was announced, federal officers began raiding towns in Utah Territory, hunting for polygamists. Further federal laws targeting Latter-day Saints were passed over the next few years, until the Manifesto was announced in 1890.<ref>Driggs, “Defining Cohabitation,” 109–124.</ref>

In September 1886, when the revelation was received, many Church leaders were in hiding. The apostles were scattered across multiple states and cities to avoid prosecution, and they debated whether it was time to end plural marriage or allow the persecution of the Saints to continue. They grappled with the decision, because for half a century, the Saints had sacrificed for and lived the practice. Many Church members defined themselves by it, and they had spent so many years defending it and their right to engage in it, enduring humiliation and persecution on all sides, that it was an integral part of their identity. Families were entwined in the practice, and separating themselves from it would be incredibly difficult and painful for all involved. It was under these circumstances that President Taylor turned to the Lord for advice and counsel.<ref>Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019), 24–33.</ref>

Due to the scattered nature of the apostles at the time in which it was received, the revelation was never brought to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, or the Church membership, for canonization. Meeting as a body to conduct Church business in the late 1880s was impossible. Even if you consider Elder John W. Taylor’s 1911 excommunication hearing as being the moment in which the revelation was presented to the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, however, it was not accepted by the Apostles.<ref>Elden J. Watson, “[https://bhroberts.org/files/2NpGnj/scan-Y8y8Jd-2NpGnj.pdf?r=Y8y8Jd&t=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0..cHXUvLOlsqWN4ZUQ.fKr2fIqFxwc7EqwVmNDg2W4Nq9IAu67W2EN0hlCwl0pIq24EBS1zPpL9C984yABDfUKrY-YENpq_4TA5_43-4jykJphY_XyFyQWLfYDLloh_pi-tQmUG-8u8Zw1eUSQ56uHAC0vHjJelExrRHrEmj-rac1yTXkRU0ELIwPGTzDqbal28wiihZPDPluJjmiWXVNNJ6Q2oNdwA5TSz-zr1_NkgTVGPM3eN-v-7EIX3QHs7cY0mLCF55kVoBikq3AkCLeD3nGXGLi3h53pNc8oi5CHBQS12VDvtB3DGJJ2IvaJeXQiwfUMmNCZ49e7qheLdMofjZcCXixqc9E4fROulkSodcEB6igNRKiJf6TmI3iK-BDGnnVCvPE0yA77lCgemMIBPKKC5OR9tu1uOq5bwTVsJJ4g.NyWAO_lvyB53WiXaDh_Y-g President John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” Different Thoughts 3 (March 1989): 4–8, as cited by bhroberts.org.</ref> Therefore, unlike the 1890 Manifesto, the revelation is not authoritatively binding on the Church.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage],” ''Gospel Topics Essays'', October 22, 2014, online at churchofjesuschrist.org.</ref>

====Did the Church Lie About the Revelation?====
Between the years of 1886 and 1933, the existence of the revelation was uncertain to many. At some point, Elder John W. Taylor, a then-member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and President John Taylor’s son, located the physical copy of the revelation among his father’s things and copies of the revelation were passed around to certain individuals. A week before the first Manifesto was issued, Elder Heber J. Grant recorded in his journal that John W. Taylor had told the Quorum about the revelation. Elder Taylor then showed a copy of it to the Quorum of the Twelve during his excommunication hearing in 1911 (he was excommunicated for continuing to fight against the First and Second Manifestos). Some Church leaders believed in its authenticity, while others disputed it. It was rejected as being authoritative by the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Manifestos were upheld.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation.”</ref>

The First Presidency released a statement in June 1933, calling it a “purported revelation” and saying it was not located in the Church archives.<ref>B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-WrhUBb/first_presidency_heber_j_grant_anthony_w_ivins_j_reuben_clark_publish_official_statement_denouncing_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_in_the_church First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) publish official statement denouncing the practice of plural marriage in the Church],” accessed June 25, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> At the time of the statement, that was true. Joseph Fielding Smith, who was then both an apostle and an Assistant Historian of the Church, had a copy, but it was not the original document, and it was kept in the Church Historian’s Office rather than in the official First Presidency's Church archives.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith confirmed this during John W. Taylor’s excommunication hearing in 1911, when he said, “It is true I obtained a copy of this revelation from Brother Rodney Badger. He let me take the original and I made a copy and filed it in the Historian's Office, this was but a short time ago.” B. H. Roberts Foundation, “[https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-ddMFvg/reprint_of_minutes_of_membership_trial_of_john_w_taylor_mentions_the_quorum_discussion_around_the_1886_taylor_revelation Reprint of minutes of membership trial of John W. Taylor; mentions the quorum discussion around the 1886 Taylor revelation],” accessed June 27, 2025, online at bhroberts.org.</ref> Other copies were reportedly housed in the “Special Documents Department” of the Historian’s Office, which was also a separate archive. Thus, the First Presidency statement appears to have been another ''carefully worded denial'' like those made during the early days of plural marriage.<ref>Samuel W. Taylor, ''[https://archive.org/details/kingdomornothing0000tayl/page/368/mode/2up The Kingdom or Nothing: The Life of John Taylor, Militant Mormon]'' (Macmillan, 1976), 369–370; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt87tmi7xJQ&t=1989s The Hidden Polygamy Revelation of 1886, Explained, ft. Stephen Smoot],” June 25, 2025, 33:09–40:38, online at youtube.com; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=200s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 3:20–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Approximately one month after the statement was released, Frank Y. Taylor, another son of President Taylor, gave the original revelation to the First Presidency. While in the Church’s possession, the document has been made available to historians for research purposes, though its authenticity was still disputed by some Church leaders.<ref>For example, historian D. Michael Quinn was granted access to the revelation while working on a landmark article in 1985. D. Michael Quinn, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/ LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904],” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 18, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 9–105.</ref> At some point in the 2000s, over a century after it was received, the revelation was finally confirmed to be authentic through handwriting analysis and other processes. In June 2025, was digitized and put on the Church’s online library of historical documents.<ref>Mormonr, “John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation”; Jasmin Rappleye, “[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQViUUV_IHw&t=318s Why the Church Denied This Polygamy Revelation—Until Now],” June 19, 2025, 5:18–5:47, online at youtube.com.</ref>

Should the Church have announced it had the revelation in its possession after it was received? Perhaps. But with Fundamentalist Mormon sects claiming it gave them authority and using it to suggest the mainstream Church was in apostasy, the decision not to broadcast it is understandable—especially as it was disputed and could not be fully authenticated for over a century.

====The New and Everlasting Covenant====
Does this revelation say that plural marriage can never be revoked? No. While some Fundamentalist branches that have broken off from the Church interpret the revelation that way, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that the “new and everlasting covenant” refers to more than just plural marriage.

For example, Brigham Young taught, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter into the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world.”<ref>Brigham Young, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/12/47#230 The Object of Gathering––Practical Religion––The Love of God––Our Covenants],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. G. D. Watt, E. L. Sloan, and D. W. Evans (Albert Carrington, 1869), 12:230.</ref>

Historian Brian Hales explained that, therefore, to Latter-day Saints, “The new and everlasting covenant is the fullness of the gospel because it encompasses all of the covenants required for exaltation. … Within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, plural marriage cannot be accurately characterized as a ‘law,’ a ‘condition of the law,’ or a ‘covenant.’ Instead, historically it has been treated as a ‘commandment’ that could be mandated or revoked.”<ref>Brian C. Hales, “[https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation],” in ''The Persistence of Polygamy, Vol. 3: Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy from 1890 to the Present'', ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (John Whitmer Books, 2015), 70, 72.</ref>

In 1882, John Taylor echoed this clarification when he said, “So far as it [celestial marriage] is made known unto men, it is … part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant.”<ref>Revelation to John Taylor, 25–26 June 1882, in ''Revelations given to John Taylor, 1882–1884'', MS 41, Church History Catalog. Digital access must be requested by the individual [https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/71550f40-40e2-4f22-a513-d9efed66649a/0?view=browse here].</ref>

Approximately a year later, he also taught, “[God] has revealed unto us the '''Law''' of Celestial Marriage, associated with which is the '''principle''' of plural marriage.”<ref>John Taylor, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/24/27#229 The Work of God––The Events of the Times––Gathering––Temple Ordinances––The Object of Marriage––Plural Marriage––A Terrible Lesson––Laws of God Must Be Enforced––The Priesthood––Parties, Cliques, Rings, Murmurers––Israel],” in ''Journal of Discourses'', 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (John Henry Smith, 1884), 24:229.</ref>

The Doctrine and Covenants even refers to the Book of Mormon and “the former commandments” which the Lord gave His people, as the “new covenant.”<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 84:54–57.</ref>

Thus, Latter-day Saints do not need to interpret the revelation as saying that plural marriage can never be revoked. Rather, it is saying that the fullness of the gospel and its accompanying covenants cannot be revoked. Plural marriage, conversely, comes and goes according to the will of God. It is a commandment only when He commands it, and it is revoked when He doesn’t command it.

====The “New and Everlasting Covenant” in Latter-day Saint Scripture====
It is common for critics to insist that '''“the new and everlasting covenant”''' can only refer to plural marriage. But, this is not consistent with Latter-day Saint scripture:

* The Old Testament frequently referred to the '''“everlasting covenant”''' which God had established with Noah ({{b||Genesis|9|8-16}}), and Israel ({{b||Ezekiel|37|26-28}}).
* Hebrews asserts that Christ's sacrifice is the basis of the '''“everlasting covenant”''': Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant... ({{b||Hebrews|13|20}}).
* In 1830, the Lord declared of baptism into the restored Church: “this is a '''new and an everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning” ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|22|1}}).

None of these covenants had anything necessarily to do with plural marriage; they certainly did not ''exclusively'' refer to plural marriage.

The Doctrine and Covenants frequently refers to the '''covenant''', and it is clear that the reference is generally to the gospel covenant, not to plural marriage (emphasis added in all cases):

;Doctrine and Covenants 45 (March 17, 1831): I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life. And even so I have sent mine '''everlasting covenant''' into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|45|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 49 (March–May 1831): Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all are under sin, except those which I have reserved unto myself, holy men that ye know not of. Wherefore, I say unto you that I have sent unto you '''mine everlasting covenant''', even that which was from the beginning ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|8-9}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 66 (October 25, 1831): Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving '''mine everlasting covenant''', even the fulness of my gospel... ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|66|2}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 76 (February 16, 1832): [Telestial kingdom is those who] received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither '''the everlasting covenant'''... ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|76|101}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 84 (September 1832): And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the '''new covenant''', even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|84|57}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 88 (December 27, 1832): [In the school of the prophets] Let him offer himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the '''everlasting covenant'''....[and say] I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or remembrance of the everlasting covenant, in which covenant I receive you to fellowship...through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to walk in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and ever.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|88|131-133}}).

;Doctrine and Covenants 101 (December 16, 1833): When men are called unto mine everlasting gospel, and ''covenant with an everlasting covenant'', they are accounted as the salt of the earth and the savor of men....({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|101|39}}).

Thus, the “everlasting covenant” or “new and everlasting covenant” may refer to the gospel message and its restoration. This phrase is also used, however, in the revelation on plural marriage—we will label this “the new and everlasting covenant of marriage” (compare {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|}}).

The revelation on plural marriage ({{S||Doctrine and Covenants|132||}}) describes a similar idea:

<blockquote>
4 For behold, I reveal unto you '''a new and an everlasting covenant'''; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

6 And as pertaining to '''the new and everlasting covenant''', it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|4-6}})
</blockquote>

This “new and everlasting covenant” has a “law” and “conditions thereof,” and one must “abide the law.” What is the law and conditions?

<blockquote>
And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead ({{s||Doctrine and Covenants|132|7}}).
</blockquote>

The law and conditions of the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” are that such relationships must be sealed by priesthood authority (vested in one man only, the President of the Church) and the Holy Spirit of promise. This law encompasses both monogamous and polygamous marriage.

There is, as Brian Hales has noted, no scriptural mention of “the law of plural marriage,” nor did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or John Taylor ever use this term.<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 64, esp. note 15. Franklin D. Richard's [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses/26/37#343 use in October 1885] is the sole use in the ''Journal of Discourses,'' 26 vols., ed. Geo. F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and Others (Daniel H. Wells, 1886), 26:343.</ref> (In fact, references to “the law” of plural marriage tend to crop up far more frequently in Fundamentalist writings.) It may be significant that this revelation repeatedly refers to both “the law” and covenants (which will not change) and “commandments” by which one is bound by the covenant (which may change or vary from person to person and time to time).

====Was There an 8-Hour Meeting Followed by Ordinations After the Revelation was Received?====
There are no records of John Taylor’s revelation or of any meetings or visions associated with it during the final year of his life. At some point after his passing on July 25, 1887, rumors of President Taylor being visited by Joseph Smith and the Savior began to spread. In 1912, those rumors began to be associated with the 1886 revelation, and from there, the story grew larger and larger over time. Eventually, the story developed that, after a night spent in visions, President Taylor called for thirteen individuals to come to where he was in hiding, where an eight-hour meeting commenced, during which Joseph Smith allegedly appeared. Directly following that meeting, another meeting was held in which five men—all from outside the leadership of the Church—were ordained and put under covenant to continue plural marriage outside of the mainstream of the Church.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Christopher C. Jones, “[https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-revelator-written-revelations-john-taylor ‘John the Revelator’: The Written Revelations of John Taylor],” in ''Champion of Liberty: John Taylor'', ed. Mary Jane Woodger (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 295–296. The thirteen individuals reported to have attended the eight-hour meeting were John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Woolley, Amy Woolley, Julia E. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Daniel R. Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, Charles Birrell, George Earl, and Samuel Sedden. The five men allegedly ordained to continue in plural marriage were Samuel Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and Lorin C. Woolley.</ref>

Mormon Fundamentalist Lorin C. Woolley was the main voice spreading the story, and new details seemed to emerge with each retelling. While one or two others corroborated small portions of his story, none corroborated it in full. None of those allegedly present recorded the meetings at the time, and no rumors of these collective visions, or of the ordinations or covenants, were shared in either the aftermath of the revelation or of John Taylor’s death. It is telling that Woolley did not begin sharing details of these purported meetings until well into the 1920s, after the others he named had passed away.<ref>Reports of Joseph Smith meeting with John Taylor the night the revelation was received did some rather early, but the later elaborations did not come until much later. See Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 76–90. To read more about the post-Manifesto period and the rise of Fundamentalist Mormonism, see Craig L. Foster and Marianne T. Watson, ''American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith'' (The History Press, 2019).</ref>

As Brian Hales noted, “It is puzzling that the meeting created no discernable stir or excitement among the thirteen men and women who reportedly witnessed it. No mention of the proceedings is found in any letter or diary from that era, no secondhand retellings, and no rumors or stories were echoed by devout pluralists. The lack of any contemporaneous references in the historical record indicates the described meeting must have flashed upon the scene, colliding with the quiet spiritual status quo of the participants, and then disappeared into thin air. All available documents fail to identify a resurgence of faith and a revival of determination in the fall of 1886 arising as a consequence of an experience of President John Taylor with the Divine that was witnessed by more than a dozen people. … In summary, explaining the thirty-five-year silence that followed the reported meeting and the lack of any discernible contemporaneous record or impact in the lives of the described participants depicts a problematic scenario raising plausibility questions.”<ref>Hales, “1886 Revelation,” 88–89.</ref>

Importantly, such a meeting would also not follow the pattern laid out for the Church in the wake of Joseph Smith’s death. The priesthood keys lay with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency, and all doctrine, practices, and changes must flow through them. It does not come through secret factions and clandestine meetings. It does not come from breakaway sects and those who reject the words of the living prophets. It only comes from those called by God, holding His authority and priesthood keys.<ref>Doctrine and Covenants 107.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How were divorces formalized among Mormons on the frontier in the 19th century?===
| state = closed
| content = ====Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce====
It is true that some nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints remarried without first obtaining a formal civil divorce. Modern readers sometimes assume that such cases must therefore constitute adultery. That assumption, however, reflects contemporary legal expectations—not the legal and social realities of antebellum America.

On the American frontier, particularly among the poor and geographically mobile, remarriage without a formal divorce was not uncommon. Courts were often distant, expensive, or practically inaccessible. Legal divorce procedures varied widely from state to state, and jurisdictional confusion was frequent.

This is where the danger of presentism arises. As noted by Lynn Hunt, former president of the American Historical Association:

:''“Presentism,” observed American Historical Association president Lynn Hunt, “at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior. . . . Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards.”'' <ref>Lynn Hunt, "Against Presentism," ''Perspectives'' 40/5 (May 2002); available online at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0205/ (accessed 2 December 2008).</ref>
Evaluating nineteenth-century marital practices by twenty-first-century procedural expectations risks precisely this distortion.

====To remarry without a formal divorce was not unusual in antebellum America====
Critics sometimes highlight cases such as Louisa Rising, who married Edwin Woolley without first divorcing her legal husband, or Eleanor McLean, who married Parley P. Pratt before securing a formal divorce. These examples are presented as though they demonstrate uniquely shocking behavior among the Saints.

Yet legal historians paint a broader picture. One scholar has observed:

:''“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”'' <ref>Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.</ref>

Another historian, Hendrik Hartog, writes in ''Man & Wife in America: A History'':

:''“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”'' <ref>Hendrik Hartog, ''Man & Wife in America: A History'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87.</ref>

These observations do not excuse wrongdoing; rather, they illustrate that marital formalities were far less standardized and enforceable than modern readers might assume. Remarriage without formal divorce paperwork was part of a broader American pattern, not a uniquely Mormon innovation.

====The legal machinery of divorce was often weak or inaccessible====
The Latter-day Saints were frequently impoverished and lived in frontier environments where state institutions were fragile or newly organized. Women who joined the Church and migrated west—often leaving non-member husbands behind—were especially unlikely to have the means or geographic access necessary to secure a civil divorce.

Moreover, marriage during this period was shaped heavily by communal recognition. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'':

:''“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband's support, wife's service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”'' <ref>Nancy F. Cott, ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.</ref>

It is also worth remembering that because Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Latter-day Saint leaders exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, marriages conducted under their supervision had as much (or more) formal oversight as many traditional marriages in America during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Without this broader historical context, modern readers may be led to assume that nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint marital practices were unusually reckless or “loose.” The historical record, however, shows that their experience reflected common legal and social realities of the American frontier.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?===
| state = closed
| content = ====To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in pre-Civil War America====
Some critics of Mormonism emphasize that certain Latter-day Saints did not secure formal civil divorces before remarrying—whether monogamously or pluralistically. The implication is that this reflects a cavalier or lawless attitude. Such claims, however, often overlook the broader legal and social realities of nineteenth-century America.
The Saints were frequently poor and spent much of their history on the frontier, where the machinery of civil government was limited, inconsistent, or difficult to access. Women who joined the Church and migrated west without their husbands were especially unlikely to pursue costly and complicated civil proceedings—particularly when property rights were minimal and courts distant. Without this context, modern readers may be led to assume misconduct where the historical record shows commonplace legal informality.
It also bears noting that because leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, such unions operated under a form of recognized ecclesiastical oversight. In many frontier settings, that supervision was at least as structured as civil marriage administration elsewhere in America during the same period.
Legal historians have made clear that informal remarriage was not uniquely Mormon. One non–Latter-day Saint scholar observed:
:''“From the standpoint of the legal historian, it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction.”'' <ref>Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.</ref>
Similarly, historian Hendrik Hartog wrote in ''Man & Wife in America: A History'':
:''“Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage.”'' <ref>Hendrik Hartog, ''Man & Wife in America: A History'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87.</ref>
In short, remarriage without formal divorce documentation—particularly among poor and mobile populations—was part of a broader American pattern. Nor, in many cases, were estranged husbands geographically available to participate in legal proceedings even if the wife had wished to initiate them.
====Marriage in 19th century America was not a "free-for-all"====
None of this means that marriage in nineteenth-century America was chaotic or unregulated. As historian Nancy F. Cott explains in ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'':
:''“When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband’s support, wife’s service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before.”'' <ref>Nancy F. Cott, ''Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation'' (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.</ref>
Community recognition and performance of marital obligations often mattered more than strict compliance with formal state procedures. When nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint practices are evaluated within that broader American context, they appear far less anomalous than critics sometimes suggest.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What was the prevalence of polygamy in Utah and how many wives did most polygamist males have?===
| state = closed
| content = ====About 15–20% of families were polygamous, and most had only two wives====
G. D. Smith’s desire to correct underestimates in some Latter-day Saint publications should not become license to exaggerate the norm—whether in reference to groups or individuals (such as Johnson)—in the opposite direction.

Most polygamists in Utah had only two wives. About 15–20% of families were polygamous, though the impact on the Latter-day Saint experience was profound:

:''“Excluding inactive men, ‘over a third of all husbands’ time, nearly three-quarters of all women-years, and well over half of all child-years were spent in polygamy before 1880.’”'' <ref>Larry Logue, "A Time of Marriage: Monogamy and Polygamy in a Utah Town," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 11 (1984): 25; cited by B. Carmon Hardy, ''Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise'' (Norman, OK: Arthur H. Clark Co., 2007), 143–44.</ref>

G. D. Smith provides considerable statistical information, but he exaggerates even there. Of Benjamin F. Johnson—described as “representative of the mainstream in LDS practice”—Smith writes that he “eventually married seven wives—a few short of the model of ten talents” (p. 166). But was seven wives truly “mainstream” in Latter-day Saint polygamy?

Both Stanley S. Ivins and Kathryn M. Daynes produced careful estimates of plural wife distribution among Utah polygamists. Their findings are summarized below:
<wt>
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:60%; font-size:85%"
!width="20%"|Number of wives
!width="20%"|Ivins (%)<ref>Stanley S. Ivins, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," ''The Western Humanities Review'' 10 (Summer 1956): 229–30; reproduced "exactly as it appeared" in his "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 35/4 (Fall 1967): 313–14, 316. See the anonymously authored article "Tribute to Stanley S. Ivins," ''Utah Historical Quarterly'' 35/4 (Fall 1967): 307–9.</ref>
!width="20%"|Daynes (%)<ref>Kathryn M. Daynes, ''More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 130.</ref>
|-
|2||66.3||66
|-
|3||21.2||21.3
|-
|4||6.7||8
|-
|5||3||4.7
|-
|6 or more||<3||Included in "5"
|}
</wt>
These data show that roughly two-thirds of polygamists had exactly two wives. More than 80% had no more than three. Men with as many as seven wives comprised well under 5% overall.

====The claim that seven wives represents some type of "mainstream" is erroneous====
The claim that seven wives represents a “mainstream” pattern is therefore mistaken—such prolific pluralists were exceptional. Smith later writes that because institutional Church histories have minimized the incidence and profile of polygamy, “it is easy to imagine that most men who entered polygamy did so in a cursory way. In reality, the typical Utah polygamist whose roots in the principle extended back to Nauvoo, had between three and four wives” (pp. 286, 289).

This framing obscures two important points.

First, polygamists with roots in Nauvoo constituted a small minority of the broader Utah population. Most men who entered polygamy did not belong to this early adopting core. Second, even three or four wives was not typical across the entire polygamist population—much less seven. The overwhelming majority had only two, and a large majority had no more than three.

Indeed, most Latter-day Saint men never practiced plural marriage at all. Probably only 15–20% of Latter-day Saint families were polygamous, “with variations from place to place and from decade to decade.” <ref>Davis Bitton, ''Historical Dictionary of Mormonism'', 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 147.</ref> As Davis Bitton summarizes, plural marriage was significant but far from universal.

Smith acknowledges Ivins’ data elsewhere (though he does not engage Daynes’ work), but places the discussion in a different context (pp. 535–36), minimizing its corrective force against claims of “mainstream” large-scale plural families.
Johnson exceeded even the average of Nauvoo’s early adopters, who themselves had more wives, on average, than the vast majority of Utah polygamists. He may have been “mainstream” within that highly select Nauvoo cohort—but polygamy itself was limited to a relatively small circle there and was never “mainstream” for the Church as a whole. Most Utah polygamists never approached the marital scale of those earliest practitioners.

Attempts to extrapolate patterns from Nauvoo to all of Latter-day Saint history are therefore problematic.

Smith also argues that before 1890 “the number of [polygamy] practitioners had expanded exponentially,” pointing to Orderville, Utah, where 67% of residents belonged to plural households (pp. 535–36). Yet this statistic requires context. As noted by Lowell Ben Bennion, Orderville was unusual. Its participation in the United Order economic experiment likely encouraged commitment to plural marriage. Unlike most Mormon settlements, many young men in Orderville entered plural marriage at or near their first marriage.
Nearby Kanab, by contrast, had less than half as many polygamists. Southern Utah generally showed higher plural marriage rates than Utah as a whole, again reflecting local religious and communal dynamics rather than statewide norms.<ref>Lowell "Ben" Bennion, "The Incidence of Mormon Polygamy in 1880: ‘Dixie’ Versus Davis Stake," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 11 (1984): 34–36.</ref>

In short, while plural marriage profoundly shaped nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint society, it involved a minority of families, and most participating men had only two wives. Cases such as Johnson’s were exceptional except within the small, early-adopting Nauvoo circle.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

2026-04-13T19:01:16Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}{{blankline}}
<h1>KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon</h1>
'''Summary:''' The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.

Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the ''CES Letter'' asks, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"<ref>Jeremy T. Runnells, ''CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts'' (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 {{ea}}.</ref>

Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask, "If the Book of Mormon is ‘the most correct book of any on earth,’ why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10, 83}}; {{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=205}}; La Roy Sunderland, "Mormonism," ''Zion’s Watchman'' (New York) 3, no. 7 (17 February 1838) {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/BOMP&CISOPTR=1730&REC=19}}</ref>

There are four questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:

#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?]]
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?|Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV?]] We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways?]] Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches [[The_Book_of_Mormon_as_the_most_correct_book#Why_did_Joseph_Smith_say_that_the_Book_of_Mormon_was_the_.22most_correct_book.22.3F|a person would get closer to God and His nature than by reading any other book]].
# [[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?|If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?]]

Our answers, in brief, are as follows:

# The Book of Mormon indeed does contain some King James Bible translation errors.
# There are 12 different reasons to believe that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize from the King James Bible in order to create the Book of Mormon. ''None'' of the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.
# In no case do any of the errors teach incorrect doctrine or compel someone to believe something false.
# God allowed the errors to persist in the Book of Mormon because He speaks to His "servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). God can achieve all of His divine goals without a perfect translation.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
{{BMCentral|title=What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters?|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-vision-guides-nephis-choice-of-isaiah-chapters|number=38}}

First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation.

====Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769====

As a corrective to the ''CES Letter'', the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.

The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ read the 1611 edition online] and see for themselves.

The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.

<h5>A Slow Drift in the Argument</h5>
Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case. The authors on whom the ''CES Letter'' seems to rely did ''not'' claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of ''italics'' in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|p.130}} This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.<ref>Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the ''CES Letter''. In editions past 2013, he links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors an old version of a Wikipedia page] (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson. A similar argument to Runnells' is made in {{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10}}. Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, ''separately'', that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV '''italics''' is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition. Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible#Perpetuation_of_KJV_translation_variations As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page] (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation ''variations'' (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors? Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the ''1611'' (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon], as well as [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha] to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his ''CES Letter'' hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the ''CES Letter'' at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors '''unique to only that edition''' present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" ''CES Letter'', accessed 22 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2}}</ref>

<h5>KJV as a Base Text</h5>

Stan Spencer writes:

<blockquote>
Although the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.<ref name="spencer">{{Interpreter:Spencer:Missing Words King James Bible Italics The Translation:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|49}}
</blockquote>

The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible Bishop's Bible].<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47n5}} The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible [https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Bishops is available online] and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation. The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)

Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:

<blockquote>
The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47–48}}
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
|subject1=Academic use of base texts for new translation
|summary1=See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the ''important'' differences between their text and well-known versions.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism====

Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is ''not'' plagiarism. ''At most'', all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not ''plagiarizing'' it.

As far as material from Micah is concerned, this is a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of God's message in {{s||Micah|4|12-13}} and {{s_short|Micah|5|8-14}}. ({{s|3|Nephi|16|14-15}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|20|16-20}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|21|12|18, 21}}<ref>For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/they-shall-grow-together/passages-book-micah-book-mormon Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon]," in ''They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.</ref> Mormon uses {{s||Micah|5|8}} similarly in {{s||Mormon|5|24}}.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For Him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.

John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the Mount.<ref name="welchilluminate">John W. Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-sermon-mount-differences ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125–50.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text====

Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_chronology_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_and_publication%3F
|subject1=Timeline of the Book of Mormon translation and publications
|summary1=Our current Book of Mormon was translated from 7 April to the end of June 1829.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith====

A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.<ref>See Michael Hickenbotham, ''Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church'' (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196.{{NB}}</ref> One verse ({{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.<ref>The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}. For earlier discussions, see {{TruthGodmakers1 | start=172}}; see also {{AncientAmericaBoM|start=100|end=102}}; {{Nibley7|start=129|end=143}}; Royal Skousen, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/textual-variants-isaiah-quotations-book-mormon Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.</ref> John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.<ref>John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/isaiah-variants-book-mormon Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament'', ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-bible-and-book-mormon Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon]," ''The FARMS Review'' 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref> BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of {{s||Isaiah|2|2}}, as contained in {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."<ref>{{Interpreter:Hoskisson:Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than The Average Fourth:2015}}</ref>

These factors throw a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of KJV Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the ''one phrase'', "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously ''possible'' that he did, but ''highly unlikely''.

====Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted====

The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.</ref>

{{Related articles
|link1=Joseph_Smith_and_the_translation_process#A compilation of published statements on the Book of Mormon translation method in both Church and non-Church publications
|subject1=All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
|summary1=This page collects all first- and second-hand descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and groups them by theme (e.g., weight of the plates, use of seer stone, etc.)}}

Stan Spencer observed,

<blockquote>[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|59}}
</blockquote>

Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[The_New_Testament_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_Book_of_Mormon_claims_to_be_a_.22translation.2C.22_and_the_language_used_is_that_of_Joseph_Smith|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and [[Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method/1846-1900#Emma Smith Bidamon (eyewitness)|some are specifically clear]] that he did ''not'' have any book or manuscript to which he referred.<ref>Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Advocate'' 2 (October 1879): 50-52.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV====

Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/printing-and-publishing-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Original and Printer's Manuscripts] of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/ The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon]," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, .</ref>

Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)

When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism]]. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but ''through divine revelation from God'' rather than out in the open on the table.<ref>Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subsequent half a century of investigation. See {{Ensign|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng|article=By the Gift and Power of God=|vol=7|num=9|date=September 1977}}.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #7—Archaic vocabulary====

{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/archaic-vocabulary|number=361}} Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are ''adamant'' that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English Early Modern English] in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a massive amount arguing for this stance. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.<ref>{{Interpreter:Skousen:The Original Text Of The Book Of Mormon:2013}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Look At Some Nonstandard Book Of Mormon:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book Of:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Implications Of Past-tense Syntax In The Book:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Why The Oxford English Dictionary And Not Websters:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The More Part Of The Book Of Mormon:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Joseph Smith Read The Words:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Case Of The -th Plural In The:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:How Joseph Smiths Grammar Differed From Book Of:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Barlow On Book Of Mormon Language An Examination:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Is The Book Of Mormon A Pseudo-archaic Text:2018}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Bad Grammar In The Book Of Mormon Found:2020}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Personal Relative Pronoun Usage In The Book Of:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Book Of Mormons Complex Finite Cause Syntax:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Comparison Of The Book Of Mormons Subordinate:2022}}; "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/language-original-text-book-mormon The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, ''The Nature of the Original Language'', Parts 3-4 of ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon'', Volume 3 of ''The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).</ref> This information is summarized by Evidence Central at the hotlink to the right.

====Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only ''after'' the translation was finished====

We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name="tandr">{{Roper:Joseph Smiths Use Of The Apocrypha Shadow Or:FARMS Review:1996}}</ref>

Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>{{BeginningsofMormonism |start=95 | end=100}}</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the [[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible|Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]] (JST).<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of {{FR-6-1-4}}</ref> Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

====Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations====

As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a footnote "a"] for {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV."<ref>See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a page 81] of either edition of the Book of Mormon</ref> This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes ''are indeed'' (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|50n11}} But many others aren't. [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We can actually show]] that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,<ref>{{Skousen:How Joseph Smith Translated The Book Of Mormon:JBMS:1998}}</ref> has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name ''Coriantumr'' spelled with ''mr'' and not an ''mer'' as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could ''see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim'' and that he could ''spell them out exactly'' to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.

====Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation====

Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|88}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant====

[[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]], a far more basic fact than the meaning of italics. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact, how likely is it that he knew the Bible well enough to plagiarize it, much less repeat that plagiarism from memory?

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that

<blockquote>
I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.<ref>{{Book:Smith:History of Joseph Smith by His Mother:1954|pages=82-83}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon#What did Joseph know about the italics?
|subject1=What did Joseph know about the italics in the KJV?
|summary1=How aware was Joseph about what the italics in the Book of Mormon meant?
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #12—No evidence Joseph's memory would allow the feat critics require====
{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/joseph-smiths-education|number=1}}
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eidetic eidetic] (or "photographic") memory.
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible
|subject1=Plagiarism from King James Bible?
|summary1=This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text.
}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow ====
What ''is'' a translation error?<ref>The ''CES Letter'', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."</ref> For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as ''queen'' when, it means ''king''. The word for ''queen'' in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to.

We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not ''need'' to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.

For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same set of arbitrary decisions and subsequent popularization.

Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.

====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====
We should also note that we do not have any of the ''original manuscripts'' of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the ''earliest known copies'' of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least ''mildly'' suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have ''copies'' of the manuscripts and they ''may'' reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. [[Accuracy of the bible|There's good reason to doubt it]] including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts ''don't'' accurately reproduce the original text.<ref>"History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; {{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}; see {{s_short|1|Nephi13|23-29}}. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, ''Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.</ref>

On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we [[Question: Why does Isaiah in the Book of Mormon not match the Dead Sea Scrolls?|simply can't know whether it does]]. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|in this broader sense]].

This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=translate}}</ref>

We often forget that there are typically ''three'' layers we must identify to understand a written text:

# what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
# what is actually written, and
# our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.

Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.

With a translated text there is a ''fourth'' layer to identify and untangle from the other three:

:4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the ''translator'' thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.

Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author of the text understood them.

Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demand some humility on our part.

The ''most'' that we can say is that ''based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship'', ''some'' of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.

With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proven facts.

====The "Translation Errors"====
Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."<ref name="Skousen King James">Royal Skousen, ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).</ref>{{Rp|220}}

Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.

Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.

Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
|subject1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
}}

In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.

Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.<ref name="larson">Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches|pages=15-63}}</ref><ref name="wrightjosephint">David P. Wright, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smiths-interpretation-of-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon],” ‘’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’’ 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 187.</ref><ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in {{CriticalWork:Vogel Metcalfe:American Apocrypha|pages=157-234}}.</ref><ref name="runnells1769">Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/}}</ref><ref name="wikiold">This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors].</ref><ref>"Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, {{antilink|https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors}}.</ref><ref name="ankerberg">John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).</ref><ref name="alcase">Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, {{antilink|https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.}}</ref><ref name="brown">M. D. Brown, ''One Hundred Similarities Between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript'' (M. D. Brown, 1937), 24.</ref><ref name="snowden">James H. Snowden, ''The Truth About Mormonism'' (George H. Doran Company, 1926), 105, 106–7</ref>

This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.<ref>This line was written 11 December 2022.</ref> This table includes 91 items.<ref>Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.</ref>

As a reminder, this table contains links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible, as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com, in order to refute the contention of the ''CES Letter'' that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.

We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors." The table below includes the location of the errors in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider adopting a similar approach to the one taken by the author of this article to resolve their concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

====Summary of conclusions====

For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:

*Some cases aren't errors.
*Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
*In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/diachronic diachronic] nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue." They meant to refer to something like ''power'' and we mean to refer to something like ''strength in doing moral good'' or sometimes ''chastity''.
*In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} and {{s_short||Isaiah|6|6}} (and corresponding passages in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} and {{s_short|2|Nephi|16|6}} in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph seraph(s)]. The problem is that the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already pluralizes the word ''seraph''. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
*In some cases, the errors are merely translation ''variants'' (rather than ''errors'') where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
*In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be ''too broad or general'' rather than necessarily ''erroneous''. It’s like saying that "king" refers to ''royalty''. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
*In some cases, the translation errors ''are'' legitimately errors. These errors thus change the ''meaning'' of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall ''intent'' of the passages.
*In some cases, the errors actually ''do'' lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding.
*In some cases, the "errors" are not errors and are better explained as a translator's gloss where the translation is not necessarily accurate as to what a word from the target language referred to but do help make explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly from use of a particular word.
*In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.

In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise ''compels'' a reader into believing something false.

The following chart documents how many claims of "errors" fit into the respective categories (as well as what percentage of the total claims that number represents):

[[File:PieChartKJVErrors6.png|750px|thumb|center]]

For those who want commentary on the individual claims, click "expand" below to view our table of analysis.

{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="12%"|'''Location in Canon'''
!width="12%"|'''Erroneous Translation'''
!width="30%"|'''Passage'''
!width="46%"|'''Commentary'''
|+<big>'''Commentary on Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|1. {{s||Exodus|15|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|2|5}}
||Red Sea
||This one isn't a quotation of a biblical passage per se but the use of a particular biblical name. The Book of Mormon and King James Bible consistently call the sea that Moses and the children of Israel crossed when fleeing from the Egyptians the "Red Sea." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/15-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics contend that this is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew ''yam sûp''. Instead of "Red Sea", critics contend that it should read "Reed sea." We have responded to this theory [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|elsewhere on the wiki]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|2. {{s||Isaiah|49|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|4}}
||Work
||"Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my '''work''' with my God." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright asserts that the better translation would be "reward" instead of "work."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The verses concern either Israel's, the Messiah's,<ref>Donald W. Parry, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-49-0 ''The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation (Preliminary Edition)''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 117.</ref> or Isaiah's response to God who in verse 3 calls one of them His servant in whom He will be glorified. One of them responds that, in their own judgement, they are weak and frail as a servant but that nonetheless, God will judge and reward them. The intent of the passage can be argued as correct no matter the translation, however.

If the passage is translated as "reward", the Book of Mormon already teaches that God rewards us despite our frailties both moral and vocational. The Book of Mormon already teaches that God is our reward. Nephi teaches us that beautifully in his psalm recorded in {{s|2|Nephi|4|}}.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|4|30}}</ref>

If the passage is translated as "work", one could interpret it in a few ways. One could say that God ''works through'' his servants to do good things despite their frailties. In that case, Paul tells the Phillipians that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."<ref>Phillipians 2:13</ref> In the previous chapter, {{s||Isaiah|8|}}, God tells Israel "I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."<ref>{{s||Isaiah|48|10}}</ref>

One could alternatively interpret it as saying that the work of Isaiah, the Messiah, or Israel is ''chosen'' or ''ordained'' by God to do a work ''on their own'': ''without'' God's intervening power. Isaiah recounts how God called him in {{s||Isaiah|6|}}. God indicates that Israel is his chosen, covenant people throughout the Old Testament text. The Messiah is the anointed one and is prophesied of throughout Isaiah's record and in other Old Testament prophecies.

It seems that no matter the translation and interpretation, there is nothing that isn't clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|3. {{s||Isaiah|49|5}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|5}}
||Though Israel be not gathered
||"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, '''Though Israel be not gathered''', yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics assert that the better translation would be "to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel be gathered to him."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Neither the Book of Mormon rendering nor the critics' change the meaning significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|4. {{s||Isaiah|49|8}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|8}}
||Have I heard thee
||"Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time '''have I heard thee''', and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "I answer/have answered you."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQLOuIKaRA hearing and doing something or responding to them were functionally the same thing]. You didn't hear someone if you didn't respond to them. Something similar may be going on here. The passage means that the Lord heard the cries of Israel and helped them, which is already affirmed with "in a day of salvation have I helped thee."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|5. {{s||Isaiah|49|24}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|24}}
||Or the lawful captive delivered
||"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, '''or the lawful captive delivered'''?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "Can...captives (be) retrieved from a victor?"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/49-24.htm Popular English biblical translations vary] between saying captives of the "mighty", "tyrant", "righteous", "victor", or "conqueror." The verse can only be considered a translation variant rather than an error. "The rhetorical questions function here as assertions of divine power insofar as the LORD can make these things happen."<ref name="Sweeney">Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).</ref>{{Rp|1047n24–26}} God is asserting that he can free the Israelites taken captive by those that oppress them. Thus, regardless of the translation options, the intent of the verse is not changed substantively.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|6. {{s||Isaiah|50|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|7|4}}
||Know how to speak a word in season
||"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172–73.}} Even this is part of Wright's essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As such, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to him that is weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|7. {{s||Isaiah|51|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|8|4}}
||Rest
||"Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to '''rest''' for a light of the people." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/51-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics think that the metaphor "make my judgment to rest/repose for a light" is merely "odd." "Many modern versions take the verb (which the KJV translates 'make rest') with the beginning of the next verse (sometimes with emendation)."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} The sentence construction is a bit odd but it doesn't substantively change the meaning of the verse, which is that God's judgement (sometimes translated "justice") will be a light for the people. Where exactly would the judgement "rest"? This is not certain. Perhaps on the wicked? Regardless, the rhetorical goals of the verse are accomplished. Some might think that the verse is communicating that God will cease to judge and that this will be a light to the people, which would indeed be incorrect teaching; but that interpretation is inconsistent with the first clause ("for a law shall proceed from me").
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|8. {{s||Isaiah|2|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|4}}
||Rebuke
||"And he shall judge among the nations and shall '''rebuke''' many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' "The Hebrew verb here lacks the negative sense of ''rebuke''—that is, it means 'to judge' rather than 'to reprove'; note the preceding parallel line: 'and he shall judge among the nations'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that God actually will rebuke peoples that come down on the negative side of God's judgements. In any dispute, there will be rebukes that God sends forth—implicitly or otherwise—for the wrongdoer. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in {{s||Proverbs|3|11-12}}, {{s||Hebrews|12|5-6}}, and {{s||Helaman|15|3}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|9. {{s||Isaiah|2|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|6}}
||Please themselves in the children of strangers
||"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they '''please themselves in the children of strangers'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is closer to things like "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} The verse concerns the idolatry of Israel. "Pleasing themselves" is ambiguous because it could certainly be used (though, admittedly, awkwardly) to refer to making deals with the people of idolatrous nations. It could refer to any type of positive activity with foreigners/strangers. Regardless of the positive activity, it is clear that doing it with foreigners symbolizes the kind of idolatry and apostasy the Lord/Isaiah mean to refer to in this verse. Thus it's unclear that there's a substantive change of meaning and, even if there were, the passage would still accomplish what it sets out to do.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|10. {{s||Isaiah|2|9}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|9}}
||Boweth down
||"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive them not" (Book of Mormon, 1830 Edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-9.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Runnells asserts that the correct translation is "and the mean man boweth down '''not''', and the great man humbleth himself [not]: therefore forgive them not."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Interestingly, the current edition of the Book of Mormon contains just this translation. "And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not." The only difference between Runnells' proposal and the current edition of the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon replaces ''them'' in "forgive them not" to ''him'' and omits the second ''not'' that the critic has in brackets. The essential message of the evils of idolatry is not affected.

But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-9.htm nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses] rejects using "not" after "boweth down." The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha]. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/93 has this verse rendered as] "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|108}} This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his ''Analysis of Textual Variants''.<ref name="skousenvariants">Royal Skousen, [https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ ''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014).</ref>{{Rp|656–60}} Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors.

But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the ''idols''. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God.

No matter which edition we're consulting here, we are not compelled to read the essential intent of the verse wrongly and, indeed, with careful reading, it seems that the essential intent of the verse will be captured by careful, studious readers no matter which translation/edition is consulted. It seems implausible to believe the author (ancient or modern) meant to endorse or encourage idolatry.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|11. {{s||Isaiah|2|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}
||Pictures
||"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant '''pictures'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant '''ships'''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic Jeremy Runnells thinks it should be either "image", "ships," or "crafts."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Yes, he includes "image" as somehow a potentially more correct translation than "pictures." Critic David P. Wright thinks it should be either "grand ships" or "precious things."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-16.htm there are at least four modern, popular, English biblical translations] that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. Popular English translations vary between referring to ships/crafts or pleasant imagery/pictures. It's not entirely certain, but the more likely correct translation is ships. Isaiah intends to use the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be brought down and taken away so as to eliminate pride. Either ships, crafts, or pleasant imagery/pictures can do/be a part of that. Thus the intent hasn't changed at all and no doctrinal error occurs.<ref>Recall that the textual history of this verse is seen as quite complex. For detailed discussion, see {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|12. {{s||Isaiah|3|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}
||Prudent
||"The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the '''prudent''', and the ancient" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In the phrase 'the prudent and the ancient', the adjectival noun ''prudent'' is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for divining. This phrase is translated, for instance, as 'the diviner and the elder' in the English Standard Version."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright agrees.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The verse concerns the Assyrians' coming invasion of Israel and carrying them away into captivity. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that "[t]he Assyrians were well known for deporting the leading figures and skilled craftspeople of a conquered society in order to exploit their talents elsewhere in the empire and to destabilize the conquered society to prevent further revolt."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|984n3.1–12.}} Thus, the intent of the verse is to use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that the most talented and wisest of Israelite society were going to be taken away captive by the Assyrians. That can include the prudent. Also, diviners may be described as prudent.

In any case, this does not alter the verses' meaning—men of importance or value are being subject to capture and deportation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|13. {{s||Isaiah|3|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Orator
||"The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent '''orator'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here in the Hebrew the sense of ''orator'' is 'enchanter.' The English word derives from the Latin verb meaning 'to pray' (see definition 1 under ''orator'' in the [''Oxford English Dictionary''])."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright derives the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Same commentary here as made for the preceding entry for {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|14. {{s||Isaiah|3|8}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Provoke the eyes of his glory
||"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to '''provoke the eyes of his glory'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Critic David Wright asserts that the better translation is "Rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse from the KJV. In the Book of Mormon it is rendered "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue'''s''' and their doings '''have been''' against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/3-8.htm 4-5 other modern, popular, English biblical translations] render it with "provoke." This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language since [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/provoke one of the definitions] of the word ''provoke'' is "to challenge" which is clearly in agreement with modern translations of the Bible.<ref name="tvedtnes">{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref>{{rp|170}} The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' similarly provides examples of writers near the time of the King James translation using "provoke" to mean "[t]o call out or summon to a fight; to challenge, to defy" and "[t]o incite (a person or animal) to anger; to annoy, vex, irritate, or exasperate, esp. deliberately."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Provoke."</ref> This fits in with Wright's suggestions of insult and defiance.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|15. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Cauls
||"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and '''cauls'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines caul as 'a netted cap or head-dress, often richly ornamented'. The Hebrew today is usually translated today as a headband."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Isaiah's intent is to communicate that the Lord will take away the most prized possessions of the women of Jerusalem because those possessions cause arrogance. Whether headbands or cauls being taken away, it doesn't change the essential message of Isaiah—and both are worn on the head.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|16. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Tires like the moon
||"and cauls and round '''tires like the moon'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "In the Hebrew, the word ''tire'' refers to something round, either a crescent or perhaps a round pendant for the neck. The use of ''tire'' here in {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} originated in the 1560 Geneva Bible: 'in that day shall the Lord take away the ornament of the slipper and the cauls and the round tires', where ''tire'' is a shortening from ''attire'' and refers to an ornament for a woman's head. The 1568 Bishop's Bible expanded on this by placing an internal note in square brackets after ''round tires'': 'and the cauls and the round tires [after the fashion of the moon]'. This interpretative remark was apparently derived from the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, where the word used for 'crescent ornament' or 'little crescent' was a diminutive of the word for ''moon''. The 1611 King James translators decided to embed this remark within the text itself by omitting the brackets, thus 'and round tires like the moon'. Since this interpretative prepositional phrase was not in the original Hebrew, it should have been placed in italics in the King James text."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This doesn't appear to be a translation error, but just a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|17. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Tablets
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the '''tablets''', and the earrings," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'' states that the best translation would be something like the Latin Vulgate's "scent-bottles." It states that the translation rendered literally is "'little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],' made use of by breathing."<ref>Horst Seebass, "נֶפֶשׁ," in ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'', ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.</ref> The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is better rendered as something like "tomb" or "grave."<ref name="boylanproblematic">Robert S. Boylan, "Some of the More Problematic Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon Suggesting Joseph Smith was Influenced by KJV Isaiah, not the Brass Plates," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', November 13, 2021, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/some-of-more-problematic-isaiah.html?q=translation+errors.</ref> This is most likely a translation variant, given the disagreement among scholars. It may not be an error at all. The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a scent-bottle, a tomb, or a grave, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. (Given the poetic nature of Isaiah, all of these resonances may be intended--their scent bottles of life are ironically death which they pack around with them.)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|18. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Earrings
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the '''earrings'''," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "amulets."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether amulets or earrings, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|19. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Wimples
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the '''wimples''', and the crisping pins" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word refers to a wide or flowing cloak. The English word used by the King James translators, ''wimple'', is quite different: 'a garment of linen or silk formerly worn by women, so folded as to envelop the head, chin, sides of the face, and neck; now retained in the dress of nuns' (the first definition under the noun wimple in the ''Oxford English Dictionary'')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|219}} The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a cloak or a wimple, (both items of clothing to cover and protect) it doesn't change the intent of the verse, which implies that the soon-to-be captive will be stripped naked literally by the Assyrians, and spiritually by their vulnerability to the pagan invaders.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|20. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Crisping pins
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the '''crisping pins'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The modern-day equivalent of ''crisping pin'' would be ''curling iron''. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Similar considerations apply as for "wimples" above. Whether they are seen as losing their fancy, well-coiffed hair or their purses containing cosmetics or riches, the ironic fall of the daughters of Zion is graphically illustrated.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|21. {{s||Isaiah|3|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|23}}
||Glasses
||"The '''glasses''', and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "papyrus garments" or "mirrors."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether glasses, papyrus garments, or mirrors, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. The irony is again thick in either case--if mirrors, then those who cannot see their spiritual state clearly will lose the mirrors in which they admire themselves in pride. If papyrus garments, these are delicate and easily stripped away by the Assyrians who will lead them into slavery--again, a dramatic type of shameful exposure to those so concerned about externals.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|22. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Rent
||"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a '''rent'''; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two Hebrew verbs, both with identical consonants, but with different meanings: one means 'to tear' and the other means 'to go around or to surround'. The noun ''rent'' derives from the first verb, but the noun ''rope'' or ''cord'' (meaning to go around the body) derives from the second. Here the word ''girdle'' takes the archaic meaning 'belt'. Modern translators have typically rendered this line in {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} as 'and instead of a belt, a rope.'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The intent of Isaiah is to contrast the former dignity and pride of the daughters of Zion with their current shame. Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, uncovering someone's nakedness was a way to make them feel shame (see, for example, {{s||Isaiah|47|3}} which reflects this attitude) so keeping "rent" (i.e. cut/gap) where perhaps a person's belt line was would uncover someone's buttocks and genitals and is an appropriate way to make the contrast between current dignity and subsequent shame or lower social status. The intent of the passage is unaltered and correct.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|23. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Stomacher
||"and instead of a '''stomacher''', a girding of sackcloth" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "The Hebrew word here, ''patigil'', is otherwise unattested. The Greek Septuagint translated it as 'a tunic of mixed purple', which has led to the general translation of this article of clothing as 'a fine garment' or 'a rich robe'. Miles Coverdale, in his Bible, translated it more specifically as ''stomacher'', 'an ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} As the Hebrew remains uncertain, this can only be seen as a translation variant rather than error. The essential message of Isaiah in contrasting fine, luxurious things with things of lower social status and shame that await the future Assyrian captives remains unaffected.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|24. {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}
||Defence
||"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a '''defence'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/4-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator's Gloss.''' Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy."<ref name="ankerberg" />{{Rp| 322.}} True, "canopy" [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-5.htm is in most popular English biblical translations]. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per ''BDB'', or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament''). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."<ref name="boylankjv">Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Errors in the Book of Mormon?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', October 8, 2015, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/kjv-errors-in-book-of-mormon.html?q=translation+errors.</ref>

Similarly, Daniel C. Peterson responded to this claim as follows in a 1993 review of an anti-Mormon book:

:In {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}, the Book of Mormon follows KJV {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in rendering the Hebrew ''chuppah'' as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.

:Their reading of ''chuppah'' is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as ''super omnem enim gloriam protectio''. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has ''pase te doxe skepaslllcsetai'', in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns ''skepas'' and ''skepc'', both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy ... shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the ''New English Bible''. The Evangelical Protestant ''New International Version'' says that the "canopy ... will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?<ref>{{Peterson:Chattanooga Cheapshot Or The Gall Of Bitterness Review:FARMS Review:1993|pages=50-51}}</ref>

This is perhaps best understood as a translator's gloss. A translator's gloss works more as an explanation of the underlying text rather than a literal translation. It makes explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly by the ancient term.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|25. {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|2}}
||Fenced
||"And he '''fenced''' it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' "The Hebrew verb for ''fenced'' in {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} is now translated as 'to dig about' or 'to hoe or weed'; in other words, "he dug about it and cleared it of its stones."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright derives basically the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The verse here is a part of verses 1–7 that describe Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that it "allegorically portrays the Lord as Isaiah's friend ... who worked so hard to ensure a productive vineyard only to be disappointed when it yielded sour grapes. The allegory, which is explained only at the end, draws in the audience, as many in ancient Judah would have had extensive experience in vineyards. Its conclusion makes puns to make its point, viz., the Lord expects ''justice'' (Heb "mishpat") but sees only ''bloodshed'' (Heb "mispah") and hopes for ''righteousness'' (Heb "tsedaqah") only to hear a ''cry'' (Heb "tse'aqah)."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|986n1–7}} "The 1828 Webster<ref>See {{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=fence}}</ref> notes that the word ''fence means'' 'a wall, hedge, ditch,' the third example fitting well with the modern renderings."<ref name="tvedtnes" />

The KJV translators may have meant to say that the Lord allegorically protected the vineyard by fencing it with a ditch. (Or earth/stones dug from the ditch are then piled as a barrier on the edge of the ditch, combining the images.) The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that, at its broadest, "to fence" meant simply to put up a type of barrier at the time of the King James Version's translation. Thus there are examples of writers from the 17th century saying, for instance, "The lands of [private] men..were '''fenced with ditches'''." This usage fits into the Book of Mormon's and KJV's usage. Other examples of writings from the 17th century say that you can fence with a battlement, walls, iron armor, shells, and so forth. To fence was to simply put up a type of barrier.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|26. {{s||Isaiah|5|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|12}}
||Viol
||"And the harp, and the '''viol''', the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Against the Book of Mormon, critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|27. {{s||Isaiah|5|17}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|17}}
||Then shall the lambs feed after their manner
||"'''Then shall the lambs feed after their manner''', and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-17.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The passage is contrasting the type of success one can have with the Lord and the grave misfortune one can have when one does not follow the Lord. The previous verse to this (v.16) begins that contrast. The intent of the passage is to say that lambs shall return to their normal feeding. Thus saying that they return to their old pasture to feed and saying that they'll feed "after their manner" is really not a substantive change in meaning. The author judges this as a translation variant rather than an error. Even if the image shifts slightly, it is inconsequential.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|28. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Carcases
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah. This appears an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|29. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Were torn
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases '''were torn''' in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were '''as refuse''' in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} To say that the corpses "were torn" in the midst of the streets ''does'' leave ambiguity since "were torn" could refer to people or perhaps animals ''actively tearing up'' dead human remains in the streets or, alternatively, it could refer to the dead bodies ''already being torn up'' in the streets. "Refuse" refers to trash. To say that their corpses were torn in the streets is functionally the same thing as saying that they're refuse. Regarding "torn", Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon...if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means 'cut of' or 'torn off'; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean 'as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offal offal].'"<ref name="boylankjv" /> In either case, the sense of horror to an Israelite audience would be profound, who would be troubled both by the desecration of a body if it were torn by scavengers ''and'' by the fact that the dead lay in the street, unburied. A proper burial was vital in the ancient world, and not receiving it was regarded as a terrible fate.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|30. {{s||Isaiah|5|30}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|30}}
||And the light is darkened in the heavens thereof
||"And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, '''and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Whether the light is darkened in the sky or by clouds, the intent of the verse isn't changed. (And what in the sky, one wonders, would darken light if not clouds?)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|31. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||It
||"Above '''it''' stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "above '''him'''" (referring to the Lord in v. 1) instead of "above it" (which would be referring to the train of his garment in v. 1).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Though it's uncertain if saying that the angel standing above the garment train is a denial that the angel stood above God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|32. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||Seraphims
||"Above it stood the '''seraphims''': each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The current edition of the Book of Mormon just has ''seraphim'' without the ''s''. Skousen's earliest reconstruction of the verses as well as [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/97 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon] have "seraphim'''s'''."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|114}} Under a certain perspective, a more correct translation of these verses would indeed render it as only "seraphim" and not "seraphim'''s'''" with an s. That is because the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already indicates that the object is pluralized. Though one could argue that there really is no error in translation given that the KJV translators were just using English conventions in order to assure readers that the object was pluralized. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of seraph could be seraph'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=seraph}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|33. {{s||Isaiah|6|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|6}}
||Seraphims
||"Then flew one of the '''seraphims''' unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The same analysis as applies to the "error" in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} in the previous entry. One anti-Latter-day Saint used a similar argument in claiming that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was in error by using the word "cherubims" from the KJV.<ref>Dave Miller, "Is the Book of Mormon from God?" ''Apologetics Press'', 31 December 2002, {{antilink|https://apologeticspress.org/is-the-book-of-mormon-from-god-1187/}}</ref> The same reasoning applies against his claim. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of cherub could be cherub'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=cherub}} </ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|34. {{s||Isaiah|6|13}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|13}}
||Whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
||"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, '''whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} Though the verse retains the substance of meaning proposed by the critic. The verse means to communicate that "[a] part of Israel would return, and like the oak and terebinth, which though they are eaten or consumed right to their substance or stumps, yet they possess a seed in them that can regenerate."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|367}} "Despite the horrific imagery of a mere ten-percent survival rate (''tenth part''), the account concludes with a hopeful image of new growth from the ravaged stump that will constitute the holy seed of restoration (see {{s||Ezra|9|2}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|989n11–13}} Is saying that the "substance" of the tree remains really a denial of the stump/stock being that substance? Are the rhetorical goals of the verse not accomplished by changing "stock/stump" to "substance"? It could be seen as the tree's "vital force" or "substance" hidden within and life apparently gone, but awaiting the chance to burst forth anew.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|35. {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|14}}
||Virgin
||"Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' This passage in {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and its proper translation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 one of the most contested in all of scripture].

The verses have been crucial for Christians who want to support Matthew's use of the passage in his Gospel to theologically support the notion that the Savior would be born of Mary, who was a virgin. Jews and the majority of biblical scholars contend, and not without merit, that the proper translation of the verse is to have merely "young woman" instead of "virgin." What's more, Christians have needed to contend that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment since the verses could be referring to a son of Ahaz that would be named Immanuel in context.

Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but [[Virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon|we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki]].

The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.<ref>Jason R. Combs, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-prophecies-old-testament/king-ahazs-sign-christ-jesus From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of Isaiah 7:14]," in ''Prophets & Prophecies of the Old Testament'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 95-122; {{Interpreter:Parry:An Approach To Isaiah Studies:2020}}; Garrett Kell, "[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/ Is Jesus Really the Virgin–Born Child] in {{s||Isaiah|7|}}?" ''The Gospel Coalition'', May 9, 2020, .</ref>

Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (''ʿalmah''), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. {{s||Gen|24|43}}). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.<ref>''NET Bible'', [https://netbible.org/bible/Isaiah+7 Isaiah 7, footnote 25].</ref> There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues.

It should be remembered that one of the reasons that {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and {{s|2|Nephi|7|14}} retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary ({{s|1|Nephi|11|13}}, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|36. {{s||Isaiah|7|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|15}}
||That
||"Butter and honey shall he eat''', that''' he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the ''New Jerusalem Bible'': "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Certainly clarification of the logic is preferable here, but the rhetorical goals of the verse are still accomplished given this translation, and there are no grave errors as constructed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|37. {{s||Isaiah|7|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|23}}
||Silverlings
||"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand '''silverlings'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew here literally reads 'a thousand of silver', where the presumed measure of weight is the shekel. The Greek Septuagint translated this phrase as 'a thousand shekels'. The use of ''silverlings'' in the English translation originated with Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible. The English word ''silvering'' was chosen because it was morphologically analyzed as a ''silver + ling'', but its value was not the same as a shekel's."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|38. {{s||Isaiah|7|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|25}}
||Mattock
||"and all the hills that shall be digged with the '''mattock'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "This is a tool that in the Hebrew is based on the verb meaning 'to pick' or 'to hoe'. The English mattock refers to a tool that is more specific than simply a pick or a hoe."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|39. {{s||Isaiah|8|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|1}}
||Man's pen
||"Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with '''a man’s pen''' concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "common/ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The concern here is over "man" and what the significance of saying "a man's pen" is. It's certainly not clear enough to communicate that Isaiah means that the pen is common or average. But it's also not erroneous.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|40. {{s||Isaiah|8|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|6}}
||Rejoice
||"Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and '''rejoice''' in Rezin and Remaliah’s son;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation "may be" "'''but melt''' (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Experts affirm that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-6.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] have "rejoice" instead of "melt in fear." Either translation works and makes enough sense in historical context. The Lord merely means to express his "dissatisfaction with Ahaz's refusal to accept the divine offer of protection."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991n5-8}} The Lord does not want Judah to associate with with Rezin and Pekah. Those that do associate themselves reject the offer and "rejoice" in Rezin and Pekah by gladly joining them in their quest to defend against the incoming invasion of the Assyrians. The ''Contemporary English Version'' (2000) translates this verse as "These people have refused the gentle waters of Shiloah and have gladly gone over to the side of King Rezin and King Pekah." This captures the spirit of what is meant to be "rejoicing" in Rezin and Pekah. Though one could also translate it as "melt in fear" and say that the people join Rezin and Pekah because of fear of them. At worst, "rejoice" is merely a translation variant; and at best, it's an entirely correct translation and "melt in fear" is in error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|41. {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|12}}
||All them
||"Say ye not, A confederacy, to '''all them''' to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "...to all that this people calls a confederacy/conspiracy."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The Book of Mormon omits the "them" from {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} and just has "say ye not a confederacy to all to whom this people shall say a confederacy." The Book of Mormon's sentence construction doesn't change substantively from Wright' proposal.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|42. {{s||Isaiah|8|19-20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|19-20}}
||To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
||"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they shall speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-19.htm Bible Hub v. 18] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-20.htm Bible Hub v. 20])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew is obscure and that the KJV/ Book of Mormon translation is also obscure. He asks us to compare the following modern translation "And should people say to you, 'Go and consult ghosts and wizards that whisper and mutter'–a people should certainly consult its gods and the dead on behalf of the living! As regards instruction and testimony, without doubt this is how they will talk, and hence there will be no dawn for them" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The current edition of the Book of Mormon reads as follows (differences from KJV bolded): "And when they shall say unto you''':''' Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards '''that peep and''' mutter'''—'''should not a people seek unto their God for the living to '''hear from''' the dead? To the law and to the testimony''';''' '''and''' if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So the only real difference to which Wright draws our eye is the KJV/BoM's bad (?) translation of "to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." This can only be considered a translation variant and not an error on Wright's theory (if indeed the Hebrew is obscure). But the Book of Mormon and KJV likely capture the better sense of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|43. {{s||Isaiah|8|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|22}}
||And; and they shall be driven
||"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This in part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is confirmed uncertain by scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage is not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people to not practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s||Isaiah|19|3}}; {{s||Leviticus|19|31}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|18|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or that they look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference. This again looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|44. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation
||"'''Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation''', when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For if there were to be any break of day for that [land] which is in straits" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish" (''Revised Standard Version''); and "For is not everything dark as night for a country in distress" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} It seems that the substantive meaning of the verse is not changed from Wright's proposals. The verse simply means that the dimness or gloom will not be like it was when these nations mentioned were distressed or vexed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|45. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Grievously afflict
||"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more '''grievously afflict''' by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' The better translation is "but in the future '''he will honor''' Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}}

The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in {{s||Isaiah|9|1}}. It reads: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}} reads: "Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict <s>her</s> by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." Thus, the Book of Mormon makes the verse refer to the Red Sea. Critics have made fun of the Book of Mormon for this and leveled other criticisms. See [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|here]] and [[Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?|here]] for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen.

We now must ask—could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on his own situation or experience? [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We know that there were modifications done by Nephi]] to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on his own situation that Nephi calls "likening" ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula.

Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" ({{s||Numbers|14|25}}; {{s||Numbers|21|4}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|1|40}}; {{s_short||Deuteronomy|2|1}}). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.<ref name="skousenvariants" />{{Rp|732–33}} Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least his best reconstruction of it).<ref name="skousenearliest">{{Book:Skousen:The Earliest Text}}</ref>{{Rp|119}}

Again, [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|Nephi was "likening" Isaiah to his current situation and understanding all throughout the Book of Mormon quotations of Isaiah]] by changing text ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). It's likely that something similar is going on here.

This may thus be an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively liken the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. The intent of the verse ''is changed'' and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah's original text meant. But it ''isn’t'' an error regarding what ''Nephi'' meant to communicate about God. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|46. {{s||Isaiah|9|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|2}}
||Shadow of death
||"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the '''shadow of death''', upon them hath the light shined." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew term ''almäwet'' which this verse translates should be simply "darkness." It is not connected with the term ''mäwet'' "death."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-2.htm More than a few modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "the land of the shadow of death." The verse merely "symbolizes the mortal world where there is darkness, and death."<ref name="bookofmormonref">{{Book:Largey:Book of Mormon Reference Companion}} </ref>{{Rp|374}} Whether saying "the land of darkness", "the land of the shadow of death", or something close to it, the meaning or referent is still the same: the mortal, fallen world/earth.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|47. {{s||Isaiah|9|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|5}}
||For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise
||"'''For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise''', and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For every boot that tramps with noise/in battle."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon changes this verse to read "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood—but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|119}} The verse concerns imminent military oppression. "Military oppression is symbolized by the ''yoke'' (10.27; 14.25), the ''bar'' (10.24), the ''rod'' (10.24; 14.4; {{s||Gen|49|10}}), and trampling ''boots''."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|993n4–5}} The "confused noise" of the battle could be correctly interpreted as the trampling boots. Regardless, Isaiah means to say that the military oppressors will be overthrown and that the oppression will be fuel for fire. The reader can still come to the accurate conclusion that all of it—the battles with confused noise and the garments rolled in blood—will be burned. The details are different; the message is the same.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|48. {{s||Isaiah|10|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|4}}
||Without me
||"'''Without me''' they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the KJV's translation is "doubtful." The better translation is supposedly "so that they do not cower among the prisoners" (''Revised English Bible''); "Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners" (''Revised Standard Version'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verse is meant to merge with the rhetorical question of the previous verse which reads (''New Revised Standard Version'') "To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain?" The verse can still make sense as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon, since the verse simply means to say that "[d]uring the day of visitation the wicked will fall in the destruction or become prisoners with other captives."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|376–37}} The ''without me'' can then function as the Lord saying "without my intervention and aid, these people will have to crouch among prisoners or die." Meaning has changed but not significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|49. {{s||Isaiah|10|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|15}}
||As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood
||"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? '''as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verses concern the Lord declaring his superior power against the Assyrians. The Lord uses the imagery of an axe and saw and essentially says that they can't declare their superiority over the one who wields them. The verses still accomplish their rhetorical goals. The detail has changed, the intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|50. {{s||Isaiah|10|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|18}}
||As when a standardbearer fainteth
||"And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be '''as when a standardbearer fainteth'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the better translation is something like "and it will be as when '''a sick man''' wastes away," "and it will be as when '''a weak person''' despairs," or "and it will be as '''when someone''' falls in a fit."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Most translations have something like the first suggestion. Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm at least three modern, popular, English biblical translations] carry something like "as when a standard-bearer faints." The superior translation clearly seems to be "when a sick man wastes away" since the verse is trying to describe how the Lord "destroys both soul and body as well as that man's 'forest and fruitful field'." The verse may still work with "standard-bearer faints", however. ''Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[t]he 'standard-bearer' was chosen for his heroic strength and stature. When he 'fainted' and gave way, what hope was there that others would survive? A more correct rendering, however, gives ‘As a sick man pineth away.’" Similarly, ''Pulpit Commentary'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[u]tter prostration and exhaustion is indicated, whichever way the passage is translated."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|51. {{s||Isaiah|10|27}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|27}}
||The anointing
||And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of '''the anointing''' ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is something like "the yoke shall be destroyed because of fatness." He asserts that some emend the text of the masoretic text of Isaiah (the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have) since it doesn't make clear sense.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-27.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] agree with the critic though some retain a reference to an anointing with oil. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "because of oil."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|378}} The best way to translate that Hebrew and expand it into a more coherent idea is still uncertain. Thus this can only be considered a translation variant.

The essential message of this passage is that the yoke of Assyria's oppression against Israel will be taken off. Different translations use different imagery that are compatible with that essential message. With fatness, the yoke will be taken off or fall off of Israel because they have become fat and the yoke is too small. The ''Douay-Rheims'' translation of this verse makes the imagery mean that the oil will rot off the yoke. Anointing is typically associated with ordaining someone to success. Thus, with the translation as it stands in the KJV and Book of Mormon, perhaps the imagery can be that God has ordained or anointed Israel to be successful before her enemies and thus the yoke will be destroyed because of God's protection of Israel. Thus, given different translations, the detail certainly changes, but the essential meaning does not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|52. {{s||Isaiah|11|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|3}}
||Make him of quick understanding
||"And shall '''make him of quick understanding''' in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the underlying Hebrew translated as "make him of quick understanding" is "unclear" but "probably" doesn't mean "make him of quick understanding." The better translation is "probably" something like, "He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord" (''New American Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> The chapter speaks about a coming Messiah. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/11-3.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this passage as the second suggestion from the critic. The gist of the verse as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon is that the Messiah will be filled with great knowledge—though arguably in context one would only be said to be ''genuinely'' of quick understanding if one feared God and obeyed him. Thus "reverence for the Lord" is the best evidence of "quick understanding." The true wisdom and genius, we might say, is in knowing to obey God, and not simply because one quickly masters man's learning or priorities.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|53. {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|15}}
||Dry-shod
||"he shall. . .make men go over '''dry-shod'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Gloss.''' "The past participial phrase ''dry-shod'' is equivalent to the adverbial phrase 'with dry shoes'. Here the Hebrew as well as the Greek and the Latin translations simply use the phrase 'in sandals', without any reference to getting one's sandals wet."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The adverbial phrase still makes sense in context, however. The whole verse in {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} reads as follows: "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod." Scholars recognize that this is an allusion to the Exodus when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with dry feet.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|997n15}} This is best understood as a translator’s gloss: the translation may make explicit what the ancient readers would have understood implicitly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|54. {{s||Isaiah|13|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|12}}
||Wedge
||"I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden '''wedge''' of Ophir" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' The better translation is "more precious. . .than '''the gold''' of Ophir."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Regardless of the translation, the essence is that a man is being made more precious than a piece of gold from Ophir. No significant alteration in meaning.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|55. {{s||Isaiah|13|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|14}}
||Roe
||"and it shall be as the chased '''roe'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In English, a roe is a species of small deer. The word in the Hebrew refers to a gazelle. The word ''gazelle'' entered English in the late 1500s and early 1600s and would not have been readily available to the King James translators. All the earlier English translations, dating back to Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible, had the phrase ''chased doe'' rather than ''chased roe''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} Both the gazelle and roe—speedy hooved herbivores often hunted—work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|56. {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|15}}
||That is joined
||"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one '''that is joined''' unto them shall fall by the sword." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "who are caught/captured."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse intends to create a type of parallelism between the first and second clauses. It doesn't seem to be a substantive shift in meaning to say that all who are caught will be killed and all who are joined to the people who are caught will be killed. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon changes "found" in {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} to read "proud" and substitutes "the wicked" for "them" such that the verse reads "[e]very one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|57. {{s||Isaiah|13|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|21}}
||Satyrs
||"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and '''satyrs''' shall dance there." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word here in the singular is sa'ir, which in the Hebrew refers to hairy demons or monsters that inhabit the deserts. This word has been incorrectly translated into its phonetically similar Greek word ''satyr'', which refers to a woodland god that is half-human and half-beast."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} No significant change in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-21.htm The vast majority of popular English biblical translations] render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr satyrs] (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures). The intent of the verse is to communicate that Babylon will be made desolate and no man shall live there. Instead, animals will infest their lands and inhabit them. No significant change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|58. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Wild beasts
||"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast", "jackal", or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is at best not erroneous at all and at worst just too broad. Certainly there is no shift away from the intent of the passage. This too looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|59. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Of the islands
||"And the wild beasts '''of the islands''' shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be to omit "of the islands" and render it simply "wild/desert beasts" or specifically "jackals" or "hyenas."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse concerns the Lord's/Isaiah's prediction that Babylon will revert to its primitive condition when it is overthrown. Whether "hyenas" or "wild beasts of the islands" crying in the towers of Babylon does not matter or change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|60. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Dragons
||"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and '''dragons''' in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Runnells asserts that the better translation would be to replace "dragons" with "jackals."<ref name="runnells1769" /> [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-22.htm The majority of popular English biblical translations] render this verse with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal jackals]" instead of dragons though at least one modern, popular translation keep dragons. "Dragon" could refer to merely a snake at the time of the King James translation, according to the ''Oxford English Dictionary''.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Dragon."</ref> One places "hedgehogs" here and another "wild dogs." We can make similar commentary here as we did for the "of the islands" error. The verses concern a reversion of Babylon to a primitive, uncivilized, even dangerous condition when the Lord desolates it. Whether jackals or dragons in the palaces, it doesn't really matter. The verses are meant to depict the desolated and grim condition of Babylon after the Lord ravages it. Details have changed, the underlying imagery and intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|61. {{s||Isaiah|14|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|2}}
||Handmaids
||"And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and '''handmaids'''; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Skousen says that "[i]n this verse the sense of handmaid is 'a female slave', especially since the paired noun ''servant'' means 'a male slave'. In biblical contexts, ''handmaid'' usually means 'a female personal servant', but not here."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} But a handmaid in the [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/handmaid ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' understands] a handmaid to be a "maid that waits at hand; '''a female servant''' or attendant." Similarly, the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the main usage of handmaid is to refer to "[a] '''female''' personal attendant or '''servant'''."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Handmaid."</ref> Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-2.htm Popular biblical translations more contemporary to the 1800s as well as two more modern translations] render it as "handmaids."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|62. {{s||Isaiah|14|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|4}}
||Golden city
||"And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the '''golden city''' ceased!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen claims that the better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the '''assaulting''' ceased."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright asserts that the KJV translation is "doubtful" and that the translation should "probably" be "boisterous behavior, frenzy, [or] arrogance."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}

This is Isaiah's taunt song against Babylon. Calling Babylon "the golden city" that is laid down and humbled is a great way to taunt Babylon given that Isaiah would then be contrasting their former glory with their current misery. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-4.htm Five other biblical translations (two of which are modern and three much older)] render it as "golden city." Scholar Seth Erlandson makes a compelling case for translating this passage as "golden city."<ref>Seth Erlandsson, ''The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–Isaiah 14:23'' (Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970), 29–32; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, "Seth Erlandsson on מדהבה meaning 'golden city' in {{s||Isaiah|14|4}}," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', 11 November 2022, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/seth-erlandsson-on-meaning-golden-city.html?q=golden+city.</ref> Given that "golden city", "assaulting", and "boisterous behavior, frenzy, or arrogance" would all be referring to Babylon ceasing or Babylon's action ceasing, this isn't a translation error at all. The meaning or referent does not change no matter which way the verse is translated! At best we have no error. At worst we have a translation variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|63. {{s||Isaiah|14|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|5}}
||Scepter
||"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the '''scepter''' of the rulers." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the '''rod''' of the rulers."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} But [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-5.htm the vast majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "scepter" or "sceptre" instead of rod. Either way, it does not seem that either the essential object being referred to or the ethical message change. In Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (the best reconstruction of the original words dictated by Joseph Smith), the text reads "scepter'''s'''" in the plural.<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|127}} This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text—a sceptre represents the rod of force or correction used by a sovereign to rule. This is a distinction without a difference, though KJV translators would have been more familiar with the more fancy and elaborate sceptre compared to the simple rod.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|64. {{s||Isaiah|14|11}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|11}}
||Viols
||"Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy '''viols''': the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-11.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|65. {{s||Isaiah|14|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|12}}
||Weaken
||"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground which did '''weaken''' the nations!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two meanings for this verb in the Hebrew: one means 'to weaken', the other 'to defeat or to lay prostrate'. In this context, the second of these works better and is the one adopted in modern translations, such as the English Standard Version: 'How you are cut down to the ground, '''you who laid the nations low'''!'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm Eight other popular English biblical translations (six of which are modern)] render this verse as "weaken."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|66. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockatrice Cockatrice]
||"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a '''cockatrice'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The cockatrice is a mythical serpent with a deadly glance that is hatched by a reptile from a cock's egg. However, the Hebrew word here is based on a verb meaning 'to hiss' and simply refers to a viper or adder."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This verse provides "imagery explaining that while an oppressor of the Philistines may perish, another, more severe will follow." It's "a metaphor suggesting that Philistia's next oppressor (the cockatrice or deadly viper) will somehow be related to its first (the serpent or snake), perhaps a descendant."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|388}} Either a cockatrice or viper/adder can accomplish the rhetorical goals of the verse. Some might think that a cockatrice is somehow more powerful than a fiery flying serpent. That may be the case. Who exactly knows the power differentials that Philistia's next oppressors would have? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem, which the Assyrians never managed to do. around 587 BC. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II Sargon] put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|p.1001n14.28–32}} Or, alternatively, the Philistines may have considered themselves oppressed by the Assyrians, and so revolted. But, whatever they thought of the oppression that led to their revolt, it was nothing compared to the brutal treatment they would receive from Sargon II when he arrived to besiege their land to reassert his control.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|67. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||Fiery flying serpent
||"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a '''fiery flying serpent'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "The correct rendition of the Hebrew for {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} should be 'a flying fiery serpent'. The compound ''fiery serpent'' is represented in the Hebrew by a single word ''saraf'', which comes from the verb ''saraf'' 'to burn'; here we have a flying serpent whose sting burns (in other words, 'a flying poisonous serpent')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-29.htm Five other popular, English biblical translations (two of which are modern)] render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|68. {{s||Isaiah|29|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|27}}
||Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay
||"And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: '''Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay'''. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Erorr – Change in Intent.''' Critic David P. Wright claims that a better translation would be: "How perverse of you! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one that formed it, 'He has no creative intelligence?'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Wright is correct that this verse's translation changes the meaning of the original text significantly. Isaiah means to use a metaphor that "shows the foolishness of mortals who pretend to be mightier than their Creator (cf. {{s||D&C|10|5-34}})."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|391}}

As currently rendered in the Book of Mormon, the verse means that the wicked who hide their works in darkness are telling God that His "turning of things upside down" will be esteemed as the potter's clay. The "turning of things upside down" might refer to God threatening to humble the mighty and powerful by sending them into slavery. (Compare the daughters of Zion verses which are full of ironic contrasts between the glamorous, worldly daughters before and after their captivity.) Here the wicked are so arrogant that they dismiss God's ability to cause a revolution in their comfortable lives. But this is as foolish, says the Book of Mormon's rendition, as a clay pot thinking that the potter cannot throw it back into the clay for destruction and remixing into something new if he decides to.

The Book of Mormon, in line with the translation outlined by Wright, already teaches us that God is all-searching and all-wise.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|9|44}}; {{s||Mosiah|27|41}}; {{s_short||Mosiah|29|19}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|69. {{s||Isaiah|29|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|32}}
||Reproveth
||"And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that '''reproveth''' in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The verb ''reprove'' is used four times in the Book of Mormon, all in biblical quotes. The King James use of ''reprove'' adds a negative sense that is not in the Hebrew original. In all cases, the neutral verb 'judge' would be a more appropriate translation."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-21.htm Twelve other popular, English biblical translations (only two of which are modern)] render this verse similar to how the Book of Mormon and King James Version do. The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that the judge at the city gates actually will reprove those who receive the negative side of his judgements. To be found guilty or liable in a court is always an implicit reproof of behavior. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove—indeed, one cannot do one without the other. One arbitrates by finding who is in the right and who in the wrong, and arranging a settlement of disparate interests. If one side gets everything they want, the other is reproved. If neither side gets everything they want, there is an implicit reproof of some aspect of both their conduct, and their inability to resolve the matter themselves.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|70. {{s|1|John|5|7}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||The potential presence of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma Johannine Comma] in {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_john/5-7.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' This one is considered a stretch even by the scholar with whom the author corresponded. The passages from {{s|1|John|5|7}} and {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}} just don't line up like the critics might want them to.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|71. {{s||Exodus|20|13}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|13|21}}
||Kill
||"Thou shalt not '''kill'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/20-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Some have said that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of the word "kill" here is incorrect and that one should have "murder" instead. There's a complex discussion to be had regarding proper translation that can be found, in part, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill here]. Nevertheless, these debates would have been of little moment to the Book of Mormon's audience, who understood that the command against killing referred to murder, and not to some other forms of death dealing (e.g., self defense, judicial punishment, or lawful warfare).
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|72. {{s||Isaiah|53|8}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|14|8}}
||He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
||"'''He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?''' for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/53-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright thinks that the first phrase might be rendered as the KJV has it though many moderns translate it as "by oppression and judgment he was taken away" (New International Version).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The second phrase, Wright tells us, is obscure in the Hebrew. It has been rendered variously: "who could consider his stock/descendants," "who could consider his fate," "who could describe his abode," or "who could plead his cause." This can only be considered a translation variant. It is not ideal since "declaring a generation" isn't very clear in meaning, though it can plausibly be interpreted to include Wright's suggestions and especially the last one.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|73. {{s||Matthew|23|37}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|10|5}}
||Chickens
||"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref> This looks like seeking to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|74. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candle
||"do men light a '''candle''' and put it under bushel?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, 'a small oil lamp."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to use the metaphor of hiding a light when needed to guide towards goodness and truth. Both a candle and lamp can do that; the source of light is simply a question of culture. Even a translation as far from the original as "no one turns on their flashlight and then hides it under the bedclothes" would convey the same message.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|75. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candlestick
||"nay, but on a '''candlestick'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to say that a person shouldn't hide their spiritual light but show it to others. Both a lamp/lampstand and candle/candlestick are effective imagery for communicating that message. See above discussion.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|76. {{s||Matthew|5|27}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|27}}
||By them of old time
||"Ye have heard that it was said '''by them of old time''', Thou shalt not commit adultery:" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscripts.''' Newer translations of the Bible, based on the earliest extant manuscripts, omit the phrase "by them of old time." But there is no significant change of meaning nor intent in the verse, and Jesus is quoting {{s||Exodus|20|14}} and {{s||Deuteronomy|5|18}}. Those are certainly references to prophets "of old time" relevant to Jesus. Further, as Robert S. Boylan has observed, "While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase [translated as "by them of old time"] τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in {{s||Matt|5|21}} and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either."<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Mistranslations in the Sermon at the Temple?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', May 5, 2016, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/kjv-mistranslations-in-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors. Citing Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 202.</ref> This cannot be considered an error. Only an evidence that [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|the Book of Mormon has the King James Bible as its "base text" for translation]].

One critic takes this further and says that "by them of old time" is a ''mistranslation'' of the Greek ''tois archaiois''. It is more properly rendered as "to them of old time" suggesting that God is the one that told the prophets "thou shalt not commit adultery."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|121}} This is correct,<ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/six-antitheses The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus]," in ''The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture'', ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 96, 107n14.</ref> but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity, nor does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't retain its status as the "most correct book." The ethical message is the same: don't commit adultery and don't look on someone to lust after them. Whether it was said ''by'' the prophets of old (which is still correct) or ''to'' the prophets of old doesn't matter at all! If prophets speak the word of the Lord, anything they ''say to the people'' has alrady been ''said to them'' by God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|77. {{s||Matthew|5|30}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|30}}
||Should be cast into hell
||"And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body '''should be cast into hell'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that this should read "that thy whole body should go into hell" instead of "be cast into hell." Larson asserts that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew support this reading.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|122}} The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. [https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-30.htm Many popular English biblical translations (including a few modern translations)] render this verse as "cast into hell" though the rest vary between saying "go into hell", "thrown into hell", "depart into hell", and "fall into hell" so, again, the essential intent of the verse is retained no matter the translation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|78. {{s||Matthew|5|40}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|40}}
||Coat
||"if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy '''coat''', let him have thy cloak also" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-40.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Greek word for ''coat'' is ''chiton'' 'tunic', which actually refers to an inner garment worn under the coat, next to the skin, whereas the Greek word for ''cloak'' is ''himation'', a more general word used to refer to an outer garment (such as a coat or a cloak)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} "Jesus is saying that, if we are sued even for a trifling amount, rather than countersuing and ratcheting up the hostility, we should be willing to give up what is rightfully ours to defuse the situation."<ref>"What the Bible says about Outer Cloak (From Forerunner Commentary)," ''Bible Tools'', accessed 22 September 2022, https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/11587/Outer-Cloak.htm.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|79. {{s||Matthew|5|44}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|44}}
||Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and ... which despitefully use you
||"But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-44.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Newer translations based on earlier manuscripts do render things differently. The newer translations are more simple, something along the lines of, "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you."<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, ''The New Testament, A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 14.</ref> The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|80. {{s||Matthew|6|4}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|4}}
||Openly
||"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee '''openly'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' The word "openly" in this verse [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-4.htm is omitted in most modern, popular, English biblical translations]. That the Lord will reward us openly is repeated in verses 6 and 18 of {{s||Matthew|6|}} and verses 6 and 18 of {{s|3|Nephi|3|}}. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek word αποδιδωμι (ah-poh-dih-doh-mee) while others don't.<ref>For a case in favor of "openly" being implied in the Greek, see Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 205.</ref> Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it remains correct doctrine. {{s||Proverbs|10|22}} says that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." {{s|2|Corinthians|9|8}} says that "God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." In other words, God is able to bless us abundantly with riches and provisions so that we can continue to do good to others at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"? Thus this is either a case where there is no translation error at all or there is an intelligible type change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|81. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Temptation
||"And lead us not into '''temptation''', but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' One critic claims that "temptation" should be rendered as "the time of trial."<ref name="alcase" /> [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-13.htm The majority of popular, academic, modern, English biblical translations], however, disagree with the author. Further, "the time of trial" ''is'' "temptation." To "tempt" someone is "to put them to the test," or to have a "trial" of their strength or character.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "tempt" as "'''''In Scripture'''', to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{ea}}</ref> Webster also regards "temptation" as meaning "trial," and even includes this precise phrase ("Lead us not into ''temptation''") as an illustration.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{io}}</ref>

The critic is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word, and sees fault where there is none.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|82. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Evil
||"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from '''evil''': For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' One critic claims that "evil" should be rendered as "the evil one."<ref name="alcase" /> Evil is personified in "the evil one." Satan was seen as the ultimate source of all evil; to be delivered from him was to be delivered from evil, and vice-versa. At most this is a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|83. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen
||"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscript.''' Critics believe that this verse, known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxology#Lord's_Prayer_doxology the doxology], was not original to Jesus; that Jesus didn't actually say this. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain these phrases. The inclusion of the doxology in {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}} is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See: [[Question: Did Joseph Smith ignorantly include an error from the Bible into the Book of Mormon when including the Lord's Prayer in 3 Nephit 13:13?|here]]. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. The doxology is probably based on a reading of {{s|1|Chronicles|29|10-11}} which reads "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." Robert S. Boylan, citing John W. Welch, offered other important considerations that provide plausibility for the utterance of the doxology by Jesus.<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "[https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-sermon-on-mount-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Temple, and the Doxology]," ''Scriptural Mormonism'',26 August 2014.</ref> Swiss theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Luz Ulrich Luz] observed that "[t]he three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts." He then argued that {{s|2|Timothy|4|18}} and Didache 8:2 "show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology."<ref>Ulrich Luz, ''{{s||Matthew|1|7}}: A Continental Commentary'', trans. William C. Linss (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1985), 385; as cited in Patrick D. Miller, ''They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438n118.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|84. {{s||Matthew|6|28}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|28}}
||Lillies
||"consider the '''lilies''' of the field" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-28.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here the Greek word ''krinon'', modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The verses are meant to suggest that the birds of the air, flowers of the field, and other things do not worry about the span of their lives nor worry about what they're going to eat to survive and yet the Lord provides for them. The intent of the verse is unchanged.{{Rp|215}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|85. {{s||Matthew|7|2}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}
||Again
||"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you '''again'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/7-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is erroneous.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|123}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Welch John W. Welch] responded as follows in the ''FARMS Review'': "Example 3 concerns the difference between 'measured to you' (which appears in older Matthean texts) and "measured to you again" (which appears in KJV {{s||Matthew|7|2}} and {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}). Larson says that I 'downplay the difference among the variants at {{s||Matthew|7|2}}' (p. 123). He does not say, however, why I find the difference to be negligible. The difference is over the presence or absence of the Greek prefix anti- (English again). I believe that 'with or without this prefix on the verb, the sentence means exactly the same thing.'<ref name="welchsermon">John W. Welch, ''The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 155.</ref> Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.'<ref name="welchsermon" /> Larson tries to salvage his point by arguing that 'it can usually (but not always) be shown what Greek text the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions were based upon' and 'it is often such fine distinctions that are clues in textual criticism' (p. 123). But if one were to imagine a world in which no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament existed, scholars would not stake their reputations on claiming to know for sure (given the clear sense of the passage) whether ''antimetrethesetai'' or ''metrethesetai'' stood behind an English translation that renders {{s||Matthew|7|2}} as 'measured again.' Similarly, one cannot be sure what Aramaic verb originally was used here or what version of a Nephite verb stood on the plates of Mormon behind the translation 'measured again.' In light of the fact that {{s||Luke|6|38}} contains the word ''antimetrethesetai'' ('measured again'), is there any reason not to believe that early Christians used the words ''antimetrethesetai'' and ''metrethesetai'' interchangeably? Larson has not shown that this is one of those cases where one can determine from the translation what the underlying text was, or that this is one of those 'fine distinctions' of textual analysis (because there is virtually no distinction in meaning here). If no difference exists, Larson has not proved that {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is in error."<ref>{{Welch:Approaching New Approaches Review Of New Approaches To:FARMS Review:1994|pages=159-160}}</ref> John Gee and Royal Skousen also address these issues for those who want to learn more.<ref>{{Gee:La Trahison Des Clercs On The Language And:FARMS Review:1994|pages=67–71, 99–101.}}, {{Skousen:Critical Methodology And The Text Of The Book:FARMS Review:1994|pages=121–29}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|86. {{s||Isaiah|52|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|20|45}}
||Sprinkle
||"So he shall '''sprinkle''' many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/52-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The Hebrew verb for ''sprinkle'' doesn't make much sense in context here. Other translations have made this verse something like "the nations '''shall marvel''' upon him." Joseph Smith in his "New Translation" of the Bible replaced ''sprinkle'' with '''''gather''''', showing the difficulty of rendering this verse.<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/52-15.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render it as "sprinkle." Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1051nB}} If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation ''error''. At worst, it can only be a translation ''variant''. The question really becomes, if the verse is translated as "sprinkle", sprinkle with what? And how will that sprinkling be part of what causes kings to shut their mouths in the Lord's presence?
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|87. {{s||Micah|5|14}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|21|18}}
||Groves
||"And I will pluck up thy '''groves''' out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/micah/5-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "Here the noun ''grove'' is used to refer to a sacred grove used for cultic rites. However, the original Hebrew in these passages refers to ''Asherim'', that is, wooden images of the Canaanite goddess Asherah."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Given that "groves" refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah: that idolatry is wrong ({{s||Mosiah|13|12-13}}) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. [https://biblehub.com/micah/5-14.htm Four other popular, English biblical translations (only one modern)] render this verse as "groves."

It's difficult to see this even as a mistranslation, since the wooden images were conceptually trees or groves anyway. Some scholars believe that they actually ''were'' trees sometimes:

<blockquote>
These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that ''asherim'' [the wooden images] were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel).<ref> Ellen White, "[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/ Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?]," ''Biblical Archaeology Society'' (3 August 2023).</ref>
</blockquote>

"Grove" may in fact give more nuance and depth to the ideas being conveyed. It is certainly not a mistranslation or misleading rendering.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|88. {{s||Isaiah|54|11-12}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|22|11-12}}
||Stones and architectural details mentioned
||"O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-11.htm Bible Hub v. 11] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-12.htm Bible Hub v. 12])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously claims that "the meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV cannot be considered accurate." He asks us to compare the Revised English Bible: "Storm-battered city, distressed and desolate, now I shall set your stones in the finest mortar and lay your foundations with sapphires; I shall make your battlements of red jasper and your gates of garnet; all your boundary stones will be precious jewels."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} So the main differences are to substitute "finest mortar" for "fair colours", "battlements" for "windows", "red jasper" for "agates", and "garnet" for "carbuncle." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbuncle Carbuncle] ''is'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet garnet] so that complaint doesn't make much sense. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlement battlement] is a type of window so it likewise doesn't make much sense to fuss over it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agate Agate] is similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper jasper]. The overall intent of the passage is to state that "[t]he new Jerusalem is adorned with precious stones and gems by builders supernaturally instructed; cf. {{s||Ezekiel|28|13-19}}. Christian apocalyptic literature draws on this imagery to describe the new Jerusalem ({{s||Rev|21|18-21}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1053n11–17}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|89. {{s||Mark|16|15-18}} ~ {{s||Mormon|9|22-24}}; {{s||Ether|4|18}}
||Longer ending of Mark in the books of Mormon and Ether
||"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 15] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-16.htm Bible Hub v. 16] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-17.htm Bible Hub v. 17] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 18])
||'''Not An Error.''' See our commentary on this issue [[Question: Why does part of the longer ending of Mark show up in the Book of Mormon?|here]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|90. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|5}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|45}}
||Easily
||"Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not ''easily'' provoked, thinketh no evil;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1611] |[https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Critic James H. Snowden claims that "in incorporating 1 Cor. 13:5, in the 'Book of Moroni,' the phrase 'is not easily provoked,' reads as in the Authorized Version, but the word 'easily' is not found in the Greek and is dropped in the Revised Version. Joe's 'Urim and Thummim,' however, did not detect the absence of this word and he put it in."<ref name="snowden"></ref> The Greek word translated as "easily" is ''παροξύνεται'' (pah-roh-HOO-neh-tai). That word refers to ''irritability'' and irritability certainly entails being "easily" angered or provoked. While the word "easily" is not present in the Greek, its presence in the Book of Mormon does not constitute a mistranslation of the Greek.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|91. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|1}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|47}}
||The use of "charity" in {{s||Moroni|7|}}, relying upon the KJV rendering of "agape." Apparently it should just be rendered "love."
||"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' It's difficult to know exactly how passages like {{s||Moroni|7|47}} would be translated. There we learn that "charity is the pure love of Christ." Should we translate that passage as "love is the pure love of Christ"? Or "agape is the pure love of Christ"? Maybe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be a substantive improvement on just retaining "charity" in the verse, especially for a Christianized 19th century audience.
|-
|}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Lord Speaks "After the Manner of their Language"====
All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki|author=Joseph Smith|date=July 1838|vol=1|num=3|start=42|end=43}}</ref>

We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|1|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s|2|Nephi|31|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Joseph Smith quoted from {{s||Malachi|4|5-6}} in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|128|17-18}}. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."<ref>Complete article and citation can be read [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|here]]</ref> Joseph here is content with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% exact in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.

The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|loose translation versus tight translation]].)

The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation.

Brigham Young taught:

<blockquote>
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write 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 re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.<ref>{{JDmini|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|pages=311}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. For Latter-day Saints, it is the message—and not the precise words—that matter when determining whether divinity lies behind a claim to revelation.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}



[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]
[[Category:Difficult Questions for Mormons]]

[[es:Pregunta: Si el Libro de Mormón es una traducción exacta, ¿por qué habría que contiene errores de traslación que existen en la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Se o Livro de Mórmon é uma tradução exata, por isso que conteria erros translacionais que existem na Bíblia King James?]]

KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

2026-04-13T19:00:06Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}{{blankline}}
<h1>KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon</h1>
'''Summary:''' The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.

Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the ''CES Letter'' asks, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"<ref>Jeremy T. Runnells, ''CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts'' (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 {{ea}}.</ref>

Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask, "If the Book of Mormon is ‘the most correct book of any on earth,’ why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10, 83}}; {{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=205}}; La Roy Sunderland, "Mormonism," ''Zion’s Watchman'' (New York) 3, no. 7 (17 February 1838) {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/BOMP&CISOPTR=1730&REC=19}}</ref>

There are four questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:

#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?]]
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?|Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV?]] We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways?]] Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches [[The_Book_of_Mormon_as_the_most_correct_book#Why_did_Joseph_Smith_say_that_the_Book_of_Mormon_was_the_.22most_correct_book.22.3F|a person would get closer to God and His nature than by reading any other book]].
# [[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?|If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?]]

Our answers, in brief, are as follows:

# The Book of Mormon indeed does contain some King James Bible translation errors.
# There are 12 different reasons to believe that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize from the King James Bible in order to create the Book of Mormon. ''None'' of the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.
# In no case do any of the errors teach incorrect doctrine or compel someone to believe something false.
# God allowed the errors to persist in the Book of Mormon because He speaks to His "servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). God can achieve all of His divine goals without a perfect translation.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
{{BMCentral|title=What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters?|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-vision-guides-nephis-choice-of-isaiah-chapters|number=38}}

First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation.

====Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769====

As a corrective to the ''CES Letter'', the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.

The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ read the 1611 edition online] and see for themselves.

The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.

<h5>A Slow Drift in the Argument</h5>
Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case. The authors on whom the ''CES Letter'' seems to rely did ''not'' claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of ''italics'' in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|p.130}} This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.<ref>Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the ''CES Letter''. In editions past 2013, he links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors an old version of a Wikipedia page] (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson. A similar argument to Runnells' is made in {{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10}}. Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, ''separately'', that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV '''italics''' is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition. Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible#Perpetuation_of_KJV_translation_variations As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page] (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation ''variations'' (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors? Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the ''1611'' (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon], as well as [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha] to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his ''CES Letter'' hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the ''CES Letter'' at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors '''unique to only that edition''' present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" ''CES Letter'', accessed 22 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2}}</ref>

<h5>KJV as a Base Text</h5>

Stan Spencer writes:

<blockquote>
Although the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.<ref name="spencer">{{Interpreter:Spencer:Missing Words King James Bible Italics The Translation:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|49}}
</blockquote>

The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible Bishop's Bible].<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47n5}} The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible [https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Bishops is available online] and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation. The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)

Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:

<blockquote>
The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47–48}}
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
|subject1=Academic use of base texts for new translation
|summary1=See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the ''important'' differences between their text and well-known versions.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism====

Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is ''not'' plagiarism. ''At most'', all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not ''plagiarizing'' it.

As far as material from Micah is concerned, this is a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of God's message in {{s||Micah|4|12-13}} and {{s_short|Micah|5|8-14}}. ({{s|3|Nephi|16|14-15}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|20|16-20}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|21|12|18, 21}}<ref>For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/they-shall-grow-together/passages-book-micah-book-mormon Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon]," in ''They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.</ref> Mormon uses {{s||Micah|5|8}} similarly in {{s||Mormon|5|24}}.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For Him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.

John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the Mount.<ref name="welchilluminate">John W. Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-sermon-mount-differences ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125–50.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text====

Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_chronology_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_and_publication%3F
|subject1=Timeline of the Book of Mormon translation and publications
|summary1=Our current Book of Mormon was translated from 7 April to the end of June 1829.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith====

A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.<ref>See Michael Hickenbotham, ''Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church'' (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196.{{NB}}</ref> One verse ({{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.<ref>The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}. For earlier discussions, see {{TruthGodmakers1 | start=172}}; see also {{AncientAmericaBoM|start=100|end=102}}; {{Nibley7|start=129|end=143}}; Royal Skousen, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/textual-variants-isaiah-quotations-book-mormon Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.</ref> John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.<ref>John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/isaiah-variants-book-mormon Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament'', ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-bible-and-book-mormon Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon]," ''The FARMS Review'' 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref> BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of {{s||Isaiah|2|2}}, as contained in {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."<ref>{{Interpreter:Hoskisson:Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than The Average Fourth:2015}}</ref>

These factors throw a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of KJV Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the ''one phrase'', "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously ''possible'' that he did, but ''highly unlikely''.

====Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted====

The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.</ref>

{{Related articles
|link1=Joseph_Smith_and_the_translation_process#A compilation of published statements on the Book of Mormon translation method in both Church and non-Church publications
|subject1=All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
|summary1=This page collects all first- and second-hand descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and groups them by theme (e.g., weight of the plates, use of seer stone, etc.)}}

Stan Spencer observed,

<blockquote>[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|59}}
</blockquote>

Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[The_New_Testament_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_Book_of_Mormon_claims_to_be_a_.22translation.2C.22_and_the_language_used_is_that_of_Joseph_Smith|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and [[Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method/1846-1900#Emma Smith Bidamon (eyewitness)|some are specifically clear]] that he did ''not'' have any book or manuscript to which he referred.<ref>Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Advocate'' 2 (October 1879): 50-52.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV====

Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/printing-and-publishing-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Original and Printer's Manuscripts] of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/ The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon]," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, .</ref>

Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)

When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism]]. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but ''through divine revelation from God'' rather than out in the open on the table.<ref>Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subsequent half a century of investigation. See {{Ensign|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng|article=By the Gift and Power of God=|vol=7|num=9|date=September 1977}}.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #7—Archaic vocabulary====

{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/archaic-vocabulary|number=361}} Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are ''adamant'' that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English Early Modern English] in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a massive amount arguing for this stance. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.<ref>{{Interpreter:Skousen:The Original Text Of The Book Of Mormon:2013}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Look At Some Nonstandard Book Of Mormon:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book Of:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Implications Of Past-tense Syntax In The Book:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Why The Oxford English Dictionary And Not Websters:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The More Part Of The Book Of Mormon:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Joseph Smith Read The Words:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Case Of The -th Plural In The:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:How Joseph Smiths Grammar Differed From Book Of:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Barlow On Book Of Mormon Language An Examination:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Is The Book Of Mormon A Pseudo-archaic Text:2018}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Bad Grammar In The Book Of Mormon Found:2020}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Personal Relative Pronoun Usage In The Book Of:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Book Of Mormons Complex Finite Cause Syntax:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Comparison Of The Book Of Mormons Subordinate:2022}}; "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/language-original-text-book-mormon The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, ''The Nature of the Original Language'', Parts 3-4 of ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon'', Volume 3 of ''The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).</ref> This information is summarized by Evidence Central at the hotlink to the right.

====Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only ''after'' the translation was finished====

We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name="tandr">{{Roper:Joseph Smiths Use Of The Apocrypha Shadow Or:FARMS Review:1996}}</ref>

Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>{{BeginningsofMormonism |start=95 | end=100}}</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the [[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible|Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]] (JST).<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of {{FR-6-1-4}}</ref> Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

====Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations====

As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a footnote "a"] for {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV."<ref>See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a page 81] of either edition of the Book of Mormon</ref> This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes ''are indeed'' (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|50n11}} But many others aren't. [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We can actually show]] that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,<ref>{{Skousen:How Joseph Smith Translated The Book Of Mormon:JBMS:1998}}</ref> has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name ''Coriantumr'' spelled with ''mr'' and not an ''mer'' as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could ''see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim'' and that he could ''spell them out exactly'' to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.

====Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation====

Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|88}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant====

[[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]], a far more basic fact than the meaning of italics. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact, how likely is it that he knew the Bible well enough to plagiarize it, much less repeat that plagiarism from memory?

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that

<blockquote>
I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.<ref>{{Book:Smith:History of Joseph Smith by His Mother:1954|pages=82-83}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon#What did Joseph know about the italics?
|subject1=What did Joseph know about the italics in the KJV?
|summary1=How aware was Joseph about what the italics in the Book of Mormon meant?
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #12—No evidence Joseph's memory would allow the feat critics require====
{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/joseph-smiths-education|number=1}}
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eidetic eidetic] (or "photographic") memory.
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible
|subject1=Plagiarism from King James Bible?
|summary1=This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text.
}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow ====
What ''is'' a translation error?<ref>The ''CES Letter'', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."</ref> For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as ''queen'' when, it means ''king''. The word for ''queen'' in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to.

We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not ''need'' to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.

For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same set of arbitrary decisions and subsequent popularization.

Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.

====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====
We should also note that we do not have any of the ''original manuscripts'' of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the ''earliest known copies'' of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least ''mildly'' suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have ''copies'' of the manuscripts and they ''may'' reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. [[Accuracy of the bible|There's good reason to doubt it]] including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts ''don't'' accurately reproduce the original text.<ref>"History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; {{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}; see {{s_short|1|Nephi13|23-29}}. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, ''Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.</ref>

On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we [[Question: Why does Isaiah in the Book of Mormon not match the Dead Sea Scrolls?|simply can't know whether it does]]. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|in this broader sense]].

This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=translate}}</ref>

We often forget that there are typically ''three'' layers we must identify to understand a written text:

# what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
# what is actually written, and
# our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.

Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.

With a translated text there is a ''fourth'' layer to identify and untangle from the other three:

:4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the ''translator'' thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.

Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author of the text understood them.

Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demand some humility on our part.

The ''most'' that we can say is that ''based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship'', ''some'' of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.

With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proven facts.

====The "Translation Errors"====
Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."<ref name="Skousen King James">Royal Skousen, ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).</ref>{{Rp|220}}

Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.

Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.

Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
|subject1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
}}

In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.

Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.<ref name="larson">Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches|pages=15-63}}</ref><ref name="wrightjosephint">David P. Wright, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smiths-interpretation-of-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon],” ‘’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’’ 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 187.</ref><ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in {{CriticalWork:Vogel Metcalfe:American Apocrypha|pages=157-234}}.</ref><ref name="runnells1769">Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/}}</ref><ref name="wikiold">This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors].</ref><ref>"Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, {{antilink|https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors}}.</ref><ref name="ankerberg">John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).</ref><ref name="alcase">Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, {{antilink|https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.}}</ref><ref name="brown">M. D. Brown, ''One Hundred Similarities Between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript'' (M. D. Brown, 1937), 24.</ref><ref name="snowden">James H. Snowden, ''The Truth About Mormonism'' (George H. Doran Company, 1926), 105, 106–7</ref>

This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.<ref>This line was written 11 December 2022.</ref> This table includes 91 items.<ref>Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.</ref>

As a reminder, this table contains links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible, as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com, in order to refute the contention of the ''CES Letter'' that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.

We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors." The table below includes the location of the errors in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider adopting a similar approach to the one taken by the author of this article to resolve their concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

====Summary of conclusions====

For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:

*Some cases aren't errors.
*Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
*In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/diachronic diachronic] nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue." They meant to refer to something like ''power'' and we mean to refer to something like ''strength in doing moral good'' or sometimes ''chastity''.
*In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} and {{s_short||Isaiah|6|6}} (and corresponding passages in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} and {{s_short|2|Nephi|16|6}} in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph seraph(s)]. The problem is that the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already pluralizes the word ''seraph''. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
*In some cases, the errors are merely translation ''variants'' (rather than ''errors'') where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
*In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be ''too broad or general'' rather than necessarily ''erroneous''. It’s like saying that "king" refers to ''royalty''. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
*In some cases, the translation errors ''are'' legitimately errors. These errors thus change the ''meaning'' of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall ''intent'' of the passages.
*In some cases, the errors actually ''do'' lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding.
*In some cases, the "errors" are not errors and are better explained as a translator's gloss where the translation is not necessarily accurate as to what a word from the target language referred to but do help make explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly from use of a particular word.
*In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.

In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise ''compels'' a reader into believing something false.

The following chart documents how many claims of "errors" fit into the respective categories (as well as what percentage of the total claims that number represents):

[[File:PieChartKJVErrors6.png|750px|thumb|center]]

For those who want commentary on the individual claims, click "expand" below to view our table of analysis.

{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="12%"|'''Location in Canon'''
!width="12%"|'''Erroneous Translation'''
!width="30%"|'''Passage'''
!width="46%"|'''Commentary'''
|+<big>'''Commentary on Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|1. {{s||Exodus|15|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|2|5}}
||Red Sea
||This one isn't a quotation of a biblical passage per se but the use of a particular biblical name. The Book of Mormon and King James Bible consistently call the sea that Moses and the children of Israel crossed when fleeing from the Egyptians the "Red Sea." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/15-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics contend that this is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew ''yam sûp''. Instead of "Red Sea", critics contend that it should read "Reed sea." We have responded to this theory [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|elsewhere on the wiki]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|2. {{s||Isaiah|49|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|4}}
||Work
||"Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my '''work''' with my God." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright asserts that the better translation would be "reward" instead of "work."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The verses concern either Israel's, the Messiah's,<ref>Donald W. Parry, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-49-0 ''The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation (Preliminary Edition)''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 117.</ref> or Isaiah's response to God who in verse 3 calls one of them His servant in whom He will be glorified. One of them responds that, in their own judgement, they are weak and frail as a servant but that nonetheless, God will judge and reward them. The intent of the passage can be argued as correct no matter the translation, however.

If the passage is translated as "reward", the Book of Mormon already teaches that God rewards us despite our frailties both moral and vocational. The Book of Mormon already teaches that God is our reward. Nephi teaches us that beautifully in his psalm recorded in {{s|2|Nephi|4|}}.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|4|30}}</ref>

If the passage is translated as "work", one could interpret it in a few ways. One could say that God ''works through'' his servants to do good things despite their frailties. In that case, Paul tells the Phillipians that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."<ref>Phillipians 2:13</ref> In the previous chapter, {{s||Isaiah|8|}}, God tells Israel "I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."<ref>{{s||Isaiah|48|10}}</ref>

One could alternatively interpret it as saying that the work of Isaiah, the Messiah, or Israel is ''chosen'' or ''ordained'' by God to do a work ''on their own'': ''without'' God's intervening power. Isaiah recounts how God called him in {{s||Isaiah|6|}}. God indicates that Israel is his chosen, covenant people throughout the Old Testament text. The Messiah is the anointed one and is prophesied of throughout Isaiah's record and in other Old Testament prophecies.

It seems that no matter the translation and interpretation, there is nothing that isn't clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|3. {{s||Isaiah|49|5}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|5}}
||Though Israel be not gathered
||"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, '''Though Israel be not gathered''', yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics assert that the better translation would be "to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel be gathered to him."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Neither the Book of Mormon rendering nor the critics' change the meaning significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|4. {{s||Isaiah|49|8}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|8}}
||Have I heard thee
||"Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time '''have I heard thee''', and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "I answer/have answered you."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQLOuIKaRA hearing and doing something or responding to them were functionally the same thing]. You didn't hear someone if you didn't respond to them. Something similar may be going on here. The passage means that the Lord heard the cries of Israel and helped them, which is already affirmed with "in a day of salvation have I helped thee."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|5. {{s||Isaiah|49|24}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|24}}
||Or the lawful captive delivered
||"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, '''or the lawful captive delivered'''?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "Can...captives (be) retrieved from a victor?"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/49-24.htm Popular English biblical translations vary] between saying captives of the "mighty", "tyrant", "righteous", "victor", or "conqueror." The verse can only be considered a translation variant rather than an error. "The rhetorical questions function here as assertions of divine power insofar as the LORD can make these things happen."<ref name="Sweeney">Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).</ref>{{Rp|1047n24–26}} God is asserting that he can free the Israelites taken captive by those that oppress them. Thus, regardless of the translation options, the intent of the verse is not changed substantively.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|6. {{s||Isaiah|50|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|7|4}}
||Know how to speak a word in season
||"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172–73.}} Even this is part of Wright's essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As such, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to him that is weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|7. {{s||Isaiah|51|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|8|4}}
||Rest
||"Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to '''rest''' for a light of the people." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/51-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics think that the metaphor "make my judgment to rest/repose for a light" is merely "odd." "Many modern versions take the verb (which the KJV translates 'make rest') with the beginning of the next verse (sometimes with emendation)."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} The sentence construction is a bit odd but it doesn't substantively change the meaning of the verse, which is that God's judgement (sometimes translated "justice") will be a light for the people. Where exactly would the judgement "rest"? This is not certain. Perhaps on the wicked? Regardless, the rhetorical goals of the verse are accomplished. Some might think that the verse is communicating that God will cease to judge and that this will be a light to the people, which would indeed be incorrect teaching; but that interpretation is inconsistent with the first clause ("for a law shall proceed from me").
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|8. {{s||Isaiah|2|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|4}}
||Rebuke
||"And he shall judge among the nations and shall '''rebuke''' many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' "The Hebrew verb here lacks the negative sense of ''rebuke''—that is, it means 'to judge' rather than 'to reprove'; note the preceding parallel line: 'and he shall judge among the nations'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that God actually will rebuke peoples that come down on the negative side of God's judgements. In any dispute, there will be rebukes that God sends forth—implicitly or otherwise—for the wrongdoer. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in {{s||Proverbs|3|11-12}}, {{s||Hebrews|12|5-6}}, and {{s||Helaman|15|3}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|9. {{s||Isaiah|2|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|6}}
||Please themselves in the children of strangers
||"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they '''please themselves in the children of strangers'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is closer to things like "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} The verse concerns the idolatry of Israel. "Pleasing themselves" is ambiguous because it could certainly be used (though, admittedly, awkwardly) to refer to making deals with the people of idolatrous nations. It could refer to any type of positive activity with foreigners/strangers. Regardless of the positive activity, it is clear that doing it with foreigners symbolizes the kind of idolatry and apostasy the Lord/Isaiah mean to refer to in this verse. Thus it's unclear that there's a substantive change of meaning and, even if there were, the passage would still accomplish what it sets out to do.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|10. {{s||Isaiah|2|9}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|9}}
||Boweth down
||"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive them not" (Book of Mormon, 1830 Edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-9.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Runnells asserts that the correct translation is "and the mean man boweth down '''not''', and the great man humbleth himself [not]: therefore forgive them not."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Interestingly, the current edition of the Book of Mormon contains just this translation. "And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not." The only difference between Runnells' proposal and the current edition of the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon replaces ''them'' in "forgive them not" to ''him'' and omits the second ''not'' that the critic has in brackets. The essential message of the evils of idolatry is not affected.

But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-9.htm nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses] rejects using "not" after "boweth down." The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha]. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/93 has this verse rendered as] "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|108}} This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his ''Analysis of Textual Variants''.<ref name="skousenvariants">Royal Skousen, [https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ ''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014).</ref>{{Rp|656–60}} Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors.

But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the ''idols''. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God.

No matter which edition we're consulting here, we are not compelled to read the essential intent of the verse wrongly and, indeed, with careful reading, it seems that the essential intent of the verse will be captured by careful, studious readers no matter which translation/edition is consulted. It seems implausible to believe the author (ancient or modern) meant to endorse or encourage idolatry.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|11. {{s||Isaiah|2|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}
||Pictures
||"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant '''pictures'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant '''ships'''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic Jeremy Runnells thinks it should be either "image", "ships," or "crafts."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Yes, he includes "image" as somehow a potentially more correct translation than "pictures." Critic David P. Wright thinks it should be either "grand ships" or "precious things."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-16.htm there are at least four modern, popular, English biblical translations] that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. Popular English translations vary between referring to ships/crafts or pleasant imagery/pictures. It's not entirely certain, but the more likely correct translation is ships. Isaiah intends to use the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be brought down and taken away so as to eliminate pride. Either ships, crafts, or pleasant imagery/pictures can do/be a part of that. Thus the intent hasn't changed at all and no doctrinal error occurs.<ref>Recall that the textual history of this verse is seen as quite complex. For detailed discussion, see {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|12. {{s||Isaiah|3|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}
||Prudent
||"The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the '''prudent''', and the ancient" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In the phrase 'the prudent and the ancient', the adjectival noun ''prudent'' is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for divining. This phrase is translated, for instance, as 'the diviner and the elder' in the English Standard Version."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright agrees.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The verse concerns the Assyrians' coming invasion of Israel and carrying them away into captivity. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that "[t]he Assyrians were well known for deporting the leading figures and skilled craftspeople of a conquered society in order to exploit their talents elsewhere in the empire and to destabilize the conquered society to prevent further revolt."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|984n3.1–12.}} Thus, the intent of the verse is to use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that the most talented and wisest of Israelite society were going to be taken away captive by the Assyrians. That can include the prudent. Also, diviners may be described as prudent.

In any case, this does not alter the verses' meaning—men of importance or value are being subject to capture and deportation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|13. {{s||Isaiah|3|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Orator
||"The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent '''orator'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here in the Hebrew the sense of ''orator'' is 'enchanter.' The English word derives from the Latin verb meaning 'to pray' (see definition 1 under ''orator'' in the [''Oxford English Dictionary''])."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright derives the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Same commentary here as made for the preceding entry for {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|14. {{s||Isaiah|3|8}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Provoke the eyes of his glory
||"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to '''provoke the eyes of his glory'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Critic David Wright asserts that the better translation is "Rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse from the KJV. In the Book of Mormon it is rendered "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue'''s''' and their doings '''have been''' against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/3-8.htm 4-5 other modern, popular, English biblical translations] render it with "provoke." This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language since [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/provoke one of the definitions] of the word ''provoke'' is "to challenge" which is clearly in agreement with modern translations of the Bible.<ref name="tvedtnes">{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref>{{rp|170}} The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' similarly provides examples of writers near the time of the King James translation using "provoke" to mean "[t]o call out or summon to a fight; to challenge, to defy" and "[t]o incite (a person or animal) to anger; to annoy, vex, irritate, or exasperate, esp. deliberately."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Provoke."</ref> This fits in with Wright's suggestions of insult and defiance.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|15. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Cauls
||"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and '''cauls'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines caul as 'a netted cap or head-dress, often richly ornamented'. The Hebrew today is usually translated today as a headband."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Isaiah's intent is to communicate that the Lord will take away the most prized possessions of the women of Jerusalem because those possessions cause arrogance. Whether headbands or cauls being taken away, it doesn't change the essential message of Isaiah—and both are worn on the head.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|16. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Tires like the moon
||"and cauls and round '''tires like the moon'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "In the Hebrew, the word ''tire'' refers to something round, either a crescent or perhaps a round pendant for the neck. The use of ''tire'' here in {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} originated in the 1560 Geneva Bible: 'in that day shall the Lord take away the ornament of the slipper and the cauls and the round tires', where ''tire'' is a shortening from ''attire'' and refers to an ornament for a woman's head. The 1568 Bishop's Bible expanded on this by placing an internal note in square brackets after ''round tires'': 'and the cauls and the round tires [after the fashion of the moon]'. This interpretative remark was apparently derived from the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, where the word used for 'crescent ornament' or 'little crescent' was a diminutive of the word for ''moon''. The 1611 King James translators decided to embed this remark within the text itself by omitting the brackets, thus 'and round tires like the moon'. Since this interpretative prepositional phrase was not in the original Hebrew, it should have been placed in italics in the King James text."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This doesn't appear to be a translation error, but just a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|17. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Tablets
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the '''tablets''', and the earrings," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'' states that the best translation would be something like the Latin Vulgate's "scent-bottles." It states that the translation rendered literally is "'little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],' made use of by breathing."<ref>Horst Seebass, "נֶפֶשׁ," in ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'', ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.</ref> The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is better rendered as something like "tomb" or "grave."<ref name="boylanproblematic">Robert S. Boylan, "Some of the More Problematic Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon Suggesting Joseph Smith was Influenced by KJV Isaiah, not the Brass Plates," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', November 13, 2021, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/some-of-more-problematic-isaiah.html?q=translation+errors.</ref> This is most likely a translation variant, given the disagreement among scholars. It may not be an error at all. The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a scent-bottle, a tomb, or a grave, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. (Given the poetic nature of Isaiah, all of these resonances may be intended--their scent bottles of life are ironically death which they pack around with them.)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|18. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Earrings
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the '''earrings'''," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "amulets."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether amulets or earrings, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|19. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Wimples
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the '''wimples''', and the crisping pins" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word refers to a wide or flowing cloak. The English word used by the King James translators, ''wimple'', is quite different: 'a garment of linen or silk formerly worn by women, so folded as to envelop the head, chin, sides of the face, and neck; now retained in the dress of nuns' (the first definition under the noun wimple in the ''Oxford English Dictionary'')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|219}} The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a cloak or a wimple, (both items of clothing to cover and protect) it doesn't change the intent of the verse, which implies that the soon-to-be captive will be stripped naked literally by the Assyrians, and spiritually by their vulnerability to the pagan invaders.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|20. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Crisping pins
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the '''crisping pins'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The modern-day equivalent of ''crisping pin'' would be ''curling iron''. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Similar considerations apply as for "wimples" above. Whether they are seen as losing their fancy, well-coiffed hair or their purses containing cosmetics or riches, the ironic fall of the daughters of Zion is graphically illustrated.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|21. {{s||Isaiah|3|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|23}}
||Glasses
||"The '''glasses''', and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "papyrus garments" or "mirrors."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether glasses, papyrus garments, or mirrors, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. The irony is again thick in either case--if mirrors, then those who cannot see their spiritual state clearly will lose the mirrors in which they admire themselves in pride. If papyrus garments, these are delicate and easily stripped away by the Assyrians who will lead them into slavery--again, a dramatic type of shameful exposure to those so concerned about externals.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|22. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Rent
||"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a '''rent'''; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two Hebrew verbs, both with identical consonants, but with different meanings: one means 'to tear' and the other means 'to go around or to surround'. The noun ''rent'' derives from the first verb, but the noun ''rope'' or ''cord'' (meaning to go around the body) derives from the second. Here the word ''girdle'' takes the archaic meaning 'belt'. Modern translators have typically rendered this line in {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} as 'and instead of a belt, a rope.'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The intent of Isaiah is to contrast the former dignity and pride of the daughters of Zion with their current shame. Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, uncovering someone's nakedness was a way to make them feel shame (see, for example, {{s||Isaiah|47|3}} which reflects this attitude) so keeping "rent" (i.e. cut/gap) where perhaps a person's belt line was would uncover someone's buttocks and genitals and is an appropriate way to make the contrast between current dignity and subsequent shame or lower social status. The intent of the passage is unaltered and correct.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|23. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Stomacher
||"and instead of a '''stomacher''', a girding of sackcloth" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "The Hebrew word here, ''patigil'', is otherwise unattested. The Greek Septuagint translated it as 'a tunic of mixed purple', which has led to the general translation of this article of clothing as 'a fine garment' or 'a rich robe'. Miles Coverdale, in his Bible, translated it more specifically as ''stomacher'', 'an ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} As the Hebrew remains uncertain, this can only be seen as a translation variant rather than error. The essential message of Isaiah in contrasting fine, luxurious things with things of lower social status and shame that await the future Assyrian captives remains unaffected.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|24. {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}
||Defence
||"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a '''defence'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/4-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator's Gloss.''' Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy."<ref name="ankerberg" />{{Rp| 322.}} True, "canopy" [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-5.htm is in most popular English biblical translations]. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per ''BDB'', or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament''). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."<ref name="boylankjv">Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Errors in the Book of Mormon?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', October 8, 2015, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/kjv-errors-in-book-of-mormon.html?q=translation+errors.</ref>

Similarly, Daniel C. Peterson responded to this claim as follows in a 1993 review of an anti-Mormon book:

:In {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}, the Book of Mormon follows KJV {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in rendering the Hebrew ''chuppah'' as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.

:Their reading of ''chuppah'' is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as ''super omnem enim gloriam protectio''. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has ''pase te doxe skepaslllcsetai'', in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns ''skepas'' and ''skepc'', both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy ... shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the ''New English Bible''. The Evangelical Protestant ''New International Version'' says that the "canopy ... will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?<ref>{{Peterson:Chattanooga Cheapshot Or The Gall Of Bitterness Review:FARMS Review:1993|pages=50-51}}</ref>

This is perhaps best understood as a translator's gloss. A translator's gloss works more as an explanation of the underlying text rather than a literal translation. It makes explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly by the ancient term.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|25. {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|2}}
||Fenced
||"And he '''fenced''' it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' "The Hebrew verb for ''fenced'' in {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} is now translated as 'to dig about' or 'to hoe or weed'; in other words, "he dug about it and cleared it of its stones."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright derives basically the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The verse here is a part of verses 1–7 that describe Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that it "allegorically portrays the Lord as Isaiah's friend ... who worked so hard to ensure a productive vineyard only to be disappointed when it yielded sour grapes. The allegory, which is explained only at the end, draws in the audience, as many in ancient Judah would have had extensive experience in vineyards. Its conclusion makes puns to make its point, viz., the Lord expects ''justice'' (Heb "mishpat") but sees only ''bloodshed'' (Heb "mispah") and hopes for ''righteousness'' (Heb "tsedaqah") only to hear a ''cry'' (Heb "tse'aqah)."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|986n1–7}} "The 1828 Webster<ref>See {{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=fence}}</ref> notes that the word ''fence means'' 'a wall, hedge, ditch,' the third example fitting well with the modern renderings."<ref name="tvedtnes" />

The KJV translators may have meant to say that the Lord allegorically protected the vineyard by fencing it with a ditch. (Or earth/stones dug from the ditch are then piled as a barrier on the edge of the ditch, combining the images.) The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that, at its broadest, "to fence" meant simply to put up a type of barrier at the time of the King James Version's translation. Thus there are examples of writers from the 17th century saying, for instance, "The lands of [private] men..were '''fenced with ditches'''." This usage fits into the Book of Mormon's and KJV's usage. Other examples of writings from the 17th century say that you can fence with a battlement, walls, iron armor, shells, and so forth. To fence was to simply put up a type of barrier.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|26. {{s||Isaiah|5|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|12}}
||Viol
||"And the harp, and the '''viol''', the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Against the Book of Mormon, critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|27. {{s||Isaiah|5|17}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|17}}
||Then shall the lambs feed after their manner
||"'''Then shall the lambs feed after their manner''', and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-17.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The passage is contrasting the type of success one can have with the Lord and the grave misfortune one can have when one does not follow the Lord. The previous verse to this (v.16) begins that contrast. The intent of the passage is to say that lambs shall return to their normal feeding. Thus saying that they return to their old pasture to feed and saying that they'll feed "after their manner" is really not a substantive change in meaning. The author judges this as a translation variant rather than an error. Even if the image shifts slightly, it is inconsequential.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|28. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Carcases
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah. This appears an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|29. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Were torn
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases '''were torn''' in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were '''as refuse''' in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} To say that the corpses "were torn" in the midst of the streets ''does'' leave ambiguity since "were torn" could refer to people or perhaps animals ''actively tearing up'' dead human remains in the streets or, alternatively, it could refer to the dead bodies ''already being torn up'' in the streets. "Refuse" refers to trash. To say that their corpses were torn in the streets is functionally the same thing as saying that they're refuse. Regarding "torn", Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon...if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means 'cut of' or 'torn off'; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean 'as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offal offal].'"<ref name="boylankjv" /> In either case, the sense of horror to an Israelite audience would be profound, who would be troubled both by the desecration of a body if it were torn by scavengers ''and'' by the fact that the dead lay in the street, unburied. A proper burial was vital in the ancient world, and not receiving it was regarded as a terrible fate.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|30. {{s||Isaiah|5|30}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|30}}
||And the light is darkened in the heavens thereof
||"And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, '''and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Whether the light is darkened in the sky or by clouds, the intent of the verse isn't changed. (And what in the sky, one wonders, would darken light if not clouds?)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|31. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||It
||"Above '''it''' stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "above '''him'''" (referring to the Lord in v. 1) instead of "above it" (which would be referring to the train of his garment in v. 1).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Though it's uncertain if saying that the angel standing above the garment train is a denial that the angel stood above God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|32. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||Seraphims
||"Above it stood the '''seraphims''': each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The current edition of the Book of Mormon just has ''seraphim'' without the ''s''. Skousen's earliest reconstruction of the verses as well as [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/97 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon] have "seraphim'''s'''."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|114}} Under a certain perspective, a more correct translation of these verses would indeed render it as only "seraphim" and not "seraphim'''s'''" with an s. That is because the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already indicates that the object is pluralized. Though one could argue that there really is no error in translation given that the KJV translators were just using English conventions in order to assure readers that the object was pluralized. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of seraph could be seraph'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=seraph}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|33. {{s||Isaiah|6|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|6}}
||Seraphims
||"Then flew one of the '''seraphims''' unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The same analysis as applies to the "error" in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} in the previous entry. One anti-Latter-day Saint used a similar argument in claiming that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was in error by using the word "cherubims" from the KJV.<ref>Dave Miller, "Is the Book of Mormon from God?" ''Apologetics Press'', 31 December 2002, {{antilink|https://apologeticspress.org/is-the-book-of-mormon-from-god-1187/}}</ref> The same reasoning applies against his claim. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of cherub could be cherub'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=cherub}} </ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|34. {{s||Isaiah|6|13}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|13}}
||Whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
||"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, '''whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} Though the verse retains the substance of meaning proposed by the critic. The verse means to communicate that "[a] part of Israel would return, and like the oak and terebinth, which though they are eaten or consumed right to their substance or stumps, yet they possess a seed in them that can regenerate."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|367}} "Despite the horrific imagery of a mere ten-percent survival rate (''tenth part''), the account concludes with a hopeful image of new growth from the ravaged stump that will constitute the holy seed of restoration (see {{s||Ezra|9|2}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|989n11–13}} Is saying that the "substance" of the tree remains really a denial of the stump/stock being that substance? Are the rhetorical goals of the verse not accomplished by changing "stock/stump" to "substance"? It could be seen as the tree's "vital force" or "substance" hidden within and life apparently gone, but awaiting the chance to burst forth anew.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|35. {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|14}}
||Virgin
||"Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' This passage in {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and its proper translation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 one of the most contested in all of scripture].

The verses have been crucial for Christians who want to support Matthew's use of the passage in his Gospel to theologically support the notion that the Savior would be born of Mary, who was a virgin. Jews and the majority of biblical scholars contend, and not without merit, that the proper translation of the verse is to have merely "young woman" instead of "virgin." What's more, Christians have needed to contend that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment since the verses could be referring to a son of Ahaz that would be named Immanuel in context.

Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but [[Virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon|we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki]].

The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.<ref>Jason R. Combs, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-prophecies-old-testament/king-ahazs-sign-christ-jesus From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of Isaiah 7:14]," in ''Prophets & Prophecies of the Old Testament'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 95-122; {{Interpreter:Parry:An Approach To Isaiah Studies:2020}}; Garrett Kell, "[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/ Is Jesus Really the Virgin–Born Child] in {{s||Isaiah|7|}}?" ''The Gospel Coalition'', May 9, 2020, .</ref>

Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (''ʿalmah''), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. {{s||Gen|24|43}}). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.<ref>''NET Bible'', [https://netbible.org/bible/Isaiah+7 Isaiah 7, footnote 25].</ref> There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues.

It should be remembered that one of the reasons that {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and {{s|2|Nephi|7|14}} retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary ({{s|1|Nephi|11|13}}, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|36. {{s||Isaiah|7|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|15}}
||That
||"Butter and honey shall he eat''', that''' he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the ''New Jerusalem Bible'': "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Certainly clarification of the logic is preferable here, but the rhetorical goals of the verse are still accomplished given this translation, and there are no grave errors as constructed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|37. {{s||Isaiah|7|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|23}}
||Silverlings
||"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand '''silverlings'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew here literally reads 'a thousand of silver', where the presumed measure of weight is the shekel. The Greek Septuagint translated this phrase as 'a thousand shekels'. The use of ''silverlings'' in the English translation originated with Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible. The English word ''silvering'' was chosen because it was morphologically analyzed as a ''silver + ling'', but its value was not the same as a shekel's."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|38. {{s||Isaiah|7|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|25}}
||Mattock
||"and all the hills that shall be digged with the '''mattock'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "This is a tool that in the Hebrew is based on the verb meaning 'to pick' or 'to hoe'. The English mattock refers to a tool that is more specific than simply a pick or a hoe."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|39. {{s||Isaiah|8|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|1}}
||Man's pen
||"Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with '''a man’s pen''' concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "common/ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The concern here is over "man" and what the significance of saying "a man's pen" is. It's certainly not clear enough to communicate that Isaiah means that the pen is common or average. But it's also not erroneous.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|40. {{s||Isaiah|8|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|6}}
||Rejoice
||"Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and '''rejoice''' in Rezin and Remaliah’s son;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation "may be" "'''but melt''' (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Experts affirm that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-6.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] have "rejoice" instead of "melt in fear." Either translation works and makes enough sense in historical context. The Lord merely means to express his "dissatisfaction with Ahaz's refusal to accept the divine offer of protection."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991n5-8}} The Lord does not want Judah to associate with with Rezin and Pekah. Those that do associate themselves reject the offer and "rejoice" in Rezin and Pekah by gladly joining them in their quest to defend against the incoming invasion of the Assyrians. The ''Contemporary English Version'' (2000) translates this verse as "These people have refused the gentle waters of Shiloah and have gladly gone over to the side of King Rezin and King Pekah." This captures the spirit of what is meant to be "rejoicing" in Rezin and Pekah. Though one could also translate it as "melt in fear" and say that the people join Rezin and Pekah because of fear of them. At worst, "rejoice" is merely a translation variant; and at best, it's an entirely correct translation and "melt in fear" is in error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|41. {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|12}}
||All them
||"Say ye not, A confederacy, to '''all them''' to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "...to all that this people calls a confederacy/conspiracy."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The Book of Mormon omits the "them" from {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} and just has "say ye not a confederacy to all to whom this people shall say a confederacy." The Book of Mormon's sentence construction doesn't change substantively from Wright' proposal.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|42. {{s||Isaiah|8|19-20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|19-20}}
||To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
||"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they shall speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-19.htm Bible Hub v. 18] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-20.htm Bible Hub v. 20])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew is obscure and that the KJV/ Book of Mormon translation is also obscure. He asks us to compare the following modern translation "And should people say to you, 'Go and consult ghosts and wizards that whisper and mutter'–a people should certainly consult its gods and the dead on behalf of the living! As regards instruction and testimony, without doubt this is how they will talk, and hence there will be no dawn for them" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The current edition of the Book of Mormon reads as follows (differences from KJV bolded): "And when they shall say unto you''':''' Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards '''that peep and''' mutter'''—'''should not a people seek unto their God for the living to '''hear from''' the dead? To the law and to the testimony''';''' '''and''' if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So the only real difference to which Wright draws our eye is the KJV/BoM's bad (?) translation of "to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." This can only be considered a translation variant and not an error on Wright's theory (if indeed the Hebrew is obscure). But the Book of Mormon and KJV likely capture the better sense of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|43. {{s||Isaiah|8|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|22}}
||And; and they shall be driven
||"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This in part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is confirmed uncertain by scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage is not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people to not practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s||Isaiah|19|3}}; {{s||Leviticus|19|31}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|18|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or that they look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference. This again looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|44. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation
||"'''Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation''', when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For if there were to be any break of day for that [land] which is in straits" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish" (''Revised Standard Version''); and "For is not everything dark as night for a country in distress" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} It seems that the substantive meaning of the verse is not changed from Wright's proposals. The verse simply means that the dimness or gloom will not be like it was when these nations mentioned were distressed or vexed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|45. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Grievously afflict
||"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more '''grievously afflict''' by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' The better translation is "but in the future '''he will honor''' Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}}

The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in {{s||Isaiah|9|1}}. It reads: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}} reads: "Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict <s>her</s> by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." Thus, the Book of Mormon makes the verse refer to the Red Sea. Critics have made fun of the Book of Mormon for this and leveled other criticisms. See [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|here]] and [[Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?|here]] for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen.

We now must ask—could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on his own situation or experience? [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We know that there were modifications done by Nephi]] to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on his own situation that Nephi calls "likening" ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula.

Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" ({{s||Numbers|14|25}}; {{s||Numbers|21|4}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|1|40}}; {{s_short||Deuteronomy|2|1}}). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.<ref name="skousenvariants" />{{Rp|732–33}} Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least his best reconstruction of it).<ref name="skousenearliest">{{Book:Skousen:The Earliest Text}}</ref>{{Rp|119}}

Again, [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|Nephi was "likening" Isaiah to his current situation and understanding all throughout the Book of Mormon quotations of Isaiah]] by changing text ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). It's likely that something similar is going on here.

This may thus be an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively liken the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. The intent of the verse ''is changed'' and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah's original text meant. But it ''isn’t'' an error regarding what ''Nephi'' meant to communicate about God. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|46. {{s||Isaiah|9|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|2}}
||Shadow of death
||"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the '''shadow of death''', upon them hath the light shined." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew term ''almäwet'' which this verse translates should be simply "darkness." It is not connected with the term ''mäwet'' "death."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-2.htm More than a few modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "the land of the shadow of death." The verse merely "symbolizes the mortal world where there is darkness, and death."<ref name="bookofmormonref">{{Book:Largey:Book of Mormon Reference Companion}} </ref>{{Rp|374}} Whether saying "the land of darkness", "the land of the shadow of death", or something close to it, the meaning or referent is still the same: the mortal, fallen world/earth.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|47. {{s||Isaiah|9|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|5}}
||For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise
||"'''For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise''', and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For every boot that tramps with noise/in battle."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon changes this verse to read "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood—but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|119}} The verse concerns imminent military oppression. "Military oppression is symbolized by the ''yoke'' (10.27; 14.25), the ''bar'' (10.24), the ''rod'' (10.24; 14.4; {{s||Gen|49|10}}), and trampling ''boots''."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|993n4–5}} The "confused noise" of the battle could be correctly interpreted as the trampling boots. Regardless, Isaiah means to say that the military oppressors will be overthrown and that the oppression will be fuel for fire. The reader can still come to the accurate conclusion that all of it—the battles with confused noise and the garments rolled in blood—will be burned. The details are different; the message is the same.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|48. {{s||Isaiah|10|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|4}}
||Without me
||"'''Without me''' they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the KJV's translation is "doubtful." The better translation is supposedly "so that they do not cower among the prisoners" (''Revised English Bible''); "Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners" (''Revised Standard Version'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verse is meant to merge with the rhetorical question of the previous verse which reads (''New Revised Standard Version'') "To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain?" The verse can still make sense as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon, since the verse simply means to say that "[d]uring the day of visitation the wicked will fall in the destruction or become prisoners with other captives."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|376–37}} The ''without me'' can then function as the Lord saying "without my intervention and aid, these people will have to crouch among prisoners or die." Meaning has changed but not significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|49. {{s||Isaiah|10|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|15}}
||As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood
||"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? '''as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verses concern the Lord declaring his superior power against the Assyrians. The Lord uses the imagery of an axe and saw and essentially says that they can't declare their superiority over the one who wields them. The verses still accomplish their rhetorical goals. The detail has changed, the intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|50. {{s||Isaiah|10|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|18}}
||As when a standardbearer fainteth
||"And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be '''as when a standardbearer fainteth'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the better translation is something like "and it will be as when '''a sick man''' wastes away," "and it will be as when '''a weak person''' despairs," or "and it will be as '''when someone''' falls in a fit."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Most translations have something like the first suggestion. Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm at least three modern, popular, English biblical translations] carry something like "as when a standard-bearer faints." The superior translation clearly seems to be "when a sick man wastes away" since the verse is trying to describe how the Lord "destroys both soul and body as well as that man's 'forest and fruitful field'." The verse may still work with "standard-bearer faints", however. ''Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[t]he 'standard-bearer' was chosen for his heroic strength and stature. When he 'fainted' and gave way, what hope was there that others would survive? A more correct rendering, however, gives ‘As a sick man pineth away.’" Similarly, ''Pulpit Commentary'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[u]tter prostration and exhaustion is indicated, whichever way the passage is translated."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|51. {{s||Isaiah|10|27}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|27}}
||The anointing
||And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of '''the anointing''' ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is something like "the yoke shall be destroyed because of fatness." He asserts that some emend the text of the masoretic text of Isaiah (the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have) since it doesn't make clear sense.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-27.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] agree with the critic though some retain a reference to an anointing with oil. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "because of oil."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|378}} The best way to translate that Hebrew and expand it into a more coherent idea is still uncertain. Thus this can only be considered a translation variant.

The essential message of this passage is that the yoke of Assyria's oppression against Israel will be taken off. Different translations use different imagery that are compatible with that essential message. With fatness, the yoke will be taken off or fall off of Israel because they have become fat and the yoke is too small. The ''Douay-Rheims'' translation of this verse makes the imagery mean that the oil will rot off the yoke. Anointing is typically associated with ordaining someone to success. Thus, with the translation as it stands in the KJV and Book of Mormon, perhaps the imagery can be that God has ordained or anointed Israel to be successful before her enemies and thus the yoke will be destroyed because of God's protection of Israel. Thus, given different translations, the detail certainly changes, but the essential meaning does not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|52. {{s||Isaiah|11|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|3}}
||Make him of quick understanding
||"And shall '''make him of quick understanding''' in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the underlying Hebrew translated as "make him of quick understanding" is "unclear" but "probably" doesn't mean "make him of quick understanding." The better translation is "probably" something like, "He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord" (''New American Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> The chapter speaks about a coming Messiah. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/11-3.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this passage as the second suggestion from the critic. The gist of the verse as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon is that the Messiah will be filled with great knowledge—though arguably in context one would only be said to be ''genuinely'' of quick understanding if one feared God and obeyed him. Thus "reverence for the Lord" is the best evidence of "quick understanding." The true wisdom and genius, we might say, is in knowing to obey God, and not simply because one quickly masters man's learning or priorities.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|53. {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|15}}
||Dry-shod
||"he shall. . .make men go over '''dry-shod'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Gloss.''' "The past participial phrase ''dry-shod'' is equivalent to the adverbial phrase 'with dry shoes'. Here the Hebrew as well as the Greek and the Latin translations simply use the phrase 'in sandals', without any reference to getting one's sandals wet."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The adverbial phrase still makes sense in context, however. The whole verse in {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} reads as follows: "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod." Scholars recognize that this is an allusion to the Exodus when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with dry feet.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|997n15}} This is best understood as a translator’s gloss: the translation may make explicit what the ancient readers would have understood implicitly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|54. {{s||Isaiah|13|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|12}}
||Wedge
||"I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden '''wedge''' of Ophir" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' The better translation is "more precious. . .than '''the gold''' of Ophir."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Regardless of the translation, the essence is that a man is being made more precious than a piece of gold from Ophir. No significant alteration in meaning.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|55. {{s||Isaiah|13|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|14}}
||Roe
||"and it shall be as the chased '''roe'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In English, a roe is a species of small deer. The word in the Hebrew refers to a gazelle. The word ''gazelle'' entered English in the late 1500s and early 1600s and would not have been readily available to the King James translators. All the earlier English translations, dating back to Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible, had the phrase ''chased doe'' rather than ''chased roe''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} Both the gazelle and roe—speedy hooved herbivores often hunted—work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|56. {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|15}}
||That is joined
||"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one '''that is joined''' unto them shall fall by the sword." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "who are caught/captured."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse intends to create a type of parallelism between the first and second clauses. It doesn't seem to be a substantive shift in meaning to say that all who are caught will be killed and all who are joined to the people who are caught will be killed. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon changes "found" in {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} to read "proud" and substitutes "the wicked" for "them" such that the verse reads "[e]very one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|57. {{s||Isaiah|13|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|21}}
||Satyrs
||"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and '''satyrs''' shall dance there." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word here in the singular is sa'ir, which in the Hebrew refers to hairy demons or monsters that inhabit the deserts. This word has been incorrectly translated into its phonetically similar Greek word ''satyr'', which refers to a woodland god that is half-human and half-beast."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} No significant change in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-21.htm The vast majority of popular English biblical translations] render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr satyrs] (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures). The intent of the verse is to communicate that Babylon will be made desolate and no man shall live there. Instead, animals will infest their lands and inhabit them. No significant change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|58. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Wild beasts
||"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast", "jackal", or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is at best not erroneous at all and at worst just too broad. Certainly there is no shift away from the intent of the passage. This too looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|59. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Of the islands
||"And the wild beasts '''of the islands''' shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be to omit "of the islands" and render it simply "wild/desert beasts" or specifically "jackals" or "hyenas."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse concerns the Lord's/Isaiah's prediction that Babylon will revert to its primitive condition when it is overthrown. Whether "hyenas" or "wild beasts of the islands" crying in the towers of Babylon does not matter or change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|60. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Dragons
||"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and '''dragons''' in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Runnells asserts that the better translation would be to replace "dragons" with "jackals."<ref name="runnells1769" /> [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-22.htm The majority of popular English biblical translations] render this verse with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal jackals]" instead of dragons though at least one modern, popular translation keep dragons. "Dragon" could refer to merely a snake at the time of the King James translation, according to the ''Oxford English Dictionary''.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Dragon."</ref> One places "hedgehogs" here and another "wild dogs." We can make similar commentary here as we did for the "of the islands" error. The verses concern a reversion of Babylon to a primitive, uncivilized, even dangerous condition when the Lord desolates it. Whether jackals or dragons in the palaces, it doesn't really matter. The verses are meant to depict the desolated and grim condition of Babylon after the Lord ravages it. Details have changed, the underlying imagery and intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|61. {{s||Isaiah|14|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|2}}
||Handmaids
||"And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and '''handmaids'''; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Skousen says that "[i]n this verse the sense of handmaid is 'a female slave', especially since the paired noun ''servant'' means 'a male slave'. In biblical contexts, ''handmaid'' usually means 'a female personal servant', but not here."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} But a handmaid in the [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/handmaid ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' understands] a handmaid to be a "maid that waits at hand; '''a female servant''' or attendant." Similarly, the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the main usage of handmaid is to refer to "[a] '''female''' personal attendant or '''servant'''."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Handmaid."</ref> Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-2.htm Popular biblical translations more contemporary to the 1800s as well as two more modern translations] render it as "handmaids."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|62. {{s||Isaiah|14|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|4}}
||Golden city
||"And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the '''golden city''' ceased!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen claims that the better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the '''assaulting''' ceased."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright asserts that the KJV translation is "doubtful" and that the translation should "probably" be "boisterous behavior, frenzy, [or] arrogance."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}

This is Isaiah's taunt song against Babylon. Calling Babylon "the golden city" that is laid down and humbled is a great way to taunt Babylon given that Isaiah would then be contrasting their former glory with their current misery. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-4.htm Five other biblical translations (two of which are modern and three much older)] render it as "golden city." Scholar Seth Erlandson makes a compelling case for translating this passage as "golden city."<ref>Seth Erlandsson, ''The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–Isaiah 14:23'' (Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970), 29–32; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, "Seth Erlandsson on מדהבה meaning 'golden city' in {{s||Isaiah|14|4}}," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', 11 November 2022, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/seth-erlandsson-on-meaning-golden-city.html?q=golden+city.</ref> Given that "golden city", "assaulting", and "boisterous behavior, frenzy, or arrogance" would all be referring to Babylon ceasing or Babylon's action ceasing, this isn't a translation error at all. The meaning or referent does not change no matter which way the verse is translated! At best we have no error. At worst we have a translation variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|63. {{s||Isaiah|14|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|5}}
||Scepter
||"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the '''scepter''' of the rulers." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the '''rod''' of the rulers."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} But [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-5.htm the vast majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "scepter" or "sceptre" instead of rod. Either way, it does not seem that either the essential object being referred to or the ethical message change. In Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (the best reconstruction of the original words dictated by Joseph Smith), the text reads "scepter'''s'''" in the plural.<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|127}} This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text—a sceptre represents the rod of force or correction used by a sovereign to rule. This is a distinction without a difference, though KJV translators would have been more familiar with the more fancy and elaborate sceptre compared to the simple rod.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|64. {{s||Isaiah|14|11}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|11}}
||Viols
||"Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy '''viols''': the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-11.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|65. {{s||Isaiah|14|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|12}}
||Weaken
||"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground which did '''weaken''' the nations!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two meanings for this verb in the Hebrew: one means 'to weaken', the other 'to defeat or to lay prostrate'. In this context, the second of these works better and is the one adopted in modern translations, such as the English Standard Version: 'How you are cut down to the ground, '''you who laid the nations low'''!'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm Eight other popular English biblical translations (six of which are modern)] render this verse as "weaken."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|66. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockatrice Cockatrice]
||"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a '''cockatrice'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The cockatrice is a mythical serpent with a deadly glance that is hatched by a reptile from a cock's egg. However, the Hebrew word here is based on a verb meaning 'to hiss' and simply refers to a viper or adder."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This verse provides "imagery explaining that while an oppressor of the Philistines may perish, another, more severe will follow." It's "a metaphor suggesting that Philistia's next oppressor (the cockatrice or deadly viper) will somehow be related to its first (the serpent or snake), perhaps a descendant."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|388}} Either a cockatrice or viper/adder can accomplish the rhetorical goals of the verse. Some might think that a cockatrice is somehow more powerful than a fiery flying serpent. That may be the case. Who exactly knows the power differentials that Philistia's next oppressors would have? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem, which the Assyrians never managed to do. around 587 BC. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II Sargon] put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|p.1001n14.28–32}} Or, alternatively, the Philistines may have considered themselves oppressed by the Assyrians, and so revolted. But, whatever they thought of the oppression that led to their revolt, it was nothing compared to the brutal treatment they would receive from Sargon II when he arrived to besiege their land to reassert his control.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|67. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||Fiery flying serpent
||"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a '''fiery flying serpent'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "The correct rendition of the Hebrew for {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} should be 'a flying fiery serpent'. The compound ''fiery serpent'' is represented in the Hebrew by a single word ''saraf'', which comes from the verb ''saraf'' 'to burn'; here we have a flying serpent whose sting burns (in other words, 'a flying poisonous serpent')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-29.htm Five other popular, English biblical translations (two of which are modern)] render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|68. {{s||Isaiah|29|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|27}}
||Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay
||"And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: '''Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay'''. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Erorr – Change in Intent.''' Critic David P. Wright claims that a better translation would be: "How perverse of you! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one that formed it, 'He has no creative intelligence?'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Wright is correct that this verse's translation changes the meaning of the original text significantly. Isaiah means to use a metaphor that "shows the foolishness of mortals who pretend to be mightier than their Creator (cf. {{s||D&C|10|5-34}})."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|391}}

As currently rendered in the Book of Mormon, the verse means that the wicked who hide their works in darkness are telling God that His "turning of things upside down" will be esteemed as the potter's clay. The "turning of things upside down" might refer to God threatening to humble the mighty and powerful by sending them into slavery. (Compare the daughters of Zion verses which are full of ironic contrasts between the glamorous, worldly daughters before and after their captivity.) Here the wicked are so arrogant that they dismiss God's ability to cause a revolution in their comfortable lives. But this is as foolish, says the Book of Mormon's rendition, as a clay pot thinking that the potter cannot throw it back into the clay for destruction and remixing into something new if he decides to.

The Book of Mormon, in line with the translation outlined by Wright, already teaches us that God is all-searching and all-wise.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|9|44}}; {{s||Mosiah|27|41}}; {{s_short||Mosiah|29|19}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|69. {{s||Isaiah|29|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|32}}
||Reproveth
||"And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that '''reproveth''' in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The verb ''reprove'' is used four times in the Book of Mormon, all in biblical quotes. The King James use of ''reprove'' adds a negative sense that is not in the Hebrew original. In all cases, the neutral verb 'judge' would be a more appropriate translation."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-21.htm Twelve other popular, English biblical translations (only two of which are modern)] render this verse similar to how the Book of Mormon and King James Version do. The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that the judge at the city gates actually will reprove those who receive the negative side of his judgements. To be found guilty or liable in a court is always an implicit reproof of behavior. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove—indeed, one cannot do one without the other. One arbitrates by finding who is in the right and who in the wrong, and arranging a settlement of disparate interests. If one side gets everything they want, the other is reproved. If neither side gets everything they want, there is an implicit reproof of some aspect of both their conduct, and their inability to resolve the matter themselves.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|70. {{s|1|John|5|7}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||The potential presence of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma Johannine Comma] in {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_john/5-7.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' This one is considered a stretch even by the scholar with whom the author corresponded. The passages from {{s|1|John|5|7}} and {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}} just don't line up like the critics might want them to.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|71. {{s||Exodus|20|13}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|13|21}}
||Kill
||"Thou shalt not '''kill'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/20-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Some have said that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of the word "kill" here is incorrect and that one should have "murder" instead. There's a complex discussion to be had regarding proper translation that can be found, in part, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill here]. Nevertheless, these debates would have been of little moment to the Book of Mormon's audience, who understood that the command against killing referred to murder, and not to some other forms of death dealing (e.g., self defense, judicial punishment, or lawful warfare).
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|72. {{s||Isaiah|53|8}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|14|8}}
||He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
||"'''He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?''' for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/53-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright thinks that the first phrase might be rendered as the KJV has it though many moderns translate it as "by oppression and judgment he was taken away" (New International Version).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The second phrase, Wright tells us, is obscure in the Hebrew. It has been rendered variously: "who could consider his stock/descendants," "who could consider his fate," "who could describe his abode," or "who could plead his cause." This can only be considered a translation variant. It is not ideal since "declaring a generation" isn't very clear in meaning, though it can plausibly be interpreted to include Wright's suggestions and especially the last one.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|73. {{s||Matthew|23|37}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|10|5}}
||Chickens
||"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref> This looks like seeking to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|74. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candle
||"do men light a '''candle''' and put it under bushel?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, 'a small oil lamp."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to use the metaphor of hiding a light when needed to guide towards goodness and truth. Both a candle and lamp can do that; the source of light is simply a question of culture. Even a translation as far from the original as "no one turns on their flashlight and then hides it under the bedclothes" would convey the same message.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|75. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candlestick
||"nay, but on a '''candlestick'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to say that a person shouldn't hide their spiritual light but show it to others. Both a lamp/lampstand and candle/candlestick are effective imagery for communicating that message. See above discussion.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|76. {{s||Matthew|5|27}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|27}}
||By them of old time
||"Ye have heard that it was said '''by them of old time''', Thou shalt not commit adultery:" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscripts.''' Newer translations of the Bible, based on the earliest extant manuscripts, omit the phrase "by them of old time." But there is no significant change of meaning nor intent in the verse, and Jesus is quoting {{s||Exodus|20|14}} and {{s||Deuteronomy|5|18}}. Those are certainly references to prophets "of old time" relevant to Jesus. Further, as Robert S. Boylan has observed, "While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase [translated as "by them of old time"] τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in {{s||Matt|5|21}} and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either."<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Mistranslations in the Sermon at the Temple?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', May 5, 2016, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/kjv-mistranslations-in-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors. Citing Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 202.</ref> This cannot be considered an error. Only an evidence that [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|the Book of Mormon has the King James Bible as its "base text" for translation]].

One critic takes this further and says that "by them of old time" is a ''mistranslation'' of the Greek ''tois archaiois''. It is more properly rendered as "to them of old time" suggesting that God is the one that told the prophets "thou shalt not commit adultery."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|121}} This is correct,<ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/six-antitheses The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus]," in ''The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture'', ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 96, 107n14.</ref> but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity, nor does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't retain its status as the "most correct book." The ethical message is the same: don't commit adultery and don't look on someone to lust after them. Whether it was said ''by'' the prophets of old (which is still correct) or ''to'' the prophets of old doesn't matter at all! If prophets speak the word of the Lord, anything they ''say to the people'' has alrady been ''said to them'' by God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|77. {{s||Matthew|5|30}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|30}}
||Should be cast into hell
||"And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body '''should be cast into hell'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that this should read "that thy whole body should go into hell" instead of "be cast into hell." Larson asserts that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew support this reading.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|122}} The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. [https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-30.htm Many popular English biblical translations (including a few modern translations)] render this verse as "cast into hell" though the rest vary between saying "go into hell", "thrown into hell", "depart into hell", and "fall into hell" so, again, the essential intent of the verse is retained no matter the translation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|78. {{s||Matthew|5|40}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|40}}
||Coat
||"if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy '''coat''', let him have thy cloak also" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-40.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Greek word for ''coat'' is ''chiton'' 'tunic', which actually refers to an inner garment worn under the coat, next to the skin, whereas the Greek word for ''cloak'' is ''himation'', a more general word used to refer to an outer garment (such as a coat or a cloak)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} "Jesus is saying that, if we are sued even for a trifling amount, rather than countersuing and ratcheting up the hostility, we should be willing to give up what is rightfully ours to defuse the situation."<ref>"What the Bible says about Outer Cloak (From Forerunner Commentary)," ''Bible Tools'', accessed 22 September 2022, https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/11587/Outer-Cloak.htm.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|79. {{s||Matthew|5|44}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|44}}
||Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and ... which despitefully use you
||"But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-44.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Newer translations based on earlier manuscripts do render things differently. The newer translations are more simple, something along the lines of, "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you."<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, ''The New Testament, A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 14.</ref> The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|80. {{s||Matthew|6|4}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|4}}
||Openly
||"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee '''openly'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' The word "openly" in this verse [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-4.htm is omitted in most modern, popular, English biblical translations]. That the Lord will reward us openly is repeated in verses 6 and 18 of {{s||Matthew|6|}} and verses 6 and 18 of {{s|3|Nephi|3|}}. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek word αποδιδωμι (ah-poh-dih-doh-mee) while others don't.<ref>For a case in favor of "openly" being implied in the Greek, see Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 205.</ref> Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it remains correct doctrine. {{s||Proverbs|10|22}} says that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." {{s|2|Corinthians|9|8}} says that "God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." In other words, God is able to bless us abundantly with riches and provisions so that we can continue to do good to others at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"? Thus this is either a case where there is no translation error at all or there is an intelligible type change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|81. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Temptation
||"And lead us not into '''temptation''', but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' One critic claims that "temptation" should be rendered as "the time of trial."<ref name="alcase" /> [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-13.htm The majority of popular, academic, modern, English biblical translations], however, disagree with the author. Further, "the time of trial" ''is'' "temptation." To "tempt" someone is "to put them to the test," or to have a "trial" of their strength or character.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "tempt" as "'''''In Scripture'''', to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{ea}}</ref> Webster also regards "temptation" as meaning "trial," and even includes this precise phrase ("Lead us not into ''temptation''") as an illustration.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{io}}</ref>

The critic is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word, and sees fault where there is none.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|82. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Evil
||"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from '''evil''': For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' One critic claims that "evil" should be rendered as "the evil one."<ref name="alcase" /> Evil is personified in "the evil one." Satan was seen as the ultimate source of all evil; to be delivered from him was to be delivered from evil, and vice-versa. At most this is a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|83. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen
||"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscript.''' Critics believe that this verse, known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxology#Lord's_Prayer_doxology the doxology], was not original to Jesus; that Jesus didn't actually say this. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain these phrases. The inclusion of the doxology in {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}} is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See: [[Question: Did Joseph Smith ignorantly include an error from the Bible into the Book of Mormon when including the Lord's Prayer in 3 Nephit 13:13?|here]]. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. The doxology is probably based on a reading of {{s|1|Chronicles|29|10-11}} which reads "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." Robert S. Boylan, citing John W. Welch, offered other important considerations that provide plausibility for the utterance of the doxology by Jesus.<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "[https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-sermon-on-mount-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Temple, and the Doxology]," ''Scriptural Mormonism'',26 August 2014.</ref> Swiss theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Luz Ulrich Luz] observed that "[t]he three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts." He then argued that {{s|2|Timothy|4|18}} and Didache 8:2 "show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology."<ref>Ulrich Luz, ''{{s||Matthew|1|7}}: A Continental Commentary'', trans. William C. Linss (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1985), 385; as cited in Patrick D. Miller, ''They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438n118.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|84. {{s||Matthew|6|28}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|28}}
||Lillies
||"consider the '''lilies''' of the field" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-28.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here the Greek word ''krinon'', modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The verses are meant to suggest that the birds of the air, flowers of the field, and other things do not worry about the span of their lives nor worry about what they're going to eat to survive and yet the Lord provides for them. The intent of the verse is unchanged.{{Rp|215}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|85. {{s||Matthew|7|2}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}
||Again
||"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you '''again'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/7-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is erroneous.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|123}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Welch John W. Welch] responded as follows in the ''FARMS Review'': "Example 3 concerns the difference between 'measured to you' (which appears in older Matthean texts) and "measured to you again" (which appears in KJV {{s||Matthew|7|2}} and {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}). Larson says that I 'downplay the difference among the variants at {{s||Matthew|7|2}}' (p. 123). He does not say, however, why I find the difference to be negligible. The difference is over the presence or absence of the Greek prefix anti- (English again). I believe that 'with or without this prefix on the verb, the sentence means exactly the same thing.'<ref name="welchsermon">John W. Welch, ''The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 155.</ref> Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.'<ref name="welchsermon" /> Larson tries to salvage his point by arguing that 'it can usually (but not always) be shown what Greek text the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions were based upon' and 'it is often such fine distinctions that are clues in textual criticism' (p. 123). But if one were to imagine a world in which no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament existed, scholars would not stake their reputations on claiming to know for sure (given the clear sense of the passage) whether ''antimetrethesetai'' or ''metrethesetai'' stood behind an English translation that renders {{s||Matthew|7|2}} as 'measured again.' Similarly, one cannot be sure what Aramaic verb originally was used here or what version of a Nephite verb stood on the plates of Mormon behind the translation 'measured again.' In light of the fact that {{s||Luke|6|38}} contains the word ''antimetrethesetai'' ('measured again'), is there any reason not to believe that early Christians used the words ''antimetrethesetai'' and ''metrethesetai'' interchangeably? Larson has not shown that this is one of those cases where one can determine from the translation what the underlying text was, or that this is one of those 'fine distinctions' of textual analysis (because there is virtually no distinction in meaning here). If no difference exists, Larson has not proved that {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is in error."<ref>{{Welch:Approaching New Approaches Review Of New Approaches To:FARMS Review:1994|pages=159-160}}</ref> John Gee and Royal Skousen also address these issues for those who want to learn more.<ref>{{Gee:La Trahison Des Clercs On The Language And:FARMS Review:1994|pages=67–71, 99–101.}}, {{Skousen:Critical Methodology And The Text Of The Book:FARMS Review:1994|pages=121–29}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|86. {{s||Isaiah|52|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|20|45}}
||Sprinkle
||"So he shall '''sprinkle''' many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/52-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The Hebrew verb for ''sprinkle'' doesn't make much sense in context here. Other translations have made this verse something like "the nations '''shall marvel''' upon him." Joseph Smith in his "New Translation" of the Bible replaced ''sprinkle'' with '''''gather''''', showing the difficulty of rendering this verse.<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/52-15.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render it as "sprinkle." Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1051nB}} If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation ''error''. At worst, it can only be a translation ''variant''. The question really becomes, if the verse is translated as "sprinkle", sprinkle with what? And how will that sprinkling be part of what causes kings to shut their mouths in the Lord's presence?
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|87. {{s||Micah|5|14}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|21|18}}
||Groves
||"And I will pluck up thy '''groves''' out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/micah/5-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "Here the noun ''grove'' is used to refer to a sacred grove used for cultic rites. However, the original Hebrew in these passages refers to ''Asherim'', that is, wooden images of the Canaanite goddess Asherah."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Given that "groves" refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah: that idolatry is wrong ({{s||Mosiah|13|12-13}}) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. [https://biblehub.com/micah/5-14.htm Four other popular, English biblical translations (only one modern)] render this verse as "groves."

It's difficult to see this even as a mistranslation, since the wooden images were conceptually trees or groves anyway. Some scholars believe that they actually ''were'' trees sometimes:

<blockquote>
These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that ''asherim'' [the wooden images] were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel).<ref> Ellen White, "[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/ Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?]," ''Biblical Archaeology Society'' (3 August 2023).</ref>
</blockquote>

"Grove" may in fact give more nuance and depth to the ideas being conveyed. It is certainly not a mistranslation or misleading rendering.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|88. {{s||Isaiah|54|11-12}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|22|11-12}}
||Stones and architectural details mentioned
||"O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-11.htm Bible Hub v. 11] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-12.htm Bible Hub v. 12])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously claims that "the meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV cannot be considered accurate." He asks us to compare the Revised English Bible: "Storm-battered city, distressed and desolate, now I shall set your stones in the finest mortar and lay your foundations with sapphires; I shall make your battlements of red jasper and your gates of garnet; all your boundary stones will be precious jewels."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} So the main differences are to substitute "finest mortar" for "fair colours", "battlements" for "windows", "red jasper" for "agates", and "garnet" for "carbuncle." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbuncle Carbuncle] ''is'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet garnet] so that complaint doesn't make much sense. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlement battlement] is a type of window so it likewise doesn't make much sense to fuss over it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agate Agate] is similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper jasper]. The overall intent of the passage is to state that "[t]he new Jerusalem is adorned with precious stones and gems by builders supernaturally instructed; cf. {{s||Ezekiel|28|13-19}}. Christian apocalyptic literature draws on this imagery to describe the new Jerusalem ({{s||Rev|21|18-21}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1053n11–17}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|89. {{s||Mark|16|15-18}} ~ {{s||Mormon|9|22-24}}; {{s||Ether|4|18}}
||Longer ending of Mark in the books of Mormon and Ether
||"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 15] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-16.htm Bible Hub v. 16] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-17.htm Bible Hub v. 17] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 18])
||'''Not An Error.''' See our commentary on this issue [[Question: Why does part of the longer ending of Mark show up in the Book of Mormon?|here]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|90. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|5}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|45}}
||Easily
||"Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not ''easily'' provoked, thinketh no evil;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1611] |[https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Critic James H. Snowden claims that "in incorporating 1 Cor. 13:5, in the 'Book of Moroni,' the phrase 'is not easily provoked,' reads as in the Authorized Version, but the word 'easily' is not found in the Greek and is dropped in the Revised Version. Joe's 'Urim and Thummim,' however, did not detect the absence of this word and he put it in."<ref name="snowden"></ref> The Greek word translated as "easily" is ''παροξύνεται'' (pah-roh-HOO-neh-tai). That word refers to ''irritability'' and irritability certainly entails being "easily" angered or provoked. While the word "easily" is not present in the Greek, its presence in the Book of Mormon does not constitute a mistranslation of the Greek.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|91. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|1}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|47}}
||The use of "charity" in {{s||Moroni|7|}}, relying upon the KJV rendering of "agape." Apparently it should just be rendered "love."
||"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' It's difficult to know exactly how passages like {{s||Moroni|7|47}} would be translated. There we learn that "charity is the pure love of Christ." Should we translate that passage as "love is the pure love of Christ"? Or "agape is the pure love of Christ"? Maybe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be a substantive improvement on just retaining "charity" in the verse, especially for a Christianized 19th century audience.
|-
|}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Lord Speaks "After the Manner of their Language"====
All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki|author=Joseph Smith|date=July 1838|vol=1|num=3|start=42|end=43}}</ref>

We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|1|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s|2|Nephi|31|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Joseph Smith quoted from {{s||Malachi|4|5-6}} in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|128|17-18}}. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."<ref>Complete article and citation can be read [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|here]]</ref> Joseph here is content with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% exact in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.

The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|loose translation versus tight translation]].)

The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation.

Brigham Young taught:

<blockquote>
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write 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 re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.<ref>{{JDmini|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|pages=311}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. For Latter-day Saints, it is the message—and not the precise words—that matter when determining whether divine inspiration lies behind a particular message.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}



[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]
[[Category:Difficult Questions for Mormons]]

[[es:Pregunta: Si el Libro de Mormón es una traducción exacta, ¿por qué habría que contiene errores de traslación que existen en la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Se o Livro de Mórmon é uma tradução exata, por isso que conteria erros translacionais que existem na Bíblia King James?]]

KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon

2026-04-13T18:57:18Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
{{Navigation:Bible}}{{blankline}}
{{Navigation:Book of Mormon}}{{blankline}}
<h1>KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon</h1>
'''Summary:''' The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.

Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the ''CES Letter'' asks, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"<ref>Jeremy T. Runnells, ''CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts'' (n.p.: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 14 {{ea}}.</ref>

Other critics focus on a statement from Joseph Smith declaring that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book" and ask, "If the Book of Mormon is ‘the most correct book of any on earth,’ why would it contain translational errors that exist in the King James Bible?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10, 83}}; {{CriticalWork:Martin:Kingdom of the Cults|pages=205}}; La Roy Sunderland, "Mormonism," ''Zion’s Watchman'' (New York) 3, no. 7 (17 February 1838) {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/BOMP&CISOPTR=1730&REC=19}}</ref>

There are four questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:

#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Is the claimed "translation error" actually an error?]]
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?|Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV?]] We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
#[[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?|Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways?]] Joseph Smith it "the most correct book on earth" not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches [[The_Book_of_Mormon_as_the_most_correct_book#Why_did_Joseph_Smith_say_that_the_Book_of_Mormon_was_the_.22most_correct_book.22.3F|a person would get closer to God and His nature than by reading any other book]].
# [[KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon#Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?|If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?]]

Our answers, in brief, are as follows:

# The Book of Mormon indeed does contain some King James Bible translation errors.
# There are 12 different reasons to believe that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize from the King James Bible in order to create the Book of Mormon. ''None'' of the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the King James Bible.
# In no case do any of the errors teach incorrect doctrine or compel someone to believe something false.
# God allowed the errors to persist in the Book of Mormon because He speaks to His "servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.24?lang=eng Doctrine & Covenants 1:24]). God can achieve all of His divine goals without a perfect translation.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #1: Do the translation errors prove that Joseph Smith plagiarized from his contemporary King James Version to create the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
{{BMCentral|title=What Vision Guides Nephi's Choice of Isaiah Chapters?|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/what-vision-guides-nephis-choice-of-isaiah-chapters|number=38}}

First, we deal with the accusation of plagiarism. There are many reasons to reject the notion that Joseph Smith either made use of a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon or had one nearby that he was memorizing prior to or at the time of the translation.

====Plagiarism is implausible #1—Errors not unique to 1769====

As a corrective to the ''CES Letter'', the "errors" reported in the King James Bible are not unique to the 1769 version. Five major editions of the KJV were published in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Many minor editions/revisions have been made since the 1769 edition.

The 1769 text is the standard text of most King James Bibles today including that published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only the 1611 and 1769 editions can be found online. The "errors" are contained in both editions. Readers can [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ read the 1611 edition online] and see for themselves.

The more modern 1769 KJV used in Latter-day Saint scriptures can also be found online and checked. Given that the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "translation errors", it’s likely, though the author hasn’t yet verified it, that the other major editions published between the 1611 and 1769 editions contain the exact same "errors" which, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to claim with certainty which edition of the KJV, if any, Joseph Smith plagiarized from.

<h5>A Slow Drift in the Argument</h5>
Anti-Mormon critics' arguments often undergo a slow evolution as they copy from each other, sometimes distorting the original argument along the way. So it proves in this case. The authors on whom the ''CES Letter'' seems to rely did ''not'' claim that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Rather, one of them merely noted translation errors and suggested that the King James Bible was a source for the Book of Mormon’s composition. The other also noted translation errors, but he did not claim that the errors were what singled out the 1769 edition. Rather, he noted the use of ''italics'' in the KJV to indicate a word that was not present in the original Greek text of the Bible and that "[t]he Book of Mormon sometimes revises the KJV italics that are only found in the 1769 and later printings."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|p.130}} This, it was argued, proved the Book of Mormon wasn't ancient. That's an absurd claim since the revision of italics does not necessarily prove a modern origin for the Book of Mormon. At most, it can mean that a 1769 King James Bible or later printing is being used in some way as a base text for the Book of Mormon translation.<ref>Runnells originally relied on sources that are not cited nor linked to in the first few editions of the ''CES Letter''. In editions past 2013, he links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors an old version of a Wikipedia page] (accessed 2 December 2022) to make his argument. The editor of the Wikipedia page arguing that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition may have been relying on either Runnells or Runnells' unknown sources, and very likely misunderstood and thus misrepresented the argument as originally made by Wright and Larson. A similar argument to Runnells' is made in {{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=10}}. Palmer relies on David P. Wright, "Joseph Smith's Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon," 181–206 and Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon," 115–63. Those two, and more especially Larson, seem to be the original source of this criticism. Palmer doesn't seem to make the argument that the translation errors in the Book of Mormon are unique to the 1769 version, but rather that scholars (Larson and Wright) have dated the Book of Mormon's composition to the 1830s because of the Book of Mormon's seeming use of the 1769 KJV, including its errors. That is a correct reading of the argument that Larson and Wright make. They argued that the Book of Mormon includes KJV translation errors and, ''separately'', that the Book of Mormon's use of KJV '''italics''' is what pinned the Book of Mormon to the 1769 edition. Runnells, however, including his sources, has certainly misunderstood the argument that Palmer, Larson, and Wright were making because he relied on the mistaken Wikipedia page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible#Perpetuation_of_KJV_translation_variations As of this writing, the newest iteration of the Wikipedia page] (accessed December 2, 2022) seems to correct this error, but it also seems to partially retain the argument that the errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV. Significantly, it says that there are translation ''variations'' (instead of errors) that are contained in the 1769 edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. But it seems to suggest that the variations are unique to the 1769 edition because it opens by saying that "The KJV of 1769 contains translation variations which also occur in the Book of Mormon." That's technically a correct statement, but why specify that the variations come from the 1769 edition unless wanting to hold on at least partially to the original argument of the 1769 version's unique errors? Moving along in that section and reading the table of that section, it gives examples of how the ''1611'' (and not the 1769) edition of the KJV and the Book of Mormon share translation variants. It's an odd page to be sure, but it makes important points that hint at the errors in Runnells' claims. Runnells now relies on the Larson and Wright articles that Palmer used, the new Wikipedia page, an old anti-Mormon webpage called 2Think.org, [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/7 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon], as well as [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online edition of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha] to make his case. Though he has neglected correcting for the fact that the translation errors he identifies exist in other editions of the KJV. This is either evidence of ignorance, laziness, or duplicity. Runnells is known for moving the goalposts and claiming that opponents strawman his arguments in order to make it appear like his ''CES Letter'' hasn't made any significant, lazy mistakes in research. Why take pains to state "1769" and "unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV that Joseph Smith owned" in the quote from the ''CES Letter'' at the top of this article? Elsewhere, Runnells pointedly underscores as fact that "[t]here are 1769 KJV Bible edition errors '''unique to only that edition''' present in the Book of Mormon." See Jeremy Runnells, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?" ''CES Letter'', accessed 22 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#2}}</ref>

<h5>KJV as a Base Text</h5>

Stan Spencer writes:

<blockquote>
Although the Bible that was used as a base text for the Book of Mormon was certainly the KJV, it was probably not the 1769 Oxford edition, which most King James Bibles today are based on. The text of that edition was not uniformly used in King James Bibles until after the Book of Mormon was translated. Many distinctive American editions of the KJV were printed in the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries, and these, along with the contemporary King James Bibles out of Cambridge, had many minor differences from the Oxford 1769 edition, some of which served to modernize the language. Some of these editions more closely match the Book of Mormon than does the 1769 edition — the 1828 Phinney Cooperstown Bible and the 1819 American Bible Society octavo edition being among the closest.<ref name="spencer">{{Interpreter:Spencer:Missing Words King James Bible Italics The Translation:2020}}</ref>{{Rp|49}}
</blockquote>

The King James Bible itself is a very conservative revision of the 1602 edition of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible Bishop's Bible].<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47n5}} The original, 1568 edition of the Bishop's Bible [https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Bishops is available online] and may be checked if one is curious as to whether an 'error' in the KJV is a holdover from this earlier translation. The key point is that the King James translators may not have been the translators that originated many of these errors. Instead, they were likely reproducing prior errors. (If this happened in the case of the Book of Mormon, it would no more prove that Joseph was not translating the Book of Mormon than the presence of such errors in the KJV prove that the KJV translators were not translating.)

Spencer explains why the KJV is used as the Book of Mormon's base text:

<blockquote>
The use of the KJV as a base text for biblical passages in the Book of Mormon makes sense since it allows for any important differences to be easily seen. A completely independent retranslation of the Isaiah chapters would have differed more in wording than in meaning. The differences in wording would have invited fruitless criticism of the suitability of word choice in the Book of Mormon. The use of wording from the KJV precludes such a diversion of attention from the intended messages of the Book of Mormon. Even for short biblical interactions, the use of KJV wording makes it more clear that the Bible is indeed being quoted or alluded to. An independent translation of these shorter passages would have differed enough in wording from the KJV that some of these interactions would have been less clear.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|47–48}}
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?
|subject1=Academic use of base texts for new translation
|summary1=See here for discussion of translators using earlier translations as a base text to showcase only the ''important'' differences between their text and well-known versions.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #2—Announcing a quotation is not plagiarism====

Nephi and the Savior generally make it clear when they are quoting from Isaiah. Regardless of whether a modern or ancient author is responsible for the Book of Mormon text, citing sources directly is ''not'' plagiarism. ''At most'', all we can say is that Joseph Smith (or his supposed co-conspirators) are haphazardly using Isaiah to create the Book of Mormon, not ''plagiarizing'' it.

As far as material from Micah is concerned, this is a word-for-word quotation/reproduction of God's message in {{s||Micah|4|12-13}} and {{s_short|Micah|5|8-14}}. ({{s|3|Nephi|16|14-15}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|20|16-20}}; {{s_short|3|Nephi|21|12|18, 21}}<ref>For the most thorough coverage of the Micah material in the Book of Mormon, see Dana M. Pike, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/they-shall-grow-together/passages-book-micah-book-mormon Passages from the Book of Micah in the Book of Mormon]," in ''They Shall Grow Together: The Bible in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Charles Swift and Nicholas J. Frederick (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 393–443.</ref> Mormon uses {{s||Micah|5|8}} similarly in {{s||Mormon|5|24}}.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, it is not difficult to believe that Christ's message would be the same to all people. For Him to repeat himself is not plagiarism. If Joseph is trying to fool us, putting the most well-known sermon in all of Christendom into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus is a foolish way to do it.

John W. Welch has documented important differences between the Sermon on the Mount recorded in the New Testament and what he calls the Sermon at the Temple in 3rd Nephi. Welsh demonstrates that Joseph Smith is not just mindlessly coping the Sermon on the Mount.<ref name="welchilluminate">John W. Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-sermon-mount-differences ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & the Sermon on the Mount''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 125–50.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #3—The Book of Mormon author clearly has no need to plagiarize to produce large amounts of text====

Regarding Exodus, Mark, 1 Corinthians, and 1 John, why would Joseph or his supposed co-conspirators plagiarize the one source most familiar to their audience? Why copy whole chapters haphazardly when that audience was so familiar with the source material? Whoever produced the Book of Mormon is clearly able to write text that has nothing to do with the KJV. Joseph does not need it for filler—he can produce immense amounts of text very quickly in a short period of time.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Question:_What_do_we_know_about_the_chronology_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation_and_publication%3F
|subject1=Timeline of the Book of Mormon translation and publications
|summary1=Our current Book of Mormon was translated from 7 April to the end of June 1829.
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #4—Some 'errors' find confirmation in texts unknown to Joseph Smith====

A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.<ref>See Michael Hickenbotham, ''Answering Challenging Mormon Questions: Replies to 130 Queries by Friends and Critics of the LDS Church'' (Springville, UT: Cedar Fort Publisher, 2004),193-196.{{NB}}</ref> One verse ({{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}) is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.<ref>The implications of this change represent a more complicated textual history than previously thought. See discussion in {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}. For earlier discussions, see {{TruthGodmakers1 | start=172}}; see also {{AncientAmericaBoM|start=100|end=102}}; {{Nibley7|start=129|end=143}}; Royal Skousen, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/textual-variants-isaiah-quotations-book-mormon Textual Variants in the Isaiah Quotations of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah in the Book of Mormon'', ed. Donald W. Parry and John W. Welch (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 376.</ref> John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.<ref>John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/isaiah-prophets/isaiah-variants-book-mormon Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon]," in ''Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament'', ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1984), 165-78. David Wright responded to John Tvedtnes' chapter therin. Tvedtnes responds to Wright in John A. Tvedtnes, "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-bible-and-book-mormon Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon]," ''The FARMS Review'' 16, no. 2 (2004): 161–72.{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref> BYU Professor Paul Y. Hoskisson has shown that "[t]he brass plates version of {{s||Isaiah|2|2}}, as contained in {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}, contains a small difference, not attested in any other pre-1830 Isaiah witness, that not only helps clarify the meaning but also ties the verse to events of the Restoration. The change does so by introducing a Hebraism that would have been impossible for Joseph Smith, the Prophet, to have produced on his own."<ref>{{Interpreter:Hoskisson:Was Joseph Smith Smarter Than The Average Fourth:2015}}</ref>

These factors throw a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of KJV Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then somehow find the ''one phrase'', "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible? How could he make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah, and make sure that his version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon had authentic Hebraisms made to be part of the text as well? It's obviously ''possible'' that he did, but ''highly unlikely''.

====Plagiarism is implausible #5—Witnesses all insist no papers or bible was ever consulted====

The witnesses to the translation are unanimous that a Bible was not consulted during the translation of the Book of Mormon.<ref>John W. Welch, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/online-chapters/documents-of-the-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon/ Documents of the Translation of the Book of Mormon]," in ''Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations'', ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 126–227.</ref>

{{Related articles
|link1=Joseph_Smith_and_the_translation_process#A compilation of published statements on the Book of Mormon translation method in both Church and non-Church publications
|subject1=All descriptions of Book of Mormon translation process
|summary1=This page collects all first- and second-hand descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and groups them by theme (e.g., weight of the plates, use of seer stone, etc.)}}

Stan Spencer observed,

<blockquote>[I]f Joseph Smith used a physical bible, he would have had to do so frequently, since biblical interactions are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. Continuously removing his face from the hat to make use of a physical Bible would not have gone unnoticed by those who watched him translate.<ref name="spencer"></ref>{{Rp|59}}
</blockquote>

Indeed, given the all the different quotations of whole chapters, phrasal interactions between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon, as well as [[The_New_Testament_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#The_Book_of_Mormon_claims_to_be_a_.22translation.2C.22_and_the_language_used_is_that_of_Joseph_Smith|the phrasal interactions/similarities between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon]], to conceive of Joseph either memorizing these passages and phrases (a process for which there is no evidence) or consulting a Bible during the translation (likewise) is ludicrous. Someone would have noticed that. Yet no one reports a Bible, and [[Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method/1846-1900#Emma Smith Bidamon (eyewitness)|some are specifically clear]] that he did ''not'' have any book or manuscript to which he referred.<ref>Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Herald'' 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' ''Saints' Advocate'' 2 (October 1879): 50-52.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #6—The original manuscript shows no signs of visual copying of the KJV====

Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen, using the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/printing-and-publishing-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Original and Printer's Manuscripts] of the Book of Mormon, has provided a persuasive argument that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when the Book of Mormon quotes, echoes, or alludes to passages in the King James Bible, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/ The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon]," Interpreter Foundation, accessed August 15, 2022, .</ref>

Of course, it's possible that Joseph Smith dictated every portion of the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah to Oliver while looking at the Bible and Oliver isn't; but that's less likely given the consistency with which Oliver misspells the words (wouldn't there be at least one time, throughout all the time that Joseph and Oliver were translating, where Joseph Smith hands Oliver the Bible to more efficiently copy the passages and where Oliver then spells the words correctly?)

When considering the data, Skousen proposes that, instead of Joseph or Oliver looking at a Bible, that God was simply able to provide the page of text from the King James Bible to Joseph's mind and then Joseph was free to alter the text as he pleased. In those cases where the Book of Mormon simply alludes to or echoes KJV language, perhaps the Lord allowed these portions of the text to be revealed in such a way that they would be more comprehensible/comfortable to the 19th century audience. Even if Joseph Smith were using the King James Bible out in the open and on the translating table as a base text, [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|that would hardly be out of line with best practices for translators and hardly considered plagiarism]]. The available eyewitness and manuscript data is more consistent with the theory that the KJV was used as a base text but ''through divine revelation from God'' rather than out in the open on the table.<ref>Earlier LDS scholarship sometimes did argue that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation process. They did not, however, have the benefit of the subsequent half a century of investigation. See {{Ensign|author=Richard Lloyd Anderson|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng|article=By the Gift and Power of God=|vol=7|num=9|date=September 1977}}.</ref>

====Plagiarism is implausible #7—Archaic vocabulary====

{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Archaic Vocabulary|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/archaic-vocabulary|number=361}} Skousen and Latter-day Saint linguist Stanford Carmack are ''adamant'' that Joseph Smith merely read the words off the seer stone/Urim and Thummim and did not consult a bible during translation of the Book of Mormon. A reason they believe this is that the Book of Mormon contains [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English Early Modern English] in its translation. They provide many examples that they believe predate Joseph’s English, the English of the 1769 edition of the King James Bible, and even the 1600s edition of the King James Bible. Skousen and Carmack have produced a massive amount arguing for this stance. Readers are encouraged to read that work and decide for themselves.<ref>{{Interpreter:Skousen:The Original Text Of The Book Of Mormon:2013}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Look At Some Nonstandard Book Of Mormon:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book Of:2014}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Implications Of Past-tense Syntax In The Book:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Why The Oxford English Dictionary And Not Websters:2015}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The More Part Of The Book Of Mormon:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Joseph Smith Read The Words:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Case Of The -th Plural In The:2016}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:How Joseph Smiths Grammar Differed From Book Of:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Barlow On Book Of Mormon Language An Examination:2017}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Is The Book Of Mormon A Pseudo-archaic Text:2018}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Bad Grammar In The Book Of Mormon Found:2020}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:Personal Relative Pronoun Usage In The Book Of:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:The Book Of Mormons Complex Finite Cause Syntax:2021}}; {{Interpreter:Carmack:A Comparison Of The Book Of Mormons Subordinate:2022}}; "[https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/language-original-text-book-mormon The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 57, no. 3 (2018): 81-110; Royal Skousen with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack, ''The Nature of the Original Language'', Parts 3-4 of ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon'', Volume 3 of ''The Critical Text of the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018).</ref> This information is summarized by Evidence Central at the hotlink to the right.

====Plagiarism is implausible #8—A bible was purchased only ''after'' the translation was finished====

We know that Oliver Cowdery purchased a Bible on 8 October 1829. However, the Book of Mormon was already at press by this time, with the copyright being registered on 11 June 1829.<ref name="tandr">{{Roper:Joseph Smiths Use Of The Apocrypha Shadow Or:FARMS Review:1996}}</ref>

Prior to that time, the only Bible Joseph is known to have had access to was the Smith family Bible, which was not in his possession after he married and moved out of the Smith home. Joseph was poor and even poorer after moving away from home.<ref>{{BeginningsofMormonism |start=95 | end=100}}</ref> Yet Oliver purchased the Bible for Joseph in October 1829 from the print shop that did the type-setting for the Book of Mormon. This bible was later to be used to produce the [[The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible|Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible]] (JST).<ref>Robert J. Matthews, ''A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary'' (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1985), 26; cited in footnote 165 of {{FR-6-1-4}}</ref> Given the family's poverty, why purchase a bible if they already had access to one for the Book of Mormon?

====Plagiarism is implausible #9—Over half the Isaiah verses have alterations====

As the Church has made clear in the 1981 and the 2013 editions of the Book of Mormon in [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a footnote "a"] for {{s|2|Nephi|12|2}}: "Comparison with the King James Bible in English shows that there are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah quoted in the Book of Mormon, while about 200 verses have the same wording as the KJV."<ref>See [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/12?lang=eng#note2a page 81] of either edition of the Book of Mormon</ref> This provides excellent evidence that Joseph Smith is not mindlessly cribbing off the KJV version of Isaiah. A lot of these changes ''are indeed'' (around 30% of the Isaiah variants) merely changes to the italicized words of the King James passages.<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|50n11}} But many others aren't. [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We can actually show]] that Nephi is engaging with the text and making changes to Isaiah that "liken" Isaiah’s messages to Nephi’s then-current situation and theological understanding ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). We can also demonstrate that Nephi is selecting passages of Isaiah with an overriding, coherent theological agenda. Book of Mormon Central's description in the above link is an excellent summary. Thus, rather than mindless copy-paste, there is meaningful engagement with the text of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

Royal Skousen, with extensive analysis of the Original and Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,<ref>{{Skousen:How Joseph Smith Translated The Book Of Mormon:JBMS:1998}}</ref> has concluded that the original manuscript, including the quoted Bible chapters, was written from dictation rather than copying of another document. One of the reasons he believes this is that Joseph Smith’s dictation consistently includes precise and sometimes unusual spellings of some words not contained in the King James Bible nor any document in his immediate environment, suggesting that exact words including their exact spelling were revealed to him and that he wasn't taking inspiration from other sources. An example of this is the name ''Coriantumr'' spelled with ''mr'' and not an ''mer'' as might be expected if Joseph were just getting ideas in his head of what to say and dictating them to Oliver or another one of his scribes. This suggests that Joseph could ''see words on the stone/Urim and Thummim'' and that he could ''spell them out exactly'' to his scribes in cases (such as names) where precision was important for meaning.

====Plagiarism is implausible #10—The manuscript shows signs of dictation from a text, not improvisation====

Skousen also believes the Original Manuscript was dictated because "[t]he manuscripts include consistent phraseology that suggests Joseph Smith was reading from a carefully prepared text rather than composing the English translation based on thoughts or impressions as he dictated."<ref name="spencer" />{{Rp|88}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #11—There's no evidence Joseph knew what the italics meant====

[[Question: Did Joseph know what the italics in the Bible meant?|Emma Smith reported that, during the Book of Mormon translation, Joseph didn't know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls]], a far more basic fact than the meaning of italics. If Joseph didn't know this basic fact, how likely is it that he knew the Bible well enough to plagiarize it, much less repeat that plagiarism from memory?

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, stated that

<blockquote>
I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life; he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.<ref>{{Book:Smith:History of Joseph Smith by His Mother:1954|pages=82-83}}</ref>
</blockquote>

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon#What did Joseph know about the italics?
|subject1=What did Joseph know about the italics in the KJV?
|summary1=How aware was Joseph about what the italics in the Book of Mormon meant?
}}

====Plagiarism is implausible #12—No evidence Joseph's memory would allow the feat critics require====
{{EvidenceCentral|title=Book of Mormon Evidence: Joseph Smith’s Limited Education|url=https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/joseph-smiths-education|number=1}}
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had an [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eidetic eidetic] (or "photographic") memory.
#There is no evidence that Joseph Smith was ever seen trying to memorize long passages from the King James Bible at, near, or leading up to the time of translation. Joseph's level of education may suggest that he was not even capable of memorizing such lengthy passages.

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=Book of Mormon/Plagiarism accusations/King James Bible
|subject1=Plagiarism from King James Bible?
|summary1=This further discusses the problems with plagiarism theories for the Book of Mormon text.
}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #2 and #3: Are there really translation errors in the Book of Mormon? If so, do they lead us into believing erroneous theological ideas?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The Lexicons of Today May Not Be the Lexicons of Tomorrow ====
What ''is'' a translation error?<ref>The ''CES Letter'', for example, wants to broaden the meaning "translation error" to include "an error that can occur during translation" and/or "something that looks like an error to me after someone has translated a text."</ref> For example, it is an error to translate the Spanish word "rey" as ''queen'' when, it means ''king''. The word for ''queen'' in Spanish is "reina." A translation error is when someone misrepresents in a target language what something in a source language refers to.

We use lots of words in different ways. Words do not have inherent meaning (a given sound or word does not ''need'' to mean anything in particular). But, words are not completely idiosyncratic—they cannot mean just whatever an individual decides they mean. A language community understands them in roughly similar ways—similar enough to allow reliable communication. That is, after all, the whole point of words. If they can mean anything at all, then they mean nothing.

For instance, the object we now refer to as a "fork" may not have been called a fork a long time ago. At some moment or series of moments in the past, people began to apply the name "fork" to a fork and popularized that label to the English linguistic community. We could have called a fork a "spoon" a long time ago, popularized it, and that label ("spoon") would be what we call a fork today. In essence, words refer to what we've used them to refer to. Spelling of words and pronunciation of words are the products of this same set of arbitrary decisions and subsequent popularization.

Lexicons (translators' dictionaries) that translators use today—and especially those that deal with ancient languages—are constantly evolving as new evidence about how words were used becomes available. The lexicons of today may not be the lexicons of tomorrow. Today's lexicons may find that a word has a meaning we didn't understand a decade ago.

This would mean that perceived translation errors today may not actually be translation errors, and we just need to wait for more evidence. Now, lexicons of tomorrow will probably not change drastically since language evolution tends to be conservative. Different societies want to use unique words to pick out unique objects and concepts so as to enhance cooperation and efficiency in problem solving.

====We don't have the original manuscripts of the biblical text====
We should also note that we do not have any of the ''original manuscripts'' of the Bible. Modern translations of the biblical text we have today come from the ''earliest known copies'' of the original manuscripts that are available to the translators at the time of their respective translation. Any claim that the Book of Mormon makes use of an "erroneous" translation from the King James Bible is going to be at least ''mildly'' suspect for that simple fact. Wouldn't we want the original manuscripts as composed by the original author before making a definitive claim that any particular translation is "in error"? We do have ''copies'' of the manuscripts and they ''may'' reproduce the text of the originals reliably, but there's no reason to be certain. [[Accuracy of the bible|There's good reason to doubt it]] including the fact that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith teach that the extant biblical manuscripts ''don't'' accurately reproduce the original text.<ref>"History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy," 592; {{s|1|Nephi|13|28}}; see {{s_short|1|Nephi13|23-29}}. Cited in Kent P. Jackson, ''Understanding Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2022), 34–35.</ref>

On the other hand, we do not intend to claim definitively that the Book of Mormon preserves the original, pristine version of the biblical texts it quotes, or alludes to. In some cases, we [[Question: Why does Isaiah in the Book of Mormon not match the Dead Sea Scrolls?|simply can't know whether it does]]. If "translate" is being defined as merely "reproducing the text produced in one language in a different language" then perhaps we would declare a given rendering 'in error'. However, translation has the potential to be more broadly and inclusively conceived—and Joseph Smith seems to have understood it [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|in this broader sense]].

This broader view of translation includes things like expounding on the text and making amendments to either clarify the intent of the author or make the translation more readable and comprehensible to the translator's audience. For instance, modern individuals in different, highly technical professions have to "translate" the intelligent English of their profession into "layman's terms" or simpler English for those that don't understand the intricacies of the professional's work. The Joseph Smith-era 1828 edition of ''Webster's Dictionary'' has no less than 7 different definitions of the word 'translate' that include such things as 'conveying' or 'transporting' an object or person from one place to another, 'changing', and 'explaining'.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=translate}}</ref>

We often forget that there are typically ''three'' layers we must identify to understand a written text:

# what's in the author's mind and what he or she intended to write,
# what is actually written, and
# our own definitions of words which impact how we interpret what an author writes.

Word meaning can sometimes be culturally separated from the original author such that we misinterpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the author doesn't write what he or she intended to communicate.

With a translated text there is a ''fourth'' layer to identify and untangle from the other three:

:4. the translation itself and its relation to its source text—here again we must determine what the ''translator'' thought and intended to write, what he or she actually wrote, and the definition of the words they used and how we understand them.

Sometimes a translator has his or her own objectives, quirks, and other philosophies about translation that can either clarify or obscure the meaning and content of the source text. There's a sense in which we can never uncover the author's intentions because the mind is by its nature a private, subjective experience. We have to rely on the text that authors produce to accurately convey what is in their mind, but sometimes it doesn't do that because the translator wasn't careful enough. We know that peoples of any culture are going to have culturally-conditioned definitions of words and sometimes we aren't able to learn enough about that culture to uncover definitions as the original author of the text understood them.

Thus there may be errors and we wouldn't know it—and supposed errors may not be errors at all and we wouldn't know it either. All of these factors demand some humility on our part.

The ''most'' that we can say is that ''based on current manuscript evidence and scholarship'', ''some'' of the King James translation of the Bible paralleled in the Book of Mormon is considered erroneous by some scholars and critics based on several questionable and unverifiable assumptions. We can go no further.

With these cautions in mind, we will now proceed to specifics. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the biblical manuscripts that we translate from today accurately reproduce the text of the Bible as written by its original authors, and that these texts actually reflect the authors' intent. We will also assume that the lexicons of today accurately reflect how words were used anciently to refer to different objects. But remember—these are assumptions, not proven facts.

====The "Translation Errors"====
Royal Skousen has given us a representative list of what can be considered translation errors. Skousen did "not intend to list every possible error. Rather, [he] simply recognize[d] that the Book of Mormon translation will reflect errors because of its dependence on the King James Bible."<ref name="Skousen King James">Royal Skousen, ''The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, Part Five: King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon'' (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2019).</ref>{{Rp|220}}

Skousen also has given us a list of cultural translations "where the original meaning is obscured by providing a translation that speakers from the Early Modern English period would have readily understood."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Some of these might be considered "errors" by our critics and so we will discuss specifics below.

Along with these cultural translations and alleged translation errors, emerging scholarship is demonstrating that the Book of Mormon also holds significant intertextual relationships with the New Testament. That is, the Book of Mormon echoes, alludes to, and sometimes quotes New Testament language at length as a means of communicating the Book of Mormon’s message.

Critics have alleged that this demonstrates that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing the King James rendering of the New Testament in order to create the Book of Mormon.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
|subject1=The New Testament and the Book of Mormon
}}

In written correspondence with those who study New Testament intertextuality with the Book of Mormon, the author has found out that there are three items that may currently be considered "translation errors" by scholars. There may be more. However, none of these that immediately came to mind for them seem to threaten the Book of Mormon's authenticity in any significant way. Those are also discussed below.

Skousen says that "[n]one of these scholarly objections matter much since the Book of Mormon is a creative, cultural translation. In other words, the use of the King James text, warts and all, is not only unsurprising, but it is in fact expected."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The table below, along with the "errors" identified by Skousen and other Book of Mormon scholars, will also include close to 50 other claims of translation errors by nine critics of the Book of Mormon.<ref name="larson">Stan Larson, "The Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi," in {{CriticalWork:Metcalfe:New Approaches|pages=15-63}}</ref><ref name="wrightjosephint">David P. Wright, “[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/joseph-smiths-interpretation-of-isaiah-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon],” ‘’Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’’ 31, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 187.</ref><ref name="wrightjosephisaiah">David P. Wright, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," in {{CriticalWork:Vogel Metcalfe:American Apocrypha|pages=157-234}}.</ref><ref name="runnells1769">Jeremy Runnells, "1769 KJV Errors in Book of Mormon Sources and notes on presence of 1769 King James Version edition errors in the Book of Mormon - a supposed ancient text," CES Letter Foundation, accessed 2 December 2022, {{antilink|https://cesletter.org/1769-kjv-errors/}}</ref><ref name="wikiold">This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible&oldid=582211861#Perpetuation_of_translation_errors old Wikipedia article that contained claims of errors].</ref><ref>"Topics," 2Think.org, accessed 11 December 2022, {{antilink|https://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/annotated/topics.shtml#KJV%20Translation%20Errors}}.</ref><ref name="ankerberg">John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).</ref><ref name="alcase">Al Case, "Questions related to the Book of Mormon and other items on Mormonism and Joseph Smith," About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon): Perspective on all things LDS/Mormon/Latter-day Saint, accessed May 5, 2023, {{antilink|https://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml/#BOM8.}}</ref><ref name="brown">M. D. Brown, ''One Hundred Similarities Between the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding Manuscript'' (M. D. Brown, 1937), 24.</ref><ref name="snowden">James H. Snowden, ''The Truth About Mormonism'' (George H. Doran Company, 1926), 105, 106–7</ref>

This table catalogues, as far as we can ascertain, every potential error that has been pointed to by critics and other scholars of the Book of Mormon to date.<ref>This line was written 11 December 2022.</ref> This table includes 91 items.<ref>Depending on how one divides the translation errors, one may be able to divide these into more items. The author chose to keep them as follows for convenience or clarity. Thus, this claim shouldn't be taken to mean that there are exactly 88 translation errors made by the King James Bible translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.</ref>

As a reminder, this table contains links to the passages from both the 1611 and 1769 editions of the King James Bible, as well as to lists of translations at biblehub.com, in order to refute the contention of the ''CES Letter'' that the translation errors are unique to the 1769 edition of the KJV.

We start with the basic translation "errors", then catalogue the cultural translations, and finish off with the New Testament "errors." The table below includes the location of the errors in the Bible and Book of Mormon, the supposed erroneous translation, the passage in question, and commentary on the alleged error. They are organized in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon. Those troubled by other "errors" they may find in the Book of Mormon might seriously consider adopting a similar approach to the one taken by the author of this article to resolve their concerns. If someone finds an "error" that they'd like FAIR to comment on, or that person has already done that work and would like to submit it to FAIR to be included in this article, they are strongly encouraged to send that work/ask those questions to FAIR volunteers at [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact this link].

====Summary of conclusions====

For those who do not wish to examine each case in detail, we provide our conclusions:

*Some cases aren't errors.
*Some aren't translation errors but rather correct translations of younger biblical manuscripts. Biblical scholars typically like the older manuscripts as they often contain a version of the text more likely to be closer to what the original author wanted to be in the text. Sometimes, this intuition is incorrect.
*In four cases pointed to as an "error", the "error" wasn't an error at all but a good example of the [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/diachronic diachronic] nature of language—that is, language changes and evolves over time. What the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) meant to refer to when they said "virtue", for instance, is not the same thing we mean to refer to when we say "virtue." They meant to refer to something like ''power'' and we mean to refer to something like ''strength in doing moral good'' or sometimes ''chastity''.
*In two cases below, the "errors" weren't errors, but instead a case of modern translators using the conventions of their language. This is the case with {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} and {{s_short||Isaiah|6|6}} (and corresponding passages in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} and {{s_short|2|Nephi|16|6}} in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon) with their use of the word "seraphims" to refer to multiple [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph seraph(s)]. The problem is that the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already pluralizes the word ''seraph''. But the King James translators (or perhaps their translating predecessors) are also referring to multiple seraph(s) but just using the conventions of English by adding an "s" to the end of the word. This is the sort of error an academic translator would avoid, but it means little in this context.
*In some cases, the errors are merely translation ''variants'' (rather than ''errors'') where one variant is not necessarily superior to another. This is because the meaning of the underlying Hebrew or Greek is uncertain.
*In some cases, the meaning of the verses has been changed from the original text but it hasn't changed so drastically as to not include the more specific meaning of the passage captured in other translations. In these cases, the translation can only be said to be ''too broad or general'' rather than necessarily ''erroneous''. It’s like saying that "king" refers to ''royalty''. Technically correct, but it could be more specific ("a particular male royal") for more clarity.
*In some cases, the translation errors ''are'' legitimately errors. These errors thus change the ''meaning'' of one or more words in the respective passages; but they don't always lead us away from the original and overall ''intent'' of the passages.
*In some cases, the errors actually ''do'' lead us away from the original and overall intent, but this isn’t a bad thing since the changed intent does not necessarily reflect an inaccurate doctrinal understanding.
*In some cases, the "errors" are not errors and are better explained as a translator's gloss where the translation is not necessarily accurate as to what a word from the target language referred to but do help make explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly from use of a particular word.
*In many cases, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine with a reliable degree of certainty in which of the above 9 categories the translation falls. We can make a reasonable case for fitting them into multiple categories.

In no case, however, is there a translation variant, broadening of meaning, change in meaning, change in intent, etc. that teaches incorrect doctrine or otherwise ''compels'' a reader into believing something false.

The following chart documents how many claims of "errors" fit into the respective categories (as well as what percentage of the total claims that number represents):

[[File:PieChartKJVErrors6.png|750px|thumb|center]]

For those who want commentary on the individual claims, click "expand" below to view our table of analysis.

{|class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" vertical-align:top border="3" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="12%"|'''Location in Canon'''
!width="12%"|'''Erroneous Translation'''
!width="30%"|'''Passage'''
!width="46%"|'''Commentary'''
|+<big>'''Commentary on Alleged KJV Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon'''</big>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|1. {{s||Exodus|15|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|2|5}}
||Red Sea
||This one isn't a quotation of a biblical passage per se but the use of a particular biblical name. The Book of Mormon and King James Bible consistently call the sea that Moses and the children of Israel crossed when fleeing from the Egyptians the "Red Sea." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-15/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/15-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics contend that this is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew ''yam sûp''. Instead of "Red Sea", critics contend that it should read "Reed sea." We have responded to this theory [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|elsewhere on the wiki]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|2. {{s||Isaiah|49|4}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|4}}
||Work
||"Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my '''work''' with my God." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright asserts that the better translation would be "reward" instead of "work."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The verses concern either Israel's, the Messiah's,<ref>Donald W. Parry, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/isaiah-49-0 ''The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation (Preliminary Edition)''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 117.</ref> or Isaiah's response to God who in verse 3 calls one of them His servant in whom He will be glorified. One of them responds that, in their own judgement, they are weak and frail as a servant but that nonetheless, God will judge and reward them. The intent of the passage can be argued as correct no matter the translation, however.

If the passage is translated as "reward", the Book of Mormon already teaches that God rewards us despite our frailties both moral and vocational. The Book of Mormon already teaches that God is our reward. Nephi teaches us that beautifully in his psalm recorded in {{s|2|Nephi|4|}}.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|4|30}}</ref>

If the passage is translated as "work", one could interpret it in a few ways. One could say that God ''works through'' his servants to do good things despite their frailties. In that case, Paul tells the Phillipians that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."<ref>Phillipians 2:13</ref> In the previous chapter, {{s||Isaiah|8|}}, God tells Israel "I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction."<ref>{{s||Isaiah|48|10}}</ref>

One could alternatively interpret it as saying that the work of Isaiah, the Messiah, or Israel is ''chosen'' or ''ordained'' by God to do a work ''on their own'': ''without'' God's intervening power. Isaiah recounts how God called him in {{s||Isaiah|6|}}. God indicates that Israel is his chosen, covenant people throughout the Old Testament text. The Messiah is the anointed one and is prophesied of throughout Isaiah's record and in other Old Testament prophecies.

It seems that no matter the translation and interpretation, there is nothing that isn't clearly taught elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|3. {{s||Isaiah|49|5}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|5}}
||Though Israel be not gathered
||"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, '''Though Israel be not gathered''', yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics assert that the better translation would be "to restore Jacob to him, and that Israel be gathered to him."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Neither the Book of Mormon rendering nor the critics' change the meaning significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|4. {{s||Isaiah|49|8}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|8}}
||Have I heard thee
||"Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time '''have I heard thee''', and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "I answer/have answered you."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQLOuIKaRA hearing and doing something or responding to them were functionally the same thing]. You didn't hear someone if you didn't respond to them. Something similar may be going on here. The passage means that the Lord heard the cries of Israel and helped them, which is already affirmed with "in a day of salvation have I helped thee."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|5. {{s||Isaiah|49|24}} ~ {{s|1|Nephi|21|24}}
||Or the lawful captive delivered
||"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, '''or the lawful captive delivered'''?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-49/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/49-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be "Can...captives (be) retrieved from a victor?"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/49-24.htm Popular English biblical translations vary] between saying captives of the "mighty", "tyrant", "righteous", "victor", or "conqueror." The verse can only be considered a translation variant rather than an error. "The rhetorical questions function here as assertions of divine power insofar as the LORD can make these things happen."<ref name="Sweeney">Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).</ref>{{Rp|1047n24–26}} God is asserting that he can free the Israelites taken captive by those that oppress them. Thus, regardless of the translation options, the intent of the verse is not changed substantively.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|6. {{s||Isaiah|50|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|7|4}}
||Know how to speak a word in season
||"The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should '''know how to speak a word in season''' to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-50/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/50-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright laughably asserts that "the underlying Hebrew is unintelligible" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV is likely wrong." This passage, according to Wright, "is apparently taking the word läcût to mean 'to speak/do in season.'" Yet again, Wright tells us that "[h]ow it is to be understood is not clear." Then he tells us that "[s]ome modern scholars, with hesitation, take the verb to mean 'to aid/help/succor.'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172–73.}} Even this is part of Wright's essay discussing KJV translation ''errors'' ''perpetuated'' in the Book of Mormon. As such, it can only be considered a translation variant. Even with the wording as is, it clearly teaches that Isaiah's gift is to speak to him that is weary. That can only mean a form of succoring/aiding.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|7. {{s||Isaiah|51|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|8|4}}
||Rest
||"Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to '''rest''' for a light of the people." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-51/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/51-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Critics think that the metaphor "make my judgment to rest/repose for a light" is merely "odd." "Many modern versions take the verb (which the KJV translates 'make rest') with the beginning of the next verse (sometimes with emendation)."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} The sentence construction is a bit odd but it doesn't substantively change the meaning of the verse, which is that God's judgement (sometimes translated "justice") will be a light for the people. Where exactly would the judgement "rest"? This is not certain. Perhaps on the wicked? Regardless, the rhetorical goals of the verse are accomplished. Some might think that the verse is communicating that God will cease to judge and that this will be a light to the people, which would indeed be incorrect teaching; but that interpretation is inconsistent with the first clause ("for a law shall proceed from me").
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|8. {{s||Isaiah|2|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|4}}
||Rebuke
||"And he shall judge among the nations and shall '''rebuke''' many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' "The Hebrew verb here lacks the negative sense of ''rebuke''—that is, it means 'to judge' rather than 'to reprove'; note the preceding parallel line: 'and he shall judge among the nations'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that God actually will rebuke peoples that come down on the negative side of God's judgements. In any dispute, there will be rebukes that God sends forth—implicitly or otherwise—for the wrongdoer. The Lord tells us that he chastens us and scourges us because he loves us in {{s||Proverbs|3|11-12}}, {{s||Hebrews|12|5-6}}, and {{s||Helaman|15|3}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|9. {{s||Isaiah|2|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|6}}
||Please themselves in the children of strangers
||"Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they '''please themselves in the children of strangers'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is closer to things like "they strike hands with foreigners," "make bargain/covenant with foreigners," or "are crowded with foreigners."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} The verse concerns the idolatry of Israel. "Pleasing themselves" is ambiguous because it could certainly be used (though, admittedly, awkwardly) to refer to making deals with the people of idolatrous nations. It could refer to any type of positive activity with foreigners/strangers. Regardless of the positive activity, it is clear that doing it with foreigners symbolizes the kind of idolatry and apostasy the Lord/Isaiah mean to refer to in this verse. Thus it's unclear that there's a substantive change of meaning and, even if there were, the passage would still accomplish what it sets out to do.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|10. {{s||Isaiah|2|9}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|9}}
||Boweth down
||"And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive them not" (Book of Mormon, 1830 Edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#9 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-9.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not an Error.''' Runnells asserts that the correct translation is "and the mean man boweth down '''not''', and the great man humbleth himself [not]: therefore forgive them not."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Interestingly, the current edition of the Book of Mormon contains just this translation. "And the mean man boweth not down, and the great man humbleth himself not, therefore, forgive him not." The only difference between Runnells' proposal and the current edition of the Book of Mormon is that the Book of Mormon replaces ''them'' in "forgive them not" to ''him'' and omits the second ''not'' that the critic has in brackets. The essential message of the evils of idolatry is not affected.

But both the critic and Latter-day Saints still have errors to account for here. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-9.htm nearly every single popular, English biblical translation of these verses] rejects using "not" after "boweth down." The correct translation is actually how it is rendered in the King James Bible! The critic claims to have been working from the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and making comparisons to the [https://www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=KJVA an online version of the 1769 KJV with apocrypha]. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (the first edition) [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/93 has this verse rendered as] "and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not: therefore forgive him not." Skousen in his earliest reconstruction of the Book of Mormon text renders it as "and the mean man boweth down and the great man humbleth himself; therefore forgive them not."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|108}} This is the correct translation of the text. Skousen notes a rather complex textual history of this verse in his ''Analysis of Textual Variants''.<ref name="skousenvariants">Royal Skousen, [https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/ ''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Part Two: 2 Nephi 1 – Mosiah 6''] (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2014).</ref>{{Rp|656–60}} Thus the Book of Mormon actually originally had the correct translation of this passage and it was changed, likely by the first printer and typesetter of the Book of Mormon, John Gilbert. This is at most an error perpetuated by modern editors.

But now what about modern editions of the Book of Mormon that don't have the correct translation? Are they in true error? In context, Isaiah is condemning the house of Jacob for idolatry and bowing themselves down to idols mentioned in verse 8. Thus that's why the correct translation refers to people being humbled and bowing because they're being humbled and bowing to the ''idols''. The modern editions of the Book of Mormon would be in error if whoever composes the text today meant to refer to the idols. But the modern editions could be referring to God. If the mean man and great man don't bow to God, then they're committing idolatry and God shouldn't forgive them. In the 1830s edition, it's saying that the mean man bows down and the great man doesn't bow down. This could be read to mean that the mean man bows down to the idols and the great man doesn't bow down to God.

No matter which edition we're consulting here, we are not compelled to read the essential intent of the verse wrongly and, indeed, with careful reading, it seems that the essential intent of the verse will be captured by careful, studious readers no matter which translation/edition is consulted. It seems implausible to believe the author (ancient or modern) meant to endorse or encourage idolatry.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|11. {{s||Isaiah|2|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|12|16}}
||Pictures
||"and upon all the ships of Tarshish and upon all the pleasant '''pictures'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-2/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/2-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The better translation according to Skousen is "and upon all the pleasant '''ships'''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic Jeremy Runnells thinks it should be either "image", "ships," or "crafts."<ref name="runnells1769" /> Yes, he includes "image" as somehow a potentially more correct translation than "pictures." Critic David P. Wright thinks it should be either "grand ships" or "precious things."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|169}} Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/2-16.htm there are at least four modern, popular, English biblical translations] that render this verse similar to how it is rendered in the Book of Mormon. Popular English translations vary between referring to ships/crafts or pleasant imagery/pictures. It's not entirely certain, but the more likely correct translation is ships. Isaiah intends to use the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be brought down and taken away so as to eliminate pride. Either ships, crafts, or pleasant imagery/pictures can do/be a part of that. Thus the intent hasn't changed at all and no doctrinal error occurs.<ref>Recall that the textual history of this verse is seen as quite complex. For detailed discussion, see {{Seely:Upon All The Ships Of The Sea And:JBMS:2005}}.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|12. {{s||Isaiah|3|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}
||Prudent
||"The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the '''prudent''', and the ancient" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In the phrase 'the prudent and the ancient', the adjectival noun ''prudent'' is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for divining. This phrase is translated, for instance, as 'the diviner and the elder' in the English Standard Version."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright agrees.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The verse concerns the Assyrians' coming invasion of Israel and carrying them away into captivity. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that "[t]he Assyrians were well known for deporting the leading figures and skilled craftspeople of a conquered society in order to exploit their talents elsewhere in the empire and to destabilize the conquered society to prevent further revolt."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|984n3.1–12.}} Thus, the intent of the verse is to use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that the most talented and wisest of Israelite society were going to be taken away captive by the Assyrians. That can include the prudent. Also, diviners may be described as prudent.

In any case, this does not alter the verses' meaning—men of importance or value are being subject to capture and deportation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|13. {{s||Isaiah|3|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Orator
||"The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent '''orator'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here in the Hebrew the sense of ''orator'' is 'enchanter.' The English word derives from the Latin verb meaning 'to pray' (see definition 1 under ''orator'' in the [''Oxford English Dictionary''])."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Critic David P. Wright derives the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Same commentary here as made for the preceding entry for {{s|2|Nephi|13|2}}.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|14. {{s||Isaiah|3|8}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|3}}
||Provoke the eyes of his glory
||"For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to '''provoke the eyes of his glory'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Critic David Wright asserts that the better translation is "Rebel against/defy/insult his glorious presence/glance/gaze."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse from the KJV. In the Book of Mormon it is rendered "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue'''s''' and their doings '''have been''' against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory." [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/3-8.htm 4-5 other modern, popular, English biblical translations] render it with "provoke." This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language since [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/provoke one of the definitions] of the word ''provoke'' is "to challenge" which is clearly in agreement with modern translations of the Bible.<ref name="tvedtnes">{{Tvedtnes:Isaiah In The Bible And The Book Of:FARMS Review:2004}}</ref>{{rp|170}} The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' similarly provides examples of writers near the time of the King James translation using "provoke" to mean "[t]o call out or summon to a fight; to challenge, to defy" and "[t]o incite (a person or animal) to anger; to annoy, vex, irritate, or exasperate, esp. deliberately."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Provoke."</ref> This fits in with Wright's suggestions of insult and defiance.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|15. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Cauls
||"the Lord will take away the bravery of tinkling ornaments and '''cauls'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' defines caul as 'a netted cap or head-dress, often richly ornamented'. The Hebrew today is usually translated today as a headband."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} Isaiah's intent is to communicate that the Lord will take away the most prized possessions of the women of Jerusalem because those possessions cause arrogance. Whether headbands or cauls being taken away, it doesn't change the essential message of Isaiah—and both are worn on the head.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|16. {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|18}}
||Tires like the moon
||"and cauls and round '''tires like the moon'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "In the Hebrew, the word ''tire'' refers to something round, either a crescent or perhaps a round pendant for the neck. The use of ''tire'' here in {{s||Isaiah|3|18}} originated in the 1560 Geneva Bible: 'in that day shall the Lord take away the ornament of the slipper and the cauls and the round tires', where ''tire'' is a shortening from ''attire'' and refers to an ornament for a woman's head. The 1568 Bishop's Bible expanded on this by placing an internal note in square brackets after ''round tires'': 'and the cauls and the round tires [after the fashion of the moon]'. This interpretative remark was apparently derived from the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, where the word used for 'crescent ornament' or 'little crescent' was a diminutive of the word for ''moon''. The 1611 King James translators decided to embed this remark within the text itself by omitting the brackets, thus 'and round tires like the moon'. Since this interpretative prepositional phrase was not in the original Hebrew, it should have been placed in italics in the King James text."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This doesn't appear to be a translation error, but just a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|17. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Tablets
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the '''tablets''', and the earrings," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'' states that the best translation would be something like the Latin Vulgate's "scent-bottles." It states that the translation rendered literally is "'little houses [containers] of vital energy [life],' made use of by breathing."<ref>Horst Seebass, "נֶפֶשׁ," in ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'', ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. David E. Green, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 9:505.</ref> The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is better rendered as something like "tomb" or "grave."<ref name="boylanproblematic">Robert S. Boylan, "Some of the More Problematic Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon Suggesting Joseph Smith was Influenced by KJV Isaiah, not the Brass Plates," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', November 13, 2021, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/some-of-more-problematic-isaiah.html?q=translation+errors.</ref> This is most likely a translation variant, given the disagreement among scholars. It may not be an error at all. The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a scent-bottle, a tomb, or a grave, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. (Given the poetic nature of Isaiah, all of these resonances may be intended--their scent bottles of life are ironically death which they pack around with them.)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|18. {{s||Isaiah|3|20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|20}}
||Earrings
||"The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the '''earrings'''," ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#20 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-20.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "amulets."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether amulets or earrings, it doesn't change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|19. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Wimples
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles and the '''wimples''', and the crisping pins" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word refers to a wide or flowing cloak. The English word used by the King James translators, ''wimple'', is quite different: 'a garment of linen or silk formerly worn by women, so folded as to envelop the head, chin, sides of the face, and neck; now retained in the dress of nuns' (the first definition under the noun wimple in the ''Oxford English Dictionary'')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|219}} The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether a cloak or a wimple, (both items of clothing to cover and protect) it doesn't change the intent of the verse, which implies that the soon-to-be captive will be stripped naked literally by the Assyrians, and spiritually by their vulnerability to the pagan invaders.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|20. {{s||Isaiah|3|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|22}}
||Crisping pins
||"The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the '''crisping pins'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The modern-day equivalent of ''crisping pin'' would be ''curling iron''. The Hebrew is generally interpreted here as referring to purses or handbags."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Similar considerations apply as for "wimples" above. Whether they are seen as losing their fancy, well-coiffed hair or their purses containing cosmetics or riches, the ironic fall of the daughters of Zion is graphically illustrated.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|21. {{s||Isaiah|3|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|23}}
||Glasses
||"The '''glasses''', and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' The ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament'' states that the translation is best rendered as "papyrus garments" or "mirrors."<ref name="boylanproblematic" /> The verse is using the rhetorical device of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulatio accumulatio] to communicate and emphasize that everything will be taken from the "daughters of Zion" (v. 17) so that they will be humbled. Whether glasses, papyrus garments, or mirrors, it doesn't change the intent of the verse. The irony is again thick in either case--if mirrors, then those who cannot see their spiritual state clearly will lose the mirrors in which they admire themselves in pride. If papyrus garments, these are delicate and easily stripped away by the Assyrians who will lead them into slavery--again, a dramatic type of shameful exposure to those so concerned about externals.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|22. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Rent
||"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a '''rent'''; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two Hebrew verbs, both with identical consonants, but with different meanings: one means 'to tear' and the other means 'to go around or to surround'. The noun ''rent'' derives from the first verb, but the noun ''rope'' or ''cord'' (meaning to go around the body) derives from the second. Here the word ''girdle'' takes the archaic meaning 'belt'. Modern translators have typically rendered this line in {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} as 'and instead of a belt, a rope.'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} The intent of Isaiah is to contrast the former dignity and pride of the daughters of Zion with their current shame. Interestingly, in the ancient Near East, uncovering someone's nakedness was a way to make them feel shame (see, for example, {{s||Isaiah|47|3}} which reflects this attitude) so keeping "rent" (i.e. cut/gap) where perhaps a person's belt line was would uncover someone's buttocks and genitals and is an appropriate way to make the contrast between current dignity and subsequent shame or lower social status. The intent of the passage is unaltered and correct.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|23. {{s||Isaiah|3|24}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|13|24}}
||Stomacher
||"and instead of a '''stomacher''', a girding of sackcloth" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-3/#24 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/3-24.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' "The Hebrew word here, ''patigil'', is otherwise unattested. The Greek Septuagint translated it as 'a tunic of mixed purple', which has led to the general translation of this article of clothing as 'a fine garment' or 'a rich robe'. Miles Coverdale, in his Bible, translated it more specifically as ''stomacher'', 'an ornamental covering for the chest (often covered with jewels) worn by women under the lacing of the bodice'."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} As the Hebrew remains uncertain, this can only be seen as a translation variant rather than error. The essential message of Isaiah in contrasting fine, luxurious things with things of lower social status and shame that await the future Assyrian captives remains unaffected.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|24. {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}
||Defence
||"And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a '''defence'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/4-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator's Gloss.''' Critics allege that word translated here as "defence" is better rendered as "canopy."<ref name="ankerberg" />{{Rp| 322.}} True, "canopy" [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/4-5.htm is in most popular English biblical translations]. However, nearly all of these popular English biblical translations see a canopy as a defending structure, and the King James translation as well as the Book of Mormon see it precisely that way. Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a 'chamber' (as a covering or enclosing), per ''BDB'', or a 'shelter' (per Holladay's ''Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament''). As the word 'defense' in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as, there is no issue."<ref name="boylankjv">Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Errors in the Book of Mormon?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', October 8, 2015, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2015/10/kjv-errors-in-book-of-mormon.html?q=translation+errors.</ref>

Similarly, Daniel C. Peterson responded to this claim as follows in a 1993 review of an anti-Mormon book:

:In {{s|2|Nephi|14|5}}, the Book of Mormon follows KJV {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in rendering the Hebrew ''chuppah'' as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.

:Their reading of ''chuppah'' is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted {{s||Isaiah|4|5}} in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as ''super omnem enim gloriam protectio''. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has ''pase te doxe skepaslllcsetai'', in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns ''skepas'' and ''skepc'', both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy ... shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the ''New English Bible''. The Evangelical Protestant ''New International Version'' says that the "canopy ... will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?<ref>{{Peterson:Chattanooga Cheapshot Or The Gall Of Bitterness Review:FARMS Review:1993|pages=50-51}}</ref>

This is perhaps best understood as a translator's gloss. A translator's gloss works more as an explanation of the underlying text rather than a literal translation. It makes explicit what ancient readers would have understood implicitly by the ancient term.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|25. {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|2}}
||Fenced
||"And he '''fenced''' it and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' "The Hebrew verb for ''fenced'' in {{s||Isaiah|5|2}} is now translated as 'to dig about' or 'to hoe or weed'; in other words, "he dug about it and cleared it of its stones."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright derives basically the same analysis as Skousen.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The verse here is a part of verses 1–7 that describe Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard. ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' notes that it "allegorically portrays the Lord as Isaiah's friend ... who worked so hard to ensure a productive vineyard only to be disappointed when it yielded sour grapes. The allegory, which is explained only at the end, draws in the audience, as many in ancient Judah would have had extensive experience in vineyards. Its conclusion makes puns to make its point, viz., the Lord expects ''justice'' (Heb "mishpat") but sees only ''bloodshed'' (Heb "mispah") and hopes for ''righteousness'' (Heb "tsedaqah") only to hear a ''cry'' (Heb "tse'aqah)."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|986n1–7}} "The 1828 Webster<ref>See {{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=fence}}</ref> notes that the word ''fence means'' 'a wall, hedge, ditch,' the third example fitting well with the modern renderings."<ref name="tvedtnes" />

The KJV translators may have meant to say that the Lord allegorically protected the vineyard by fencing it with a ditch. (Or earth/stones dug from the ditch are then piled as a barrier on the edge of the ditch, combining the images.) The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that, at its broadest, "to fence" meant simply to put up a type of barrier at the time of the King James Version's translation. Thus there are examples of writers from the 17th century saying, for instance, "The lands of [private] men..were '''fenced with ditches'''." This usage fits into the Book of Mormon's and KJV's usage. Other examples of writings from the 17th century say that you can fence with a battlement, walls, iron armor, shells, and so forth. To fence was to simply put up a type of barrier.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|26. {{s||Isaiah|5|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|12}}
||Viol
||"And the harp, and the '''viol''', the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Against the Book of Mormon, critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|27. {{s||Isaiah|5|17}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|17}}
||Then shall the lambs feed after their manner
||"'''Then shall the lambs feed after their manner''', and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#17 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-17.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "then lambs shall feed as at their pasture/meadow" or "in their old pastures."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} The passage is contrasting the type of success one can have with the Lord and the grave misfortune one can have when one does not follow the Lord. The previous verse to this (v.16) begins that contrast. The intent of the passage is to say that lambs shall return to their normal feeding. Thus saying that they return to their old pasture to feed and saying that they'll feed "after their manner" is really not a substantive change in meaning. The author judges this as a translation variant rather than an error. Even if the image shifts slightly, it is inconsequential.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|28. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Carcases
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their '''carcases''' were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their '''corpses''' were as refuse in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} This is a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the word "carcass" could refer to either animal or human remains at the time that the King James Bible was translated. After about the year 1750, it came to be used as a form of contempt for human remains.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Carcass."</ref> These usages fit perfectly within the context of Isaiah. This appears an attempt to find fault where there is none—a carcass and a corpse are the same thing.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|29. {{s||Isaiah|5|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|25}}
||Were torn
||"Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases '''were torn''' in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "their corpses were '''as refuse''' in the midst of the streets."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} To say that the corpses "were torn" in the midst of the streets ''does'' leave ambiguity since "were torn" could refer to people or perhaps animals ''actively tearing up'' dead human remains in the streets or, alternatively, it could refer to the dead bodies ''already being torn up'' in the streets. "Refuse" refers to trash. To say that their corpses were torn in the streets is functionally the same thing as saying that they're refuse. Regarding "torn", Robert S. Boylan stated that "[t]he Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon...if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means 'cut of' or 'torn off'; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean 'as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offal offal].'"<ref name="boylankjv" /> In either case, the sense of horror to an Israelite audience would be profound, who would be troubled both by the desecration of a body if it were torn by scavengers ''and'' by the fact that the dead lay in the street, unburied. A proper burial was vital in the ancient world, and not receiving it was regarded as a terrible fate.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|30. {{s||Isaiah|5|30}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|15|30}}
||And the light is darkened in the heavens thereof
||"And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea: and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, '''and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "the light is darkened by/in its clouds."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Whether the light is darkened in the sky or by clouds, the intent of the verse isn't changed. (And what in the sky, one wonders, would darken light if not clouds?)
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|31. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||It
||"Above '''it''' stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "above '''him'''" (referring to the Lord in v. 1) instead of "above it" (which would be referring to the train of his garment in v. 1).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Though it's uncertain if saying that the angel standing above the garment train is a denial that the angel stood above God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|32. {{s||Isaiah|6|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}}
||Seraphims
||"Above it stood the '''seraphims''': each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The current edition of the Book of Mormon just has ''seraphim'' without the ''s''. Skousen's earliest reconstruction of the verses as well as [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1830/97 the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon] have "seraphim'''s'''."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|114}} Under a certain perspective, a more correct translation of these verses would indeed render it as only "seraphim" and not "seraphim'''s'''" with an s. That is because the suffix ''-im'' in Hebrew already indicates that the object is pluralized. Though one could argue that there really is no error in translation given that the KJV translators were just using English conventions in order to assure readers that the object was pluralized. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of seraph could be seraph'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=seraph}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|33. {{s||Isaiah|6|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|6}}
||Seraphims
||"Then flew one of the '''seraphims''' unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar" (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition) ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Convention.''' The same analysis as applies to the "error" in {{s|2|Nephi|16|2}} in the previous entry. One anti-Latter-day Saint used a similar argument in claiming that the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was in error by using the word "cherubims" from the KJV.<ref>Dave Miller, "Is the Book of Mormon from God?" ''Apologetics Press'', 31 December 2002, {{antilink|https://apologeticspress.org/is-the-book-of-mormon-from-god-1187/}}</ref> The same reasoning applies against his claim. Consider the ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'', for instance, that said that the plural of cherub could be cherub'''s'''.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=cherub}} </ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|34. {{s||Isaiah|6|13}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|16|13}}
||Whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves, so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.
||"But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, '''whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "whose stock/stump remains when they are felled (or: their leaves fall): its stock/stump is the holy seed."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} Though the verse retains the substance of meaning proposed by the critic. The verse means to communicate that "[a] part of Israel would return, and like the oak and terebinth, which though they are eaten or consumed right to their substance or stumps, yet they possess a seed in them that can regenerate."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|367}} "Despite the horrific imagery of a mere ten-percent survival rate (''tenth part''), the account concludes with a hopeful image of new growth from the ravaged stump that will constitute the holy seed of restoration (see {{s||Ezra|9|2}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|989n11–13}} Is saying that the "substance" of the tree remains really a denial of the stump/stock being that substance? Are the rhetorical goals of the verse not accomplished by changing "stock/stump" to "substance"? It could be seen as the tree's "vital force" or "substance" hidden within and life apparently gone, but awaiting the chance to burst forth anew.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|35. {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|14}}
||Virgin
||"Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' This passage in {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and its proper translation is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14 one of the most contested in all of scripture].

The verses have been crucial for Christians who want to support Matthew's use of the passage in his Gospel to theologically support the notion that the Savior would be born of Mary, who was a virgin. Jews and the majority of biblical scholars contend, and not without merit, that the proper translation of the verse is to have merely "young woman" instead of "virgin." What's more, Christians have needed to contend that prophecies can have more than one fulfillment since the verses could be referring to a son of Ahaz that would be named Immanuel in context.

Some of our critics contend, based on this mistranslation, that the idea of the virgin birth is anachronistic to the time of Nephi, but [[Virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon|we have responded to that in depth elsewhere on the Wiki]].

The issue of translation has been explored elsewhere by non-Latter-day Saint Christian scholars as well as Latter-day Saint scholars.<ref>Jason R. Combs, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/prophets-prophecies-old-testament/king-ahazs-sign-christ-jesus From King Ahaz’s Sign to Christ Jesus: The ‘Fulfillment’ of Isaiah 7:14]," in ''Prophets & Prophecies of the Old Testament'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book Company, 2017), 95-122; {{Interpreter:Parry:An Approach To Isaiah Studies:2020}}; Garrett Kell, "[https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jesus-virgin-child-isaiah/ Is Jesus Really the Virgin–Born Child] in {{s||Isaiah|7|}}?" ''The Gospel Coalition'', May 9, 2020, .</ref>

Perhaps the best commentary was offered by the editors of netbible.org who observed that the Hebrew term translated as "virgin" (''ʿalmah''), in the vast majority of cases, refers to just a young woman who has reached sexual maturity, but that it can be and has been used in select instances to refer to a virgin (e.g. {{s||Gen|24|43}}). Thus, one's view of the doctrine of virgin birth may be entirely unaffected by disputes over translation.<ref>''NET Bible'', [https://netbible.org/bible/Isaiah+7 Isaiah 7, footnote 25].</ref> There are other issues to deal with if wanting the verse to work as a reference to Christ, but as far as a translation of the verse, we've explicated all the most relevant issues.

It should be remembered that one of the reasons that {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} and {{s|2|Nephi|7|14}} retain the "virgin" translation may very well be because Nephi had already seen a vision of the virgin Mary ({{s|1|Nephi|11|13}}, 15) and, like Matthew, may have wanted {{s||Isaiah|7|14}} to say "virgin" as part of a theological commentary on Isaiah [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|that we know that he was engaged in given the substantive differences between the KJV and Book of Mormon versions of Isaiah]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|36. {{s||Isaiah|7|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|15}}
||That
||"Butter and honey shall he eat''', that''' he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the logical relation of the second clause to the first is not clear. It is as if eating butter and honey leads to moral knowledge. Clarification is needed. Compare the ''New Jerusalem Bible'': "On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Certainly clarification of the logic is preferable here, but the rhetorical goals of the verse are still accomplished given this translation, and there are no grave errors as constructed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|37. {{s||Isaiah|7|23}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|23}}
||Silverlings
||"where there were a thousand vines at a thousand '''silverlings'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#23 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-23.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew here literally reads 'a thousand of silver', where the presumed measure of weight is the shekel. The Greek Septuagint translated this phrase as 'a thousand shekels'. The use of ''silverlings'' in the English translation originated with Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible. The English word ''silvering'' was chosen because it was morphologically analyzed as a ''silver + ling'', but its value was not the same as a shekel's."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the scripture appears to remain unharmed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|38. {{s||Isaiah|7|25}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|17|25}}
||Mattock
||"and all the hills that shall be digged with the '''mattock'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-7/#25 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/7-25.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "This is a tool that in the Hebrew is based on the verb meaning 'to pick' or 'to hoe'. The English mattock refers to a tool that is more specific than simply a pick or a hoe."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The intent of the passage seems to remain unchanged.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|39. {{s||Isaiah|8|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|1}}
||Man's pen
||"Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with '''a man’s pen''' concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "common/ordinary letters" or "common/ordinary stylus."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The concern here is over "man" and what the significance of saying "a man's pen" is. It's certainly not clear enough to communicate that Isaiah means that the pen is common or average. But it's also not erroneous.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|40. {{s||Isaiah|8|6}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|6}}
||Rejoice
||"Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and '''rejoice''' in Rezin and Remaliah’s son;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#6 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-6.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation "may be" "'''but melt''' (with fear) before Rezin and Remaliah's son."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|170}} Experts affirm that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-6.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] have "rejoice" instead of "melt in fear." Either translation works and makes enough sense in historical context. The Lord merely means to express his "dissatisfaction with Ahaz's refusal to accept the divine offer of protection."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991n5-8}} The Lord does not want Judah to associate with with Rezin and Pekah. Those that do associate themselves reject the offer and "rejoice" in Rezin and Pekah by gladly joining them in their quest to defend against the incoming invasion of the Assyrians. The ''Contemporary English Version'' (2000) translates this verse as "These people have refused the gentle waters of Shiloah and have gladly gone over to the side of King Rezin and King Pekah." This captures the spirit of what is meant to be "rejoicing" in Rezin and Pekah. Though one could also translate it as "melt in fear" and say that the people join Rezin and Pekah because of fear of them. At worst, "rejoice" is merely a translation variant; and at best, it's an entirely correct translation and "melt in fear" is in error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|41. {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|12}}
||All them
||"Say ye not, A confederacy, to '''all them''' to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts the better translation is "...to all that this people calls a confederacy/conspiracy."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The Book of Mormon omits the "them" from {{s||Isaiah|8|12}} and just has "say ye not a confederacy to all to whom this people shall say a confederacy." The Book of Mormon's sentence construction doesn't change substantively from Wright' proposal.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|42. {{s||Isaiah|8|19-20}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|19-20}}
||To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them
||"And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they shall speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#19 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-19.htm Bible Hub v. 18] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-20.htm Bible Hub v. 20])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew is obscure and that the KJV/ Book of Mormon translation is also obscure. He asks us to compare the following modern translation "And should people say to you, 'Go and consult ghosts and wizards that whisper and mutter'–a people should certainly consult its gods and the dead on behalf of the living! As regards instruction and testimony, without doubt this is how they will talk, and hence there will be no dawn for them" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The current edition of the Book of Mormon reads as follows (differences from KJV bolded): "And when they shall say unto you''':''' Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards '''that peep and''' mutter'''—'''should not a people seek unto their God for the living to '''hear from''' the dead? To the law and to the testimony''';''' '''and''' if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." So the only real difference to which Wright draws our eye is the KJV/BoM's bad (?) translation of "to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." This can only be considered a translation variant and not an error on Wright's theory (if indeed the Hebrew is obscure). But the Book of Mormon and KJV likely capture the better sense of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|43. {{s||Isaiah|8|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|18|22}}
||And; and they shall be driven
||"And they shall look unto the earth; '''and''' behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; '''and they shall be driven''' to darkness." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-8/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/8-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously asserts that "[t]he Hebrew here is ... obscure" and then, in the same sentence, states that "the KJV offers an unlikely translation, especially of the last phrase." This in part of an essay dedicated to KJV ''errors'' in the Book of Mormon. He asks us to compare the KJV to the following translations: "or he may look below, but behold, distress and darkness, with no daybreak, straitness and gloom, with no dawn" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society'') and "then (he will look) down to the earth, there will be only anguish, gloom, the confusion of night, swirling darkness" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/8-22.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse as "driven" or "thrust" into thick darkness. The meaning of the underlying Hebrew is confirmed uncertain by scholar Marvin Sweeney.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|991nC}} Thus this can only be considered a translation variant. The intent and overall meaning of the passage is not affected. The passage concerns Isaiah warning people to not practice necromancy as was often practiced (and condemned) in ancient Israel ({{s||Isaiah|19|3}}; {{s||Leviticus|19|31}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|18|10-11}}). With the practice of necromancy, Israel will only see greater and greater darkness and distress as they call upon the dead thought to inhabit the shadow lands of the underworld. Whether they are "thrust" into darkness, "driven" into darkness, or that they look and see utter darkness with no break of day, makes little difference. This again looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|44. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation
||"'''Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation''', when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For if there were to be any break of day for that [land] which is in straits" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "But there will be no gloom for her that was in anguish" (''Revised Standard Version''); and "For is not everything dark as night for a country in distress" (''New Jerusalem Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} It seems that the substantive meaning of the verse is not changed from Wright's proposals. The verse simply means that the dimness or gloom will not be like it was when these nations mentioned were distressed or vexed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|45. {{s||Isaiah|9|1}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}}
||Grievously afflict
||"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more '''grievously afflict''' by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' The better translation is "but in the future '''he will honor''' Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}}

The Book of Mormon actually changes this verse quite a bit from the original one in {{s||Isaiah|9|1}}. It reads: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations." {{s|2|Nephi|19|1}} reads: "Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict <s>her</s> by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations." Thus, the Book of Mormon makes the verse refer to the Red Sea. Critics have made fun of the Book of Mormon for this and leveled other criticisms. See [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/The Red Sea|here]] and [[Question: Why does 2 Nephi 19:1 change the word "sea" in Isaiah 9 to "Red Sea"?|here]] for commentary on the criticisms that have arisen.

We now must ask—could the translation of "grievously afflicting" actually be some sort of modification by Nephi that provides commentary on his own situation or experience? [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|We know that there were modifications done by Nephi]] to affect the meaning and intent of Isaiah's scripture as a sort of commentary on his own situation that Nephi calls "likening" ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). Could there be something similar going on here? As a guess, this may have something to do with the difficult journey that Lehi, Nephi, and their family faced by the borders of the Red Sea as they traveled down the Arabian Peninsula.

Skousen actually tells us that he believes that "Red Sea" was not an accident by scribes of the Book of Mormon translation. He believes that "Red Sea" was actually on the plates that Joseph Smith translated from. He deduces this from the fact that there is no manuscript evidence that scribes of the Book of Mormon translation text inserted "Red" next to "sea" even in the original manuscript of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Also, there are four uses in the Bible of the phrase "by the way of the Red Sea" ({{s||Numbers|14|25}}; {{s||Numbers|21|4}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|1|40}}; {{s_short||Deuteronomy|2|1}}). Familiarity with the phrase, Skousen argues, perhaps led Nephi to add the word "Red" to sea in his copying of Isaiah. Either that or "Red" was actually a part of the text and Nephi didn't add anything to it. Furthermore, out of 82 occurrences of the word "sea" in the Book of Mormon, there is no manuscript evidence that scribes added "Red" to the word "sea", even as a mistake that was then corrected.<ref name="skousenvariants" />{{Rp|732–33}} Skousen retained "Red Sea" in his reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon: the text as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith (or at least his best reconstruction of it).<ref name="skousenearliest">{{Book:Skousen:The Earliest Text}}</ref>{{Rp|119}}

Again, [[Question: Do the changes in the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages reflect a better translation of the underlying Hebrew?|Nephi was "likening" Isaiah to his current situation and understanding all throughout the Book of Mormon quotations of Isaiah]] by changing text ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}). It's likely that something similar is going on here.

This may thus be an intentional emendation by Nephi to creatively liken the scriptures Isaiah wrote to his present situation that was then correctly translated by Joseph Smith from the plates to the English language. The intent of the verse ''is changed'' and does actually lead us into an incorrect understanding of what Isaiah's original text meant. But it ''isn’t'' an error regarding what ''Nephi'' meant to communicate about God. If Nephi is likening this passage to himself and his then-current situation and understanding, then there is no error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|46. {{s||Isaiah|9|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|2}}
||Shadow of death
||"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the '''shadow of death''', upon them hath the light shined." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew term ''almäwet'' which this verse translates should be simply "darkness." It is not connected with the term ''mäwet'' "death."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/9-2.htm More than a few modern, popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "the land of the shadow of death." The verse merely "symbolizes the mortal world where there is darkness, and death."<ref name="bookofmormonref">{{Book:Largey:Book of Mormon Reference Companion}} </ref>{{Rp|374}} Whether saying "the land of darkness", "the land of the shadow of death", or something close to it, the meaning or referent is still the same: the mortal, fallen world/earth.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|47. {{s||Isaiah|9|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|19|5}}
||For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise
||"'''For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise''', and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-9/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/9-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "For every boot that tramps with noise/in battle."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon changes this verse to read "For every battle of the warrior with confused noise and garments rolled in blood—but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire."<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|119}} The verse concerns imminent military oppression. "Military oppression is symbolized by the ''yoke'' (10.27; 14.25), the ''bar'' (10.24), the ''rod'' (10.24; 14.4; {{s||Gen|49|10}}), and trampling ''boots''."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|993n4–5}} The "confused noise" of the battle could be correctly interpreted as the trampling boots. Regardless, Isaiah means to say that the military oppressors will be overthrown and that the oppression will be fuel for fire. The reader can still come to the accurate conclusion that all of it—the battles with confused noise and the garments rolled in blood—will be burned. The details are different; the message is the same.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|48. {{s||Isaiah|10|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|4}}
||Without me
||"'''Without me''' they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the KJV's translation is "doubtful." The better translation is supposedly "so that they do not cower among the prisoners" (''Revised English Bible''); "Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners" (''Revised Standard Version'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verse is meant to merge with the rhetorical question of the previous verse which reads (''New Revised Standard Version'') "To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth, so as not to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain?" The verse can still make sense as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon, since the verse simply means to say that "[d]uring the day of visitation the wicked will fall in the destruction or become prisoners with other captives."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|376–37}} The ''without me'' can then function as the Lord saying "without my intervention and aid, these people will have to crouch among prisoners or die." Meaning has changed but not significantly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|49. {{s||Isaiah|10|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|15}}
||As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood
||"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? '''as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the Hebrew should be translated "as if a rod raised the one who lifted it, as if a staff lifted the one who is not wood."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|171}} The verses concern the Lord declaring his superior power against the Assyrians. The Lord uses the imagery of an axe and saw and essentially says that they can't declare their superiority over the one who wields them. The verses still accomplish their rhetorical goals. The detail has changed, the intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|50. {{s||Isaiah|10|18}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|18}}
||As when a standardbearer fainteth
||"And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be '''as when a standardbearer fainteth'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#18 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-18.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the better translation is something like "and it will be as when '''a sick man''' wastes away," "and it will be as when '''a weak person''' despairs," or "and it will be as '''when someone''' falls in a fit."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> Most translations have something like the first suggestion. Though [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm at least three modern, popular, English biblical translations] carry something like "as when a standard-bearer faints." The superior translation clearly seems to be "when a sick man wastes away" since the verse is trying to describe how the Lord "destroys both soul and body as well as that man's 'forest and fruitful field'." The verse may still work with "standard-bearer faints", however. ''Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[t]he 'standard-bearer' was chosen for his heroic strength and stature. When he 'fainted' and gave way, what hope was there that others would survive? A more correct rendering, however, gives ‘As a sick man pineth away.’" Similarly, ''Pulpit Commentary'' [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-18.htm#commentary notes] that "[u]tter prostration and exhaustion is indicated, whichever way the passage is translated."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|51. {{s||Isaiah|10|27}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|20|27}}
||The anointing
||And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of '''the anointing''' ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-10/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/10-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is something like "the yoke shall be destroyed because of fatness." He asserts that some emend the text of the masoretic text of Isaiah (the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have) since it doesn't make clear sense.<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/10-27.htm Most modern, popular, English biblical translations] agree with the critic though some retain a reference to an anointing with oil. The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "because of oil."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|378}} The best way to translate that Hebrew and expand it into a more coherent idea is still uncertain. Thus this can only be considered a translation variant.

The essential message of this passage is that the yoke of Assyria's oppression against Israel will be taken off. Different translations use different imagery that are compatible with that essential message. With fatness, the yoke will be taken off or fall off of Israel because they have become fat and the yoke is too small. The ''Douay-Rheims'' translation of this verse makes the imagery mean that the oil will rot off the yoke. Anointing is typically associated with ordaining someone to success. Thus, with the translation as it stands in the KJV and Book of Mormon, perhaps the imagery can be that God has ordained or anointed Israel to be successful before her enemies and thus the yoke will be destroyed because of God's protection of Israel. Thus, given different translations, the detail certainly changes, but the essential meaning does not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|52. {{s||Isaiah|11|3}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|3}}
||Make him of quick understanding
||"And shall '''make him of quick understanding''' in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#3 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-3.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critics assert that the underlying Hebrew translated as "make him of quick understanding" is "unclear" but "probably" doesn't mean "make him of quick understanding." The better translation is "probably" something like, "He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord" (''Tanakh of the Jewish Publication Society''); "And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord" (''New American Bible'').<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}<ref name="runnells1769" /> The chapter speaks about a coming Messiah. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/11-3.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this passage as the second suggestion from the critic. The gist of the verse as constructed in the KJV and Book of Mormon is that the Messiah will be filled with great knowledge—though arguably in context one would only be said to be ''genuinely'' of quick understanding if one feared God and obeyed him. Thus "reverence for the Lord" is the best evidence of "quick understanding." The true wisdom and genius, we might say, is in knowing to obey God, and not simply because one quickly masters man's learning or priorities.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|53. {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|21|15}}
||Dry-shod
||"he shall. . .make men go over '''dry-shod'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-11/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/11-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translator’s Gloss.''' "The past participial phrase ''dry-shod'' is equivalent to the adverbial phrase 'with dry shoes'. Here the Hebrew as well as the Greek and the Latin translations simply use the phrase 'in sandals', without any reference to getting one's sandals wet."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The adverbial phrase still makes sense in context, however. The whole verse in {{s||Isaiah|11|15}} reads as follows: "And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry-shod." Scholars recognize that this is an allusion to the Exodus when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea with dry feet.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|997n15}} This is best understood as a translator’s gloss: the translation may make explicit what the ancient readers would have understood implicitly.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|54. {{s||Isaiah|13|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|12}}
||Wedge
||"I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden '''wedge''' of Ophir" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' The better translation is "more precious. . .than '''the gold''' of Ophir."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Regardless of the translation, the essence is that a man is being made more precious than a piece of gold from Ophir. No significant alteration in meaning.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|55. {{s||Isaiah|13|14}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|14}}
||Roe
||"and it shall be as the chased '''roe'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "In English, a roe is a species of small deer. The word in the Hebrew refers to a gazelle. The word ''gazelle'' entered English in the late 1500s and early 1600s and would not have been readily available to the King James translators. All the earlier English translations, dating back to Miles Coverdale's 1535 Bible, had the phrase ''chased doe'' rather than ''chased roe''."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} Both the gazelle and roe—speedy hooved herbivores often hunted—work as illustrations of the imagery of fleeing to one's own people and lands. Thus the intent of the passage is not changed.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|56. {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|15}}
||That is joined
||"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one '''that is joined''' unto them shall fall by the sword." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – Change in Intent.''' Wright asserts that the better translation is "who are caught/captured."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse intends to create a type of parallelism between the first and second clauses. It doesn't seem to be a substantive shift in meaning to say that all who are caught will be killed and all who are joined to the people who are caught will be killed. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon changes "found" in {{s||Isaiah|13|15}} to read "proud" and substitutes "the wicked" for "them" such that the verse reads "[e]very one that is proud shall be thrust through; yea, and every one that is joined to the wicked shall fall by the sword."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|57. {{s||Isaiah|13|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|21}}
||Satyrs
||"But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and '''satyrs''' shall dance there." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Hebrew word here in the singular is sa'ir, which in the Hebrew refers to hairy demons or monsters that inhabit the deserts. This word has been incorrectly translated into its phonetically similar Greek word ''satyr'', which refers to a woodland god that is half-human and half-beast."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} No significant change in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-21.htm The vast majority of popular English biblical translations] render this as wild goats, goat-demons, or [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr satyrs] (mythical half-human, half-goat creatures). The intent of the verse is to communicate that Babylon will be made desolate and no man shall live there. Instead, animals will infest their lands and inhabit them. No significant change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|58. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Wild beasts
||"And the '''wild beasts''' of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Jeremy Runnells asserts that the better translation would be something like either "howling beast", "jackal", or "hyena."<ref name="runnells1769" /> The word איים (aym) refers to a howling desert animal and most translators seem to take that as a reference to either jackals or hyenas.<ref>Though [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm there are translations (mostly much older ones)] that take it as a reference to either sirens, cats, owls, dogs, or wolves.</ref> There is no evidence that jackals or hyenas were domesticated in ancient Israel. They have remained wild in most cultures. Thus "wild" isn't truly an inaccurate translation here either. Even critic David Wright thinks that the passage is translated accurately as either "wild beasts" or "desert beasts."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The passage in the KJV already says that the wild beasts "shall cry" in desolate houses, so why "howling beast" needs to be added on top of "cry" is at least mildly uncertain. This is a case where the translation is at best not erroneous at all and at worst just too broad. Certainly there is no shift away from the intent of the passage. This too looks like straining to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|59. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Of the islands
||"And the wild beasts '''of the islands''' shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Wright asserts that the better translation would be to omit "of the islands" and render it simply "wild/desert beasts" or specifically "jackals" or "hyenas."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} The verse concerns the Lord's/Isaiah's prediction that Babylon will revert to its primitive condition when it is overthrown. Whether "hyenas" or "wild beasts of the islands" crying in the towers of Babylon does not matter or change the intent of the verse.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|60. {{s||Isaiah|13|22}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|23|22}}
||Dragons
||"And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and '''dragons''' in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-13/#22 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/13-22.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Runnells asserts that the better translation would be to replace "dragons" with "jackals."<ref name="runnells1769" /> [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/13-22.htm The majority of popular English biblical translations] render this verse with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal jackals]" instead of dragons though at least one modern, popular translation keep dragons. "Dragon" could refer to merely a snake at the time of the King James translation, according to the ''Oxford English Dictionary''.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Dragon."</ref> One places "hedgehogs" here and another "wild dogs." We can make similar commentary here as we did for the "of the islands" error. The verses concern a reversion of Babylon to a primitive, uncivilized, even dangerous condition when the Lord desolates it. Whether jackals or dragons in the palaces, it doesn't really matter. The verses are meant to depict the desolated and grim condition of Babylon after the Lord ravages it. Details have changed, the underlying imagery and intent has not.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|61. {{s||Isaiah|14|2}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|2}}
||Handmaids
||"And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and '''handmaids'''; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Skousen says that "[i]n this verse the sense of handmaid is 'a female slave', especially since the paired noun ''servant'' means 'a male slave'. In biblical contexts, ''handmaid'' usually means 'a female personal servant', but not here."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} But a handmaid in the [https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/handmaid ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' understands] a handmaid to be a "maid that waits at hand; '''a female servant''' or attendant." Similarly, the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' notes that the main usage of handmaid is to refer to "[a] '''female''' personal attendant or '''servant'''."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Handmaid."</ref> Thus it's not certain why Skousen considers this to be an error. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-2.htm Popular biblical translations more contemporary to the 1800s as well as two more modern translations] render it as "handmaids."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|62. {{s||Isaiah|14|4}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|4}}
||Golden city
||"And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the '''golden city''' ceased!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen claims that the better translation is "how hath the oppressor ceased, the '''assaulting''' ceased."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Critic David P. Wright asserts that the KJV translation is "doubtful" and that the translation should "probably" be "boisterous behavior, frenzy, [or] arrogance."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}}

This is Isaiah's taunt song against Babylon. Calling Babylon "the golden city" that is laid down and humbled is a great way to taunt Babylon given that Isaiah would then be contrasting their former glory with their current misery. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-4.htm Five other biblical translations (two of which are modern and three much older)] render it as "golden city." Scholar Seth Erlandson makes a compelling case for translating this passage as "golden city."<ref>Seth Erlandsson, ''The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–Isaiah 14:23'' (Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1970), 29–32; quoted in Robert S. Boylan, "Seth Erlandsson on מדהבה meaning 'golden city' in {{s||Isaiah|14|4}}," ''Scriptural Mormonism'', 11 November 2022, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2022/11/seth-erlandsson-on-meaning-golden-city.html?q=golden+city.</ref> Given that "golden city", "assaulting", and "boisterous behavior, frenzy, or arrogance" would all be referring to Babylon ceasing or Babylon's action ceasing, this isn't a translation error at all. The meaning or referent does not change no matter which way the verse is translated! At best we have no error. At worst we have a translation variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|63. {{s||Isaiah|14|5}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|5}}
||Scepter
||"The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, the '''scepter''' of the rulers." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Skousen proposes that the better translation is "the Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the '''rod''' of the rulers."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} But [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-5.htm the vast majority of popular, English biblical translations] render this verse with "scepter" or "sceptre" instead of rod. Either way, it does not seem that either the essential object being referred to or the ethical message change. In Skousen's reconstruction of the earliest text of the Book of Mormon (the best reconstruction of the original words dictated by Joseph Smith), the text reads "scepter'''s'''" in the plural.<ref name="skousenearliest" />{{Rp|127}} This also doesn't seem to significantly change the essential meaning of the text—a sceptre represents the rod of force or correction used by a sovereign to rule. This is a distinction without a difference, though KJV translators would have been more familiar with the more fancy and elaborate sceptre compared to the simple rod.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|64. {{s||Isaiah|14|11}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|11}}
||Viols
||"Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy '''viols''': the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-11.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' Critic M.D. Brown claims that the word translated as "'viol' is the Hebrew 'nebel', a type of lyre. True viols were unknown until the 15th century."<ref name="brown"></ref> This claim is correct. The mistranslation, however, does not lead a reader away from the overall intent of the passage.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|65. {{s||Isaiah|14|12}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|12}}
||Weaken
||"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground which did '''weaken''' the nations!" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#12 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-12.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "There are two meanings for this verb in the Hebrew: one means 'to weaken', the other 'to defeat or to lay prostrate'. In this context, the second of these works better and is the one adopted in modern translations, such as the English Standard Version: 'How you are cut down to the ground, '''you who laid the nations low'''!'"<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} The essential message of bringing the nations down and humbling them is not altered given this variation. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-12.htm Eight other popular English biblical translations (six of which are modern)] render this verse as "weaken."
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|66. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockatrice Cockatrice]
||"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a '''cockatrice'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The cockatrice is a mythical serpent with a deadly glance that is hatched by a reptile from a cock's egg. However, the Hebrew word here is based on a verb meaning 'to hiss' and simply refers to a viper or adder."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} This verse provides "imagery explaining that while an oppressor of the Philistines may perish, another, more severe will follow." It's "a metaphor suggesting that Philistia's next oppressor (the cockatrice or deadly viper) will somehow be related to its first (the serpent or snake), perhaps a descendant."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|388}} Either a cockatrice or viper/adder can accomplish the rhetorical goals of the verse. Some might think that a cockatrice is somehow more powerful than a fiery flying serpent. That may be the case. Who exactly knows the power differentials that Philistia's next oppressors would have? The prophecy may refer to Babylon since they were part of the Assyrian empire and yet overcame the Assyrian empire and destroyed Jerusalem, which the Assyrians never managed to do. around 587 BC. "Philistia attempted to revolt against Assyria" in 715 BCE and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II Sargon] put down the Philistine revolt in 713 BCE" just two years later.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|p.1001n14.28–32}} Or, alternatively, the Philistines may have considered themselves oppressed by the Assyrians, and so revolted. But, whatever they thought of the oppression that led to their revolt, it was nothing compared to the brutal treatment they would receive from Sargon II when he arrived to besiege their land to reassert his control.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|67. {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|24|29}}
||Fiery flying serpent
||"Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken; for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a '''fiery flying serpent'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-14/#29 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/14-29.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "The correct rendition of the Hebrew for {{s||Isaiah|14|29}} should be 'a flying fiery serpent'. The compound ''fiery serpent'' is represented in the Hebrew by a single word ''saraf'', which comes from the verb ''saraf'' 'to burn'; here we have a flying serpent whose sting burns (in other words, 'a flying poisonous serpent')."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|216}} Regardless, we have a mythical serpent creature on the attack. No significant alteration in meaning. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-29.htm Five other popular, English biblical translations (two of which are modern)] render it as the Book of Mormon does here.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|68. {{s||Isaiah|29|16}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|27}}
||Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay
||"And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: '''Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay'''. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#16 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-16.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Erorr – Change in Intent.''' Critic David P. Wright claims that a better translation would be: "How perverse of you! Can the potter be considered as the clay? Can a work say of its maker, 'He did not make me,' and can what is formed say to the one that formed it, 'He has no creative intelligence?'"<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|172}} Wright is correct that this verse's translation changes the meaning of the original text significantly. Isaiah means to use a metaphor that "shows the foolishness of mortals who pretend to be mightier than their Creator (cf. {{s||D&C|10|5-34}})."<ref name="bookofmormonref" />{{Rp|391}}

As currently rendered in the Book of Mormon, the verse means that the wicked who hide their works in darkness are telling God that His "turning of things upside down" will be esteemed as the potter's clay. The "turning of things upside down" might refer to God threatening to humble the mighty and powerful by sending them into slavery. (Compare the daughters of Zion verses which are full of ironic contrasts between the glamorous, worldly daughters before and after their captivity.) Here the wicked are so arrogant that they dismiss God's ability to cause a revolution in their comfortable lives. But this is as foolish, says the Book of Mormon's rendition, as a clay pot thinking that the potter cannot throw it back into the clay for destruction and remixing into something new if he decides to.

The Book of Mormon, in line with the translation outlined by Wright, already teaches us that God is all-searching and all-wise.<ref>{{s|2|Nephi|9|44}}; {{s||Mosiah|27|41}}; {{s_short||Mosiah|29|19}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|69. {{s||Isaiah|29|21}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|27|32}}
||Reproveth
||"And they that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that '''reproveth''' in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-29/#21 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/29-21.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The verb ''reprove'' is used four times in the Book of Mormon, all in biblical quotes. The King James use of ''reprove'' adds a negative sense that is not in the Hebrew original. In all cases, the neutral verb 'judge' would be a more appropriate translation."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/29-21.htm Twelve other popular, English biblical translations (only two of which are modern)] render this verse similar to how the Book of Mormon and King James Version do. The act of judging or arbitrating disputes between peoples may mean that the judge at the city gates actually will reprove those who receive the negative side of his judgements. To be found guilty or liable in a court is always an implicit reproof of behavior. The intent of the passage is to point to the judge at the gate and the judge can both arbitrate and reprove—indeed, one cannot do one without the other. One arbitrates by finding who is in the right and who in the wrong, and arranging a settlement of disparate interests. If one side gets everything they want, the other is reproved. If neither side gets everything they want, there is an implicit reproof of some aspect of both their conduct, and their inability to resolve the matter themselves.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|70. {{s|1|John|5|7}} ~ {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||The potential presence of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma Johannine Comma] in {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}}
||"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-John-Chapter-5/#7 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_john/5-7.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' This one is considered a stretch even by the scholar with whom the author corresponded. The passages from {{s|1|John|5|7}} and {{s|2|Nephi|31|21}} just don't line up like the critics might want them to.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|71. {{s||Exodus|20|13}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|13|21}}
||Kill
||"Thou shalt not '''kill'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/exodus/20-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Some have said that the Book of Mormon's inclusion of the word "kill" here is incorrect and that one should have "murder" instead. There's a complex discussion to be had regarding proper translation that can be found, in part, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill here]. Nevertheless, these debates would have been of little moment to the Book of Mormon's audience, who understood that the command against killing referred to murder, and not to some other forms of death dealing (e.g., self defense, judicial punishment, or lawful warfare).
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|72. {{s||Isaiah|53|8}} ~ {{s||Mosiah|14|8}}
||He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?
||"'''He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?''' for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-53/#8 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/53-8.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' Wright thinks that the first phrase might be rendered as the KJV has it though many moderns translate it as "by oppression and judgment he was taken away" (New International Version).<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|219n48.}} The second phrase, Wright tells us, is obscure in the Hebrew. It has been rendered variously: "who could consider his stock/descendants," "who could consider his fate," "who could describe his abode," or "who could plead his cause." This can only be considered a translation variant. It is not ideal since "declaring a generation" isn't very clear in meaning, though it can plausibly be interpreted to include Wright's suggestions and especially the last one.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|73. {{s||Matthew|23|37}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|10|5}}
||Chickens
||"And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her '''chickens''' under her wings, yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-23/#37 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/23-37.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Diachronic Shift.''' The ''CES Letter'' asserts that this is a translation error.<ref name="runnells1769" /> The author believes that it should be rendered "chicks." This isn't an error, but a good example of the diachronic nature of language. The ''1828 Webster's Dictionary'' defines "chicken" as "[t]he young of fowls, particularly of the domestic hen, or gallinaceous fowls."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=chicken}} </ref> The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' has examples from the 10th to the 16th centuries of "chicken" being used to designate "[t]he young of the domestic fowl [and] its flesh" as well as "the young of any bird."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'', s.v. "Chicken."</ref> This looks like seeking to find fault.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|74. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candle
||"do men light a '''candle''' and put it under bushel?" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek means simply 'a lamp', in fact, 'a small oil lamp."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to use the metaphor of hiding a light when needed to guide towards goodness and truth. Both a candle and lamp can do that; the source of light is simply a question of culture. Even a translation as far from the original as "no one turns on their flashlight and then hides it under the bedclothes" would convey the same message.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|75. {{s||Matthew|5|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|15}}
||Candlestick
||"nay, but on a '''candlestick'''" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The corresponding Greek word means 'a lamp stand' (that is, a specific stand for placing a lamp)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} The intent of the passage is to say that a person shouldn't hide their spiritual light but show it to others. Both a lamp/lampstand and candle/candlestick are effective imagery for communicating that message. See above discussion.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|76. {{s||Matthew|5|27}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|27}}
||By them of old time
||"Ye have heard that it was said '''by them of old time''', Thou shalt not commit adultery:" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#27 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-27.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscripts.''' Newer translations of the Bible, based on the earliest extant manuscripts, omit the phrase "by them of old time." But there is no significant change of meaning nor intent in the verse, and Jesus is quoting {{s||Exodus|20|14}} and {{s||Deuteronomy|5|18}}. Those are certainly references to prophets "of old time" relevant to Jesus. Further, as Robert S. Boylan has observed, "While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase [translated as "by them of old time"] τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in {{s||Matt|5|21}} and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either."<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "KJV Mistranslations in the Sermon at the Temple?" ''Scriptural Mormonism'', May 5, 2016, https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/05/kjv-mistranslations-in-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors. Citing Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 202.</ref> This cannot be considered an error. Only an evidence that [[Question: Do academic translators copy translations of other documents to use as a "base text"?|the Book of Mormon has the King James Bible as its "base text" for translation]].

One critic takes this further and says that "by them of old time" is a ''mistranslation'' of the Greek ''tois archaiois''. It is more properly rendered as "to them of old time" suggesting that God is the one that told the prophets "thou shalt not commit adultery."<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|121}} This is correct,<ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/six-antitheses The Six Antitheses: Attaining the Purpose of the Law through the Teachings of Jesus]," in ''The Sermon on the Mount in Latter-day Scripture'', ed. Gaye Strathearn, Thomas A. Wayment, and Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 96, 107n14.</ref> but that doesn't negate the Book of Mormon's historicity, nor does it mean that the Book of Mormon can't retain its status as the "most correct book." The ethical message is the same: don't commit adultery and don't look on someone to lust after them. Whether it was said ''by'' the prophets of old (which is still correct) or ''to'' the prophets of old doesn't matter at all! If prophets speak the word of the Lord, anything they ''say to the people'' has alrady been ''said to them'' by God.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|77. {{s||Matthew|5|30}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|30}}
||Should be cast into hell
||"And if they right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body '''should be cast into hell'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#30 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-30.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that this should read "that thy whole body should go into hell" instead of "be cast into hell." Larson asserts that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew support this reading.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|122}} The differences, however, seem to be trivial, and "cast into hell" can be the translated phrase from the earliest manuscripts. [https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-30.htm Many popular English biblical translations (including a few modern translations)] render this verse as "cast into hell" though the rest vary between saying "go into hell", "thrown into hell", "depart into hell", and "fall into hell" so, again, the essential intent of the verse is retained no matter the translation.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|78. {{s||Matthew|5|40}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|40}}
||Coat
||"if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy '''coat''', let him have thy cloak also" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#40 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-40.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "The Greek word for ''coat'' is ''chiton'' 'tunic', which actually refers to an inner garment worn under the coat, next to the skin, whereas the Greek word for ''cloak'' is ''himation'', a more general word used to refer to an outer garment (such as a coat or a cloak)."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|214}} "Jesus is saying that, if we are sued even for a trifling amount, rather than countersuing and ratcheting up the hostility, we should be willing to give up what is rightfully ours to defuse the situation."<ref>"What the Bible says about Outer Cloak (From Forerunner Commentary)," ''Bible Tools'', accessed 22 September 2022, https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/11587/Outer-Cloak.htm.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|79. {{s||Matthew|5|44}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|12|44}}
||Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and ... which despitefully use you
||"But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-5/#44 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/5-44.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Newer translations based on earlier manuscripts do render things differently. The newer translations are more simple, something along the lines of, "But I say to you that you shall love those who hate you and pray for those who persecute you."<ref>Thomas A. Wayment, ''The New Testament, A Translation for Latter-day Saints: A Study Bible'' (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2019), 14.</ref> The verses meaning nor intent seem to change in any significant ways. Obviously there's no doctrinal error.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|80. {{s||Matthew|6|4}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|4}}
||Openly
||"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret, himself shall reward thee '''openly'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#4 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-4.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' The word "openly" in this verse [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-4.htm is omitted in most modern, popular, English biblical translations]. That the Lord will reward us openly is repeated in verses 6 and 18 of {{s||Matthew|6|}} and verses 6 and 18 of {{s|3|Nephi|3|}}. "Openly" is omitted in most biblical translations of those verses as well. Some believe that "openly" is implied in the original Greek word αποδιδωμι (ah-poh-dih-doh-mee) while others don't.<ref>For a case in favor of "openly" being implied in the Greek, see Welch, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/sermon-temple-and-greek-new-testament-manuscripts ''Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple''], 205.</ref> Regardless of the correct translation of the Matthean verses, it remains correct doctrine. {{s||Proverbs|10|22}} says that "The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." {{s|2|Corinthians|9|8}} says that "God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." In other words, God is able to bless us abundantly with riches and provisions so that we can continue to do good to others at home and abroad. Is that not blessing us "openly"? Thus this is either a case where there is no translation error at all or there is an intelligible type change in intent.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|81. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Temptation
||"And lead us not into '''temptation''', but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' One critic claims that "temptation" should be rendered as "the time of trial."<ref name="alcase" /> [https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-13.htm The majority of popular, academic, modern, English biblical translations], however, disagree with the author. Further, "the time of trial" ''is'' "temptation." To "tempt" someone is "to put them to the test," or to have a "trial" of their strength or character.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "tempt" as "'''''In Scripture'''', to try; to prove; to put to trial for proof."<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{ea}}</ref> Webster also regards "temptation" as meaning "trial," and even includes this precise phrase ("Lead us not into ''temptation''") as an illustration.<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=tempt}} {{io}}</ref>

The critic is simply ignorant of the meaning of the word, and sees fault where there is none.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|82. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||Evil
||"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from '''evil''': For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' One critic claims that "evil" should be rendered as "the evil one."<ref name="alcase" /> Evil is personified in "the evil one." Satan was seen as the ultimate source of all evil; to be delivered from him was to be delivered from evil, and vice-versa. At most this is a variant.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|83. {{s||Matthew|6|13}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}}
||For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen
||"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#13 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-13.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Correct Translation of Younger Biblical Manuscript.''' Critics believe that this verse, known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxology#Lord's_Prayer_doxology the doxology], was not original to Jesus; that Jesus didn't actually say this. The earliest manuscripts of the Bible do not contain these phrases. The inclusion of the doxology in {{s|3|Nephi|13|13}} is not a problem for the Book of Mormon. See: [[Question: Did Joseph Smith ignorantly include an error from the Bible into the Book of Mormon when including the Lord's Prayer in 3 Nephit 13:13?|here]]. The doxology is obviously not a doctrinal error about God. The doxology is probably based on a reading of {{s|1|Chronicles|29|10-11}} which reads "Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, Lord God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." Robert S. Boylan, citing John W. Welch, offered other important considerations that provide plausibility for the utterance of the doxology by Jesus.<ref>Robert S. Boylan, "[https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-sermon-on-mount-sermon-at-temple.html?q=translation+errors The Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon at the Temple, and the Doxology]," ''Scriptural Mormonism'',26 August 2014.</ref> Swiss theologian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Luz Ulrich Luz] observed that "[t]he three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts." He then argued that {{s|2|Timothy|4|18}} and Didache 8:2 "show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology."<ref>Ulrich Luz, ''{{s||Matthew|1|7}}: A Continental Commentary'', trans. William C. Linss (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1985), 385; as cited in Patrick D. Miller, ''They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer'' (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438n118.</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|84. {{s||Matthew|6|28}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|13|28}}
||Lillies
||"consider the '''lilies''' of the field" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-6/#28 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/6-28.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Legit Error – No Change in Intent.''' "Here the Greek word ''krinon'', modified as being 'in the field', most likely refers to a colorful wild flower."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|215}} The verses are meant to suggest that the birds of the air, flowers of the field, and other things do not worry about the span of their lives nor worry about what they're going to eat to survive and yet the Lord provides for them. The intent of the verse is unchanged.{{Rp|215}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|85. {{s||Matthew|7|2}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}
||Again
||"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you '''again'''." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-7/#2 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/7-2.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Uncertain.''' Stan Larson asserts that the "again" at the end of {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is erroneous.<ref name="larson" />{{Rp|123}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Welch John W. Welch] responded as follows in the ''FARMS Review'': "Example 3 concerns the difference between 'measured to you' (which appears in older Matthean texts) and "measured to you again" (which appears in KJV {{s||Matthew|7|2}} and {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}}). Larson says that I 'downplay the difference among the variants at {{s||Matthew|7|2}}' (p. 123). He does not say, however, why I find the difference to be negligible. The difference is over the presence or absence of the Greek prefix anti- (English again). I believe that 'with or without this prefix on the verb, the sentence means exactly the same thing.'<ref name="welchsermon">John W. Welch, ''The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 155.</ref> Indeed, the similarity is such that 'this variant was not considered significant enough to be noted in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.'<ref name="welchsermon" /> Larson tries to salvage his point by arguing that 'it can usually (but not always) be shown what Greek text the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions were based upon' and 'it is often such fine distinctions that are clues in textual criticism' (p. 123). But if one were to imagine a world in which no Greek manuscripts of the New Testament existed, scholars would not stake their reputations on claiming to know for sure (given the clear sense of the passage) whether ''antimetrethesetai'' or ''metrethesetai'' stood behind an English translation that renders {{s||Matthew|7|2}} as 'measured again.' Similarly, one cannot be sure what Aramaic verb originally was used here or what version of a Nephite verb stood on the plates of Mormon behind the translation 'measured again.' In light of the fact that {{s||Luke|6|38}} contains the word ''antimetrethesetai'' ('measured again'), is there any reason not to believe that early Christians used the words ''antimetrethesetai'' and ''metrethesetai'' interchangeably? Larson has not shown that this is one of those cases where one can determine from the translation what the underlying text was, or that this is one of those 'fine distinctions' of textual analysis (because there is virtually no distinction in meaning here). If no difference exists, Larson has not proved that {{s|3|Nephi|14|2}} is in error."<ref>{{Welch:Approaching New Approaches Review Of New Approaches To:FARMS Review:1994|pages=159-160}}</ref> John Gee and Royal Skousen also address these issues for those who want to learn more.<ref>{{Gee:La Trahison Des Clercs On The Language And:FARMS Review:1994|pages=67–71, 99–101.}}, {{Skousen:Critical Methodology And The Text Of The Book:FARMS Review:1994|pages=121–29}}</ref>
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|86. {{s||Isaiah|52|15}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|20|45}}
||Sprinkle
||"So he shall '''sprinkle''' many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-52/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/52-15.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Translation Variant.''' The Hebrew verb for ''sprinkle'' doesn't make much sense in context here. Other translations have made this verse something like "the nations '''shall marvel''' upon him." Joseph Smith in his "New Translation" of the Bible replaced ''sprinkle'' with '''''gather''''', showing the difficulty of rendering this verse.<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|218}} Some translations render it as nations gathering to God, standing in wonder of him, or being startled by him. [https://biblehub.com/isaiah/52-15.htm The majority of popular, English biblical translations] render it as "sprinkle." Scholars today are still not certain about the meaning of the Hebrew.<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1051nB}} If that's the case, then this can't be considered a translation ''error''. At worst, it can only be a translation ''variant''. The question really becomes, if the verse is translated as "sprinkle", sprinkle with what? And how will that sprinkling be part of what causes kings to shut their mouths in the Lord's presence?
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|87. {{s||Micah|5|14}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|21|18}}
||Groves
||"And I will pluck up thy '''groves''' out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Micah-Chapter-5/#14 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/micah/5-14.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' "Here the noun ''grove'' is used to refer to a sacred grove used for cultic rites. However, the original Hebrew in these passages refers to ''Asherim'', that is, wooden images of the Canaanite goddess Asherah."<ref name="Skousen King James" />{{Rp|217}} Given that "groves" refers to areas where cultic, idolatrous rites were practiced, the Book of Mormon does not alter the essential message of Isaiah: that idolatry is wrong ({{s||Mosiah|13|12-13}}) and that God was going to take action to remove idolatrous practices from the Israelites. [https://biblehub.com/micah/5-14.htm Four other popular, English biblical translations (only one modern)] render this verse as "groves."

It's difficult to see this even as a mistranslation, since the wooden images were conceptually trees or groves anyway. Some scholars believe that they actually ''were'' trees sometimes:

<blockquote>
These poles represent living trees, with which the goddess is associated. Some scholars believe that ''asherim'' [the wooden images] were not poles, but living trees (like the one depicted on the Tanaach Cult Stand). The poles were either carved to look like trees or to resemble the goddess (this could also be reflected in the numerous pillar figurines found throughout Israel).<ref> Ellen White, "[https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/ Asherah and the Asherim: Goddess or Cult Symbol?]," ''Biblical Archaeology Society'' (3 August 2023).</ref>
</blockquote>

"Grove" may in fact give more nuance and depth to the ideas being conveyed. It is certainly not a mistranslation or misleading rendering.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|88. {{s||Isaiah|54|11-12}} ~ {{s|3|Nephi|22|11-12}}
||Stones and architectural details mentioned
||"O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-Chapter-54/#11 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-11.htm Bible Hub v. 11] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/isaiah/54-12.htm Bible Hub v. 12])
||'''Uncertain.''' Critic David P. Wright curiously claims that "the meaning of several of the terms in this passage is unclear" and then, in the next clause of the sentence, that "the KJV cannot be considered accurate." He asks us to compare the Revised English Bible: "Storm-battered city, distressed and desolate, now I shall set your stones in the finest mortar and lay your foundations with sapphires; I shall make your battlements of red jasper and your gates of garnet; all your boundary stones will be precious jewels."<ref name="wrightjosephisaiah" />{{Rp|173}} So the main differences are to substitute "finest mortar" for "fair colours", "battlements" for "windows", "red jasper" for "agates", and "garnet" for "carbuncle." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbuncle Carbuncle] ''is'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnet garnet] so that complaint doesn't make much sense. A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlement battlement] is a type of window so it likewise doesn't make much sense to fuss over it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agate Agate] is similar to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper jasper]. The overall intent of the passage is to state that "[t]he new Jerusalem is adorned with precious stones and gems by builders supernaturally instructed; cf. {{s||Ezekiel|28|13-19}}. Christian apocalyptic literature draws on this imagery to describe the new Jerusalem ({{s||Rev|21|18-21}})."<ref name="Sweeney" />{{Rp|1053n11–17}}
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|89. {{s||Mark|16|15-18}} ~ {{s||Mormon|9|22-24}}; {{s||Ether|4|18}}
||Longer ending of Mark in the books of Mormon and Ether
||"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-16/#15 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 15] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-16.htm Bible Hub v. 16] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-17.htm Bible Hub v. 17] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/mark/16-15.htm Bible Hub v. 18])
||'''Not An Error.''' See our commentary on this issue [[Question: Why does part of the longer ending of Mark show up in the Book of Mormon?|here]].
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|90. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|5}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|45}}
||Easily
||"Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not ''easily'' provoked, thinketh no evil;" ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1611] |[https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#5 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-5.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' Critic James H. Snowden claims that "in incorporating 1 Cor. 13:5, in the 'Book of Moroni,' the phrase 'is not easily provoked,' reads as in the Authorized Version, but the word 'easily' is not found in the Greek and is dropped in the Revised Version. Joe's 'Urim and Thummim,' however, did not detect the absence of this word and he put it in."<ref name="snowden"></ref> The Greek word translated as "easily" is ''παροξύνεται'' (pah-roh-HOO-neh-tai). That word refers to ''irritability'' and irritability certainly entails being "easily" angered or provoked. While the word "easily" is not present in the Greek, its presence in the Book of Mormon does not constitute a mistranslation of the Greek.
|-style="vertical-align:top;"
|91. {{s|1|Corinthians|13|1}} ~ {{s||Moroni|7|47}}
||The use of "charity" in {{s||Moroni|7|}}, relying upon the KJV rendering of "agape." Apparently it should just be rendered "love."
||"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." ([https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1611] | [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-Chapter-13/#1 1769] | [https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/13-1.htm Bible Hub])
||'''Not An Error.''' It's difficult to know exactly how passages like {{s||Moroni|7|47}} would be translated. There we learn that "charity is the pure love of Christ." Should we translate that passage as "love is the pure love of Christ"? Or "agape is the pure love of Christ"? Maybe the latter, but it doesn't seem to be a substantive improvement on just retaining "charity" in the verse, especially for a Christianized 19th century audience.
|-
|}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question #4: Why did God allow the KJV errors to exist in the Book of Mormon?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Lord Speaks "After the Manner of their Language"====
All the tabulated data above supports the conclusion that the Book of Mormon, if indeed a translation of an ancient text, is a cultural and creative translation of that text. But why did God allow the translation errors?

The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the "gift and power of God," and that the translation was performed using the "Urim and Thummim."<ref>{{EJfairwiki|author=Joseph Smith|date=July 1838|vol=1|num=3|start=42|end=43}}</ref>

We have [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|some of the Lord's own words about the nature of revelation to Joseph Smith]]. The Lord speaks to His servants "after the manner of their language that they may come to understanding" according to the Doctrine & Covenants ({{s||Doctrine & Covenants|1|24}}). That same idea is confirmed in {{s|2|Nephi|31|3}}. He can even use error for His own holy, higher purposes. The formal name for this idea in theology is "accomodation." [[Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?|The wiki page on the nature of prophetic revelation]] discusses this idea from a Latter-day Saint point of view. God can accommodate erroneous translations and even perspectives for higher, holier objectives. That should be comforting to us—the Lord accommodates His perfection to our weakness and uses our imperfect language and nature for the building up of Zion on the earth.

Joseph Smith quoted from {{s||Malachi|4|5-6}} in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|128|17-18}}. At the top of verse 18: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."<ref>Complete article and citation can be read [[Joseph Smith: "I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands"|here]]</ref> Joseph here is content with a translation that is functionally sufficient. It doesn’t need to be 100% exact in order to be divine and achieve divine purposes.

The Lord can start with the plates, use Joseph's culturally-saturated mind as a springboard and filter for further modification of the text as well as decide which changes absolutely need to be made to the text in order to communicate the right message (the one that leads to salvation and exaltation), and then provide that "accommodated", functionally-sufficient translation, word-for-word, on the seer stone and Urim and Thummim. (Part of this discussion depends upon whether one understands the Book of Mormon to have been a [[Question: Was every word of the Book of Mormon translation provided directly from God?|loose translation versus tight translation]].)

The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation. Here is something interesting that Brigham Young taught:

<blockquote>
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write 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 re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.<ref>{{JDmini|author=Brigham Young|vol=9|pages=311}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon's translation could take different shapes. Latter-day Saints have never been scriptural inerrantists. It is the message and the messenger that matter, not the precise words.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}



[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]
[[Category:Difficult Questions for Mormons]]

[[es:Pregunta: Si el Libro de Mormón es una traducción exacta, ¿por qué habría que contiene errores de traslación que existen en la Biblia King James?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Se o Livro de Mórmon é uma tradução exata, por isso que conteria erros translacionais que existem na Bíblia King James?]]

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-04-09T19:15:44Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Homosexuality
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Several questions have arisen regarding the Church's approach to relations with the LGBT community. This page responds to those questions.
----
''General Questions About Identity''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?===
| state = closed
| content = The Church does not reject those who are attracted to those of their own sex. If such attraction leads to an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered sinful, just as sexual acts outside of marriage are for heterosexuals.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

<blockquote>
"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. He did not say that only those who shun the label are welcome, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could move forward as all other members do. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God. President Russell M. Nelson has counselled us about such things in areas far beyond sexual desire or orientation:

{{Set off quote 1
|color =
|image=Russell Nelson 2018 Portrait.png
|I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

Labels ''can'' be fun and indicate your support for any number of positive things. Many labels will change for you with the passage of time. And not all labels are of equal value. But if any label replaces your most important identifiers, the results can be spiritually suffocating. ...

''Who are you?'' First and foremost, you are a child of God.

Second, as a member of the Church, you are a child of the covenant. And third, you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Tonight, I plead with you not to ''replace'' these three paramount and unchanging identifiers with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression.

For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, “I know everything there is to know about you” and attribute erroneous beliefs to you.

If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces.

We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves or that other people place upon us. ...

How tragic it is when someone believes the label another person has given them. ...

[Satan] rejoices in labels because they divide us and restrict the way we think about ourselves and each other. How sad it is when we honor labels more than we honor each other.

Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any ''abuse'' or ''prejudice'' toward another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!

There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should ''displace'', ''replace'', or ''take priority over'' these three enduring designations: “child of God,” “child of the covenant,” and “disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Any identifier that is not compatible with these three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God.

Worldly identifiers will never give you a vision of who you can ultimately become. They will never affirm your divine DNA or your unlimited, divine potential.<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Choices for Eternity," Worldwide Devotional for Young Single Adults, 15 May 2022 {[link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words ''homosexual'', ''lesbian'', and ''gay'' are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual ''behavior''.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

<blockquote>
When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say "she is expecting a baby." In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.
</blockquote>

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

<blockquote>
And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. <ref>{{Book:Packer:To The One}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" ====

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

<blockquote>
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels ====

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:
* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''
* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

=== The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them. ===

==== Definition of sexual orientation ====
The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

<blockquote>
"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." <ref>"[http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Orientation]," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>
</blockquote>

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

The APA notes further: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same sex have never engaged in homosexual behavior. Of those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, only 13% of men and 4% of women who so identified have never engaged in homosexual behavior. <ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).
</blockquote>

==== Identity and behavior ====

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that ''acting'' on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

==== Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay ====
In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.
</blockquote>

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

How does this compare with the dictionary? The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' defines ''homosexual'' as someone exhibiting ''homosexuality''. It defines ''homosexuality'' as:

# Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
# Sexual activity with another of the same sex. <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality Definition of Homosexuality], ''dictionary.reference.com'', s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that ''homosexual'' can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

==== Avoiding using gay as a noun ====
With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style'' gives a similar warning against using ''gay'' as a noun:

<blockquote>
Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. <ref>[[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style''] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. <ref>[http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide] (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref> They cite the following examples:

''New York Times'':
<blockquote>
Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.
</blockquote>

''Washington Post'':
<blockquote>
When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have Church leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content = Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

==== We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control ====

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings. This standard applies equally to all.

==== D&C ====

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

<blockquote>
Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66:10)
</blockquote>

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

<blockquote>
Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10:1)
</blockquote>

==== 1980 ====

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this '''practice''' with a vigor equal to his condemnation of '''adultery and other such sex acts'''. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

<blockquote>
Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, '''like fornication''', is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

<blockquote>
James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (James1:8,12-16).
</blockquote>

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful ''response'' to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

<blockquote>
'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

"Be wise in the days of your probation," said Mormon, "strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God" (Moroni 9:28).<ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis. He said:

<blockquote>
In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.
</blockquote>

==== 1987 ====

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1988 ====

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1991 ====

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

<blockquote>
There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.<ref>First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1994 ====
Elder Richard G. Scott:

<blockquote>
'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1995 ====

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||D&C|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in {{s|1|Corinthians|16|16}}: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

<blockquote>
A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

"I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church," he said. "I don’t think I’m worthy."

"Why wouldn’t you be worthy?" I asked.

"I’m gay."

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. "And … ?" I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. "I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …"

He sighed. "Why am I this way? The feelings are very real."

I paused, then said, "I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?"

He shook his head. "No, I don’t."

This time I was relieved. "Thank you for wanting to deal with this," I said. "It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, "You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

"What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ "

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."
</blockquote>

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

<blockquote>
Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}, {{ia}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2009 ====

D. Todd Christopherson:

<blockquote>
All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He "gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20:22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never "slept with anybody." "Don’t you want to?" the friend asked. The young woman thought: "The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct."

In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9).<ref>{{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Bruce C. Hafen:

<blockquote>
You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2010 ====

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

<blockquote>
None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

<blockquote>
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== What does science have to say about this? ====
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

As discussed above,{{nc}} self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref>American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.</ref> The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

==== The Religions Dimension ====

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."<ref>"Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.</ref>

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === In the Church of Jesus Christ, what are the ramifications of denying a gay identity? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

==== The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God ====

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

{{SeeAlso|Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity|l1=LGBT identity}}

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}} [http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1 link]</ref> Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950491516608883.html A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions]</ref>

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

# Heterosexual
# LGBT
# Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
# No specific sexual orientation identity<ref> {{NC}} was footnoted as "task.force"</ref>

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

==== Effects of adopting a gay identity ====

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann|first=Edward O.|date=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.<ref>{{NW}} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869</ref>It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.<Ref> {{NW}} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144</ref> It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 {{nc}}</ref> Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.<ref>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss {{nc}}</ref>

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.
}}
''Scripture and History''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content = As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,

<blockquote>
The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of {{s||Lev|18|22}} could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in {{s||Deut|23|17-18}}), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.
<ref name="gagnon">Robert A. J. Gagnon, ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics'' (Abingdon Press, 2010).</ref>{{Rp|69, 80-81, 132}}
</blockquote>

==== Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments ====
{{s||Exodus|20|14}} reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. {{s||Leviticus|18|22}} reads:

<blockquote>
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
</blockquote>

{{s||Leviticus|20|13}}:

<blockquote>
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
</blockquote>

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus ''discusses and describes'' those commands—which were rescinded in the Christian era—and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior—which remained in force, are quite different.

<blockquote>
The word ''toebah'' [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation ''toebah''. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in {{s||Leviticus|1|}} 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|118-119}}
</blockquote>

This author then quotes another expert, who writes<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.</ref>:

<blockquote>
Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word ''toevah'' is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.
</blockquote>

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No—the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

<blockquote>
The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|138}}
</blockquote>

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

<blockquote>
in {{s||Leviticus|0|}}, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[a] child sacrifice (20:2), 
[b] cursing one's parents (20:9), 
[c] adultery (20:10), 
[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and 
[e] bestiality (20:15-16).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|195n182}}
</blockquote>

He continues:
<blockquote>
most of {{s||Leviticus|8|20}} can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19:18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in {{s||Leviticus|7|26}}. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|123}}
</blockquote>

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

<blockquote>
One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in {{s||Deut|22|5}} [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in {{s||Lev|18|22}} and {{s_short|Leviticus|20|13}}.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|112-113}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts? ====
Some try to minimize the seriousness of homosexual acts by pointing out that Jesus did not preach against them specifically. This stance completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation in Jesus' day.

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|215}} In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|217-218}}

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19:18; 15:19)

Second, Jesus tended to ''intensify'' or ''strengthen'' commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity (Matthew 19:8–9).

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

<blockquote>
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthtew 19:5–6).
</blockquote>

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

<blockquote>
The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249-250}}
</blockquote>

In short,

<blockquote>
the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no ''direct'' or ''explicit'' comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249}}
</blockquote>

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

<blockquote>
The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|286}}
</blockquote>

====The Early Church and the New Testament Apostles====
Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws. The Lord responded:

<blockquote>
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
</blockquote>

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters. (See {{s||Acts|0|}} for the whole story) However, the question remained—what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

==== The Jerusalem council ====
Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary—this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice. The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

<blockquote>
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29)
</blockquote>

The word translated "fornication" is ''porneia''—it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from ''porenia''.) Jesus had taught against ''porneia'', and the apostles repeated it:

<blockquote>
In {{s||Mark|7|21-23}}, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and {{s_short||Leviticus|20|}} (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|251-252}}
</blockquote>

==== Incest condemnation ====
There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this—for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

==== Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ====
This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text ''Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs''. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

<blockquote>
[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... ''porneia'' has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that ''porneia'' could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.
</blockquote>

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative—but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.

====Paul====

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in {{s||Romans|1|}}. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|198n185}}

==== The first command—no idolatry ====
Paul starts with the first such command—the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

<blockquote>
[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:18–23, NIV).
</blockquote>

==== The second command—no homosexual sin ====
As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers—homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" (Romans 1: 24, 26, NIV):

<blockquote>
[26] Even their women exchanged ''natural'' sexual relations for ''unnatural'' ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned ''natural'' relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26–27, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way—in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians—but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both ''evidence'' for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the ''punishment'' for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

<blockquote>
The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12–21). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth. All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|339}} </blockquote>

==== These represent all gentile sins ====
Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for ''all'' of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

<blockquote>
[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:29–32).
</blockquote>

==== Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners ====
Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them—''of course'' the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

<blockquote>
[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (Romans 2:1–12, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul's trap is clever but clear—just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended—and we should not use them—as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are ''all'' in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul ''used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin'' because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

==== ''Porneia'' again ====
Paul's condemnation applies to us all—but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all ''porneia'' he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

<blockquote>
"Flee ''porneia''! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits ''porneia'' (''ho porneudn'') sins into/against (''eigfi'') his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|369}}
</blockquote>

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians—he even fought with Peter about it! {{Nc}} If Paul is concerned about ''porenia'', then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

==== Did Paul have any examples of "healthy" gay relationships? ====
Some have claimed that since the Roman empire's homosexual acts were largely pederasty (i.e., older men having sex with young boys) or rape (masters against slaves) that this condemnation does not apply today.

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

<blockquote>
Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|471}}
</blockquote>

===The Early Christians===
The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"—in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117–138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

<blockquote>
Nothing belies the claim that pederastic discourse lost its vitality like the relationship between
Hadrian and his Bithynian favorite, Antinous. Possibly a slave, Hadrian’s beloved died on the
Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies
easy comprehension is the paroxysm of empire-wide mourning that ensued. A city was
founded at the site of his death; Hadrian believed reports that a new star had appeared in the
sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his
face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image
of Antinous ranks behind only Augustus and Hadrian in the number of sculptures extant
today. Dozens of cities issued coinage in his honor; games were being founded in his memory
decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not
suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous
resonated in powerful and unexpected ways.<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|551}}
</blockquote>

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about ''porneia'', including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

<blockquote>
Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as
an offshoot of Roman conservatism. The ideas about sex emanating from the new religion
marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of
the flesh became caught in a cosmic battle between good and evil. New rules, more
interesting and less predictable than sometimes argued, formed. Porneia, fornication, went
from being a cipher for sexual sin in general to a sign for all sex beyond the marriage bed, and
it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless
of age, status, or role, was forbidden without qualification and without remorse. Unexpectedly,
sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way
that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|1673}}
</blockquote>

===Conclusion—Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians===
In sum:

<blockquote>
the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. <ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|553-556}}
</blockquote>

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians—and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.

===Latter-day Scripture===

====God and Christ repeated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} =====
{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} announces:
<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>
This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at ''why'' marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in {{s||Genesis|1|}}, {{s||Moses|3|24}}, and {{s||Abraham|5|18}}—the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|1}} states:
<blockquote>
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, '''he cannot obtain it'''. (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence ====

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Same Sex Dynamics|pages=1–}}</ref>

The evidence does not suggest that nineteenth-century Mormons regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence. Attempts to prove otherwise seem largely founded on agenda-driven writing and a distortion of the historical evidence.

D. Michael Quinn's book, ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: [[Specific_works/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example|here]].
}}
==== Challenges ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships ====
Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49:15-17) that

<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

==== Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations ====

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

<blockquote>
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction." My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church ====
It is claimed that:
*Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
*This encourages dishonesty
*This isolates them from other members

There is no counsel or necessity to hide, lie, or isolate oneself from others. At the same time, members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others. As discussed above, members are discouraged from allowing any identity or group to which they belong supercede or interfere with their role as children of God, disciples of Christ, and covenant-keeping members of the Church.

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. {{s||D&C|38|27}} reads:

<blockquote>
I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. <ref>As quoted by Adam Olson in [http://lds.org/ensign/2008/04/maintaining-the-course?lang=eng Maintaining the Course]</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

<blockquote>
Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

<blockquote>
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80
</blockquote>

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort. (Mosiah 18:8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

<blockquote>
All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"<ref>{{NC||</ref>
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

==== Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings? ====

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time—but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In {{s||D&C|97|8}}, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other? ===
| state = closed
| content = No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics—but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous—he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

==== Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen ====

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

The Church's pamphlet ''God Loveth His Children'' counsels:

<blockquote>
In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.
</blockquote>

There are many with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their display of sexual feelings. (In like way, there are many heterosexually attracted people who likewise moderate their sexual desires and keep discussion and display of them within appropriate bounds.)

This is not advice to refuse association with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or heterosexual promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency.

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do. We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" {{nc}}. Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.
}}
==== The Causes of Homosexuality ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction ====

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the ''practice'' of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a ''cause'' for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

=== 1980 ===

==== President Spencer W. Kimball ====

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. <ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1987 ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Balm of Gilead|date=October 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1988 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:
<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. <ref>"Free Agency and Freedom," ''Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches'' (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Covenants|date=October 1990|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1993 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=For Time and All Eternity|date=October 1993|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1994 ===

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise ''faith in Jesus Christ''. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=To Be Healed|date=April 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/to-be-healed?lang=eng}} {{io}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1995 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [{{s|2|Nephi|2|27}}]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see {{b||Proverbs|3|5-7}}). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Trust in the Lord|date=October 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1996 ===
==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….

Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Finding Joy in Life|date=April 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/finding-joy-in-life?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability. ...

[W]e become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many. ...

Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires. ...

What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=According to the Desires of [Our] Hearts|date=October 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/-according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1999 ===
==== Henry B. Eyring ====

<blockquote>
A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.

Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=Do Not Delay|date=October 1999|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/do-not-delay?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2000 ===
==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have "[become] for themselves," resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1:29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.

Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.

Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us|date=April 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/content-with-the-things-allotted-unto-us?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2006 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

<blockquote>
"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). <ref>{{General Conference|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=He Heals the Heavy Laden|date=October 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/he-heals-the-heavy-laden?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

=== Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman ===

<blockquote>
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2007 ===
==== Church booklet produced in 2007 notes ====

<blockquote>
Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Jeffrey R. Holland ====

<blockquote>
If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.

I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

=== What if same-sex attraction is genetic? ===

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? No—even if same-sex attraction were enitrely biological, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Anger or violence are likewise natural tendencies with deep biological roots. We are still required to control and master them, and we are also not to express them in unrighteous ways. For many, this is a great challenge, but the Lord does not excuse us from that challenge. He promises to help us and to change us so that we can, with his help, behave as he would.

Many people experience opposite-sex desires that seem natural, but remain sinful. The church does not lift restrictions on practicing these behaviors either. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

<blockquote>
Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.<Ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng Cleansing the Inner Vessel]|date=October 2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Just as improper expressions of heterosexuality can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality in improper ways.

=== Understanding explanations of homosexuality ===

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

<blockquote>
"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the ''practices'' of homosexuality {{ia}}."
</blockquote>

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would often never go away, even in the repentant.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content = The Church believes everyone has a the freedom to choose their actions. However, actions are very different from orientation. The Church teaches that same-sex attractions can run deep, and form a significant part of how a person experiences life. They are not, however, the only part.

=== Quotes from leaders ===

Speaking of same-sex attraction, Elder Packer said in 2000:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng]
</blockquote>

Elder Wickman was asked in an interview about how to respond to a son who said that he was gay. He responded:

<blockquote>
We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Elder Holland expressed a similar feeling when he said:

<blockquote>
Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them.[http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Church leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Criticism ====
Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aver that President Spencer W. Kimball asserted that masturbation causes one to be attracted to the same sex in h{{s||is|9|}} book ''Miracle of Forgiveness''.

President Kimball wrote the following:

<blockquote>
Most youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas—drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few—depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
 
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation—and thence into homosexuality.<ref>Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78.</ref>
</blockquote>

This response will examine this charge and conclude that the notion that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation is not and never has been taught by the Church.

=== Response to Criticism ===
==== Masturbation, according to President Kimball, may lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality rather than a homosexual ''orientation'' ====

Commenting on President Kimball's claims above, Gregory L. Smith wrote:

:This purported link between self-stimulation and homosexuality has often been ridiculed. O’Donovan refers to Kimball’s "absurd theory that masturbation leads to homosexuality."<ref>Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004, http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html. This is a revised version of Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," in ''Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays in Sex and Family'', Essays on Mormonism Series, No. 7, ed. Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 138-40. In that earlier version, he omits the word "absurd."</ref> And, such skepticism is justified if one reads ''homosexuality'' as ''homosexual orientation'' in the modern sense. Most people masturbate sometime, and few of these are gay.

:Such an analysis assumes and relies on modern definitions, however. As I have shown, leaders’ use of the term ''homosexuality'' in this period — especially the homosexuality that they sought to discourage — was almost exclusively concerned with ''behavior''.<ref>''Compare Welfare Services Packet'' 1, 8: "homosexuality is possible only with others."</ref>

:Seen in this light, Kimball’s claim becomes both more plausible and more understandable. It is important to remember that he had long experience counseling practicing homosexuals (19, 68-70).<ref>See also Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', ix–x.</ref> He would likely have learned that solo masturbation while entertaining homosexual fantasies would often precede acting on those fantasies with another person. From that perspective, Kimball’s claim is less controversial and may even be valid.

:Kimball was not alone in these realizations. Clinicians with exposure to the homosexual demi-monde had long remarked that homosexual masturbatory practices tended to precede homosexual acts with others, though the former did not always lead to the latter.

:At the turn of the twentieth century, early sexologist Havelock Ellis wrote of a correspondent "who went to a French school, [and] told me that ''all'' the older boys had younger accomplices in mutual masturbation. … At my school, manual masturbation was both solitary and mutual; and sometimes younger boys, who had not acquired the habit, were induced to manipulate bigger boys. … In after-life they showed no signs of inversion [i.e., homosexuality]."<ref>Havelock Ellis, ''Studies in the Psychology of Sex'', vol. I (1905; repr., New York: Random House, 1942), 240, italics in original, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179937/page/n287/mode/2up.</ref>

:In Albert Moll’s ''Sexual Life of the Child'' (1912), he wrote:

:<blockquote>
It is an indisputable fact that many boys … readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in [same-sex] boarding schools … they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs).<ref>Albert Moll, ''The Sexual Life of the Child'', trans. Eden Paul (1912; repr., London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd: 1923), 265, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.200468/page/n275/mode/2up.</ref>
</blockquote>

:In an effort to reassure the reader that co-education of boys and girls would not be unduly risky, Moll pointed out that "even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of [hetero]sexual practice. … We have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we ''may'' favor the development of homosexuality."<ref>Ibid, 267, italics added.</ref>

:Moll and Havelock evidently did not think that masturbation inevitably lead to homosexual behavior, much less what is today called orientation. But, Moll would draw precisely the same conclusion as Kimball regarding behavior in the dry prose of academic German science:

<blockquote>
The German Imperial Criminal Code … assert[s] that homosexual tendencies appearing in the child necessarily indicate the future development of permanent homosexuality. [Moll disagrees.] …
 
The chief danger associated with the appearance of sexual perversions lies in the fact that the child thus affected … endeavors again and ever again to revive these pleasurably-toned sensations … and … as soon as the genital organs are sufficiently mature, the boy or girl obtains sexual gratification by masturbating simultaneously with the imaginative contemplation of perverse ideas. Such perverse psychical onanism, accompanied or unaccompanied by physical masturbatory acts, <code>is eminently adapted to favor the development of the perversion.</code> Obviously, the actual performance of the corresponding perverse sexual act <code>will be just as dangerous as its perversely associated masturbation.</code> Thus, a boy who is homosexually inclined may masturbate while allowing his imagination to run riot upon homosexual ideas; or he may take to homosexual acts with one or more other male persons. Every sort of gratification that is associated with perverse images is dangerous; and no less dangerous is the spontaneous cultivation of such perverse sexual images.<ref>Ibid, 313-14, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

:Moll saw a risk related to masturbation among the "homosexually inclined" — it would encourage unwanted behavior, but not create most inclination to that behavior.<ref>A[lbert] Moll, ''Les perversions de l’instinct genital: étude sur l’inversion sexuelle basée sur des documents officiels'', 6ième edition, traduit par Pactet et Romme (Paris: Georges Carré et C. Naud, 1897), 197, 200, 207-209, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tpoaAAAAYAAJ/page/n249/mode/2up.</ref> Kimball, with more brevity, would write "masturbation too often leads to grievous sin, even to … homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex — and thence into total homosexuality."<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 78. Taylor Petrey's ''Tabernacles of Clay'' claims that because of Kimball’s views, LDS Social Services needed to "offer some clarification." But masturbation can hardly "lead … to homosexuality" if Kimball believed it to be a homosexual act in itself. Even mutual masturbation, for Kimball, is only a stepping stone to "total homosexuality."</ref>

:This was, in fact, precisely what a study of "non-patient" adult male homosexuals "drawn from the community" found in the same year that ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was published:

<blockquote>
Of the homosexual men, all of them had practiced self-masturbation at some time during their lives. … Even during the peak of their sexual outlet by homosexual means between the ages of 20 and 29, almost all of the subjects (97%) were engaged in self-masturbation...
 
Homosexual behavior

Cognitional Rehearsals — Those were reported in almost all of the men (99%). In 97% it was stated that cognitional rehearsals had already started before age 20. …

The majority of the subjects (86%) had already had homosexual contacts before the age of 15. …

Of the men that were engaged in homosexual activity before age 15, the large majority (93%) practiced mutual masturbation … [and] a minority (19%) practiced [homosexual] intercourse. …

Mutual masturbation was abandoned by the majority of the subjects after the age of 29. Even those who practiced it between the of 20 and 29, tended to engage in it only occasionally.<ref>Marcel T. Saghir, Eli Robins, and Bonnie Walbran, "Homosexuality: II. Sexual Behavior of the Male Homosexual," ''Archives of General Psychiatry'' 21 (August 1969): 219-23, underlining in original represents a subject heading.</ref>
</blockquote>

:For this population, Kimball was right — one started with fantasies ("cognitional rehearsals") ultimately accompanied by masturbation, progressed to mutual masturbation, and eventually abandoned that for greater intimacies. One can quibble about whether masturbation "caused" these homosexual acts in a technical sense, but it is hard to see the behaviors as utterly unrelated. And behavior was what concerned Kimball.

:In fact, he would have said that the person chose solo acts that simply made it easier to later choose other acts with someone else — one sin "leads to" another (71). He did not see the relationship as deterministic:<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 215.</ref>

:Small indiscretions evolve into larger ones and finally into major transgressions which bring heavy penalties. … Warning signals and guidelines are given to reduce the danger of one’s being blindly enticed into forbidden paths. …

:Those who yield to evil are usually those who have placed themselves in a vulnerable position.<ref>Ibid., x, 15.</ref>

:And, he saw other similar sins as preludes to heterosexual ones in the same way: "My beloved young folks, do not excuse petting and body intimacies. I am positive that if this illicit, illegal, improper, and lustful habit of ‘petting’ could be wiped out, that fornication would soon be gone from our world."<ref>Kimball, "Love Versus Lust," ''BYU Speeches of the Year'' 1965, 30.</ref><ref>Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–213.</ref>

Smith cites "a present-day queer studies author" that further contextualizes how President Kimball understood homosexuality:

<blockquote>
Once the patient’s will-power or reason was compromised by masturbation [it was thought] … "reversion" to the primordial bestial type would be the result. … the slide from masturbation to homosexuality seems bizarre from a twenty-first century perspective. However, that is partly because current definitions of masturbation are very narrow compared to the definitions operative in the nineteenth century. We think of masturbation as self-stimulation only," while the nineteenth century did not consider anything but intercourse to be a homosexual act, even if it involved same-sex genital play.<ref>Ladelle McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual: The Construction of the Sex Pervert," in Cyd Cipolla et al, eds., ''Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader'' (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 118.</ref>
</blockquote>

The same author observes that nineteenth-century thinkers thought that

<blockquote>
There were two categories of inverts [i.e., homosexuals]. First, there were those whose condition was a result of self-induced degeneracy through willful vice. … However, increasingly influenced by the personal disclosures of inverts themselves, many nineteenth century physicians began to believe there was a second group. … Maybe some people are born with the gonads and genitalia of one sex but the brain and neurological system of the other. …

But it might not be fair to punish [these] congenital inverts, many physicians and sexologists believed, because their actions were not truly voluntary. As James Kiernan put it, "There can be no legal responsibility where free determination of the will is impaired." Congenital inverts were naturally weak of will … <code>unable to resist</code> the perverse urges that their degenerate condition aroused. Such individuals might undergo episodic periods of organically produced sexual furor during which they were <code>entirely devoid of self-control</code>.<ref>McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual," 120, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, as Smith concludes:

:If these distinctions are understood, then Kimball’s argument makes further sense. Some believed that those with an in-born attraction for the same sex could not control their actions. Other homosexuals "learned" such behavior via a free-will choice to engage in masturbation, which, in some, could progress to group masturbation and ultimately to homosexuality (i.e., intercourse).

:The nineteenth century theorists might not condemn those who were "innate" homosexuals who had not brought their habit upon themselves through masturbatory habits. But they did not believe this group could control themselves either — their compulsive activity would be almost a type of madness. (By analogy, today’s society would not condemn a schizophrenic for her hallucinations, though it might well institutionalize her against her will if she sought to harm others as a result of those hallucinations.)

:Church doctrine, however, revolted at the idea that any normal person was unable to control their behavior, however they might be tempted.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 225–27.</ref> So Kimball focused on avoiding the acts that could strengthen temptation and lead to further unwanted behavior.

:Like Kimball, neither Ellis nor Moll saw same-sex mutual masturbation as fully "homosexual," per se but observed that it could (in some cases) precede homosexual intercourse. This is a different conceptual world than ours.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 214–15.</ref>

=== Conclusion ===
Thus, President Kimball is not saying that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual ''orientation''. President Kimball says that masturbation could lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality. The church rarely (if ever) talks about the causes of a particular sexual orientation. The church is much more interested in learning to control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors rather than sexual orientation. Many other leaders have also cautioned about preoccupation with sex and about arousing sexual feelings that should only be expressed in marriage. Masturbation arouses sexual feelings outside of marriage. This could lead to sexual acts performed outside of marriage. If a person has opposite-sex attractions, it may lead to the practice of heterosexuality outside of marriage, which is considered just as much of a sin as the practice of homosexuality.
}}
==== Post-Mortal States ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Church teach that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death ====

All Latter-day Saints anticipate being transformed and perfected in the resurrection. The weaknesses, failings, imperfections, and unholy desires that we all have will be removed. This includes any sexual desire or temptation not in accord with God's purposes for us.

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

<blockquote>
While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, ''our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life'' so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that ''their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way'' and according to His timing. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

<blockquote>
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, "Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?"

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is th{{s||is:|1|}}) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. <ref>Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: "[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction Same-Gender Attraction]," (undated).</ref>
</blockquote>

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

<blockquote>
I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. <ref>The Mormons, [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland], ''pbs.org'' (30 April 2007).</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

<blockquote>
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity." And "men (and women) are that they might have joy." <ref>[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction Address] given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Legal Protections ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships ====

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref> The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

<blockquote>
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law ==

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

<blockquote>
The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Non discrimination:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Suicide ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{Set off quote 1|if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources. '''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''}}

As we have seen above, the Church recognizes that being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction can be very difficult.

It has long been known that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction.

Critics charge that:
* Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates; and
* there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints

These charges are without scientific foundation. They are not surprising, since warnings of such supposed dangers are a common strategy from those targeting unpopular social groups.<ref>rich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, ''Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance'' (Wiley-Blackwell, 1994), 147.</ref>

For example, some have claimed that the Church's policy of requiring First Presidency clearance for the baptism of children of gay couples caused a spike in suicide. These claims were fiction—in Utah "the year after the November policy saw a 21 percent decrease in youth suicide and a small decrease in suicide of those eighteen to sixty-four years old."<ref>{{BYUS|author=W. Justin Dyer|article=book review|vol=59|num=1|date=2020|pages=226|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/59.1DyerGayRights.pdf}}</ref>

There are three studies that have looked at precisely this quesiton—in all cases, those with same-sex attraction who were members of the Church had ''lower'' suicide rates than those with same-sex attraction outside the Church.

Because this is such an important issue, we will consider these points in detail.

=== Background risk ===

To answer questions about the Church’s impact, if any, we have to know first about background risk. If you were going to study the effects of, say, smoking on cancer, first you have to know how likely cancer is in people who don’t smoke. It doesn’t do much good to point out that 10% of people who smoke die of cancer, if 10% of people who don’t do too. Sadly, we’ve known for decades that LGBTQ people have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and probably higher rates of actual suicide too.<ref>Ryan M. Hill and Jeremy W. Pettit, “Suicidal Ideation and Sexual Orientation in College Students: The Roles of Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Perceived Rejection Due to Sexual Orientation,” ''Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior'' 42/5 (October 2012): 567, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00113.x.</ref> This is one of the great constants in research over decades.

==== Denmark ====
In Denmark, for example, a 2011 study showed that gay men in registered domestic partnerships (Denmark’s version of “gay marriage,” which they have had since 1990) were still almost ''eight times'' more likely to commit suicide as married or divorced heterosexuals. Divorce and singleness are risk factors for suicide, and so of all LGBTQ people, those in legal same-sex partnerships should have the best numbers because they are “wired in” to a close social support such as a spouse.

Denmark is an extremely secular country—it seems unlikely that religious doctrine or persecution can explain this massive disparity in suicide rates.

==== Norway ====

A Norwegian study found that when compared to heterosexual youth, youth who were attracted to the same sex and/or self-identified as LGB were no more likely to attempt suicide. Only homosexual behavior was associated with an increased rate of suicide attempt, and “[t]he increased odds [of suicidality] could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.”<ref>Lars Wichstrøm and Kristinn Hegna, “Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: a longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population,” ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'' 112/1 (February 2003): 144–151, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653422/.</ref>

So, even in two of the most tolerant, non-religious, secular societies, there are some prominent risks. We might think of this as something of a “best case scenario” for tolerance and acceptance. We aren’t likely to produce a society in or out of the Church more open to same-sex behavior than Denmark and Norway. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still work to bring these suicide rates down, but it might suggest that insisting that others need to be more "tolerant" of homosexual behavior may not provide huge gains.

===Suicide in Utah? ===

The Church is often blamed for an "epidemic" of gay suicdes in Utah. But, Utah's state expert (who is himself gay) insists that there is no such epidemic:

<blockquote>Michael Staley [who is openly gay himself], who works for Utah’s medical examiner and ranks among the most respected researchers on this topic, said in an interview with Q Salt Lake, a Utah LGBT magazine, his initial findings do not support the narrative that Utah youth suicides are rising as a result of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality or LGBT issues. “There’s no data to show that, period,” Staley said. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed.”<ref>Layne Williams, Amy Fife, Hal Boyd, “No correlation between youth suicide and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” ''Idaho Statesman'' (22 September 2019), https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article235270667.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Why might people be “disappointed”? Isn’t that good news? Well, it isn’t if you are trying to use suicide as a weapon to shame a religion and push it to change.

So, the claim that Utah suffered an explosion of gay suicide turns out not to be true. But people continue to say it—which suggests that either they are misinformed, or their goal may be something other than the truth.

=== Suicide in the Church ===

It is well known that religion is generally protective against suicide—so isolating someone from their religious group probably doesn’t help make them safer, all else being equal.<ref>Thomas Joiner, Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success, kindle loc. 4114-16. See also his Why People Die By Suicide, loc 1720. Evan M. Kleiman and Richard T. Liu, “Prospective Prediction of Suicide in a Nationally Representative Sample: Religious Service Attendance as a Protective Factor,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 204 (2014): 262, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128900; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Association between Religious Service Attendance and Lower Suicide Rates among US Women,” JAMA Psychiatry 73/8 (2016): 845–851, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1243. Leilani Greening and Laura Stoppelbein, “Religiosity, Attributional Style, and Social Support as Psychosocial Buffers for African American and White Adolescents’ Perceived Risk for Suicide,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 32/4 (Winter 2002): 404–417, https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333; Tobias Teismann and others, “Religious Beliefs Buffer the Impact of Depression on Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatry Research 257 (1 November 2017): 276–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.060. Erminia Colucci and Graham Martin, “Religion and Spirituality along the Suicidal Path,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 38/2 (April 2008): 229–244, https://doi.org/doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229.The academic sources here are from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood cited below. </ref>

We will now look at the three studies who examined suicidality in Latter-day Saint LGBTQ members.

==== First study - Cranney (2017)====

This data from 2012–2014, published in ''Journal of Homosexuality'':

<blockquote>
LGB Mormons have more days of poor mental health than their non-LGB Mormon counterparts, but fewer than their LGB non-Mormon counterparts. When weights are applied, the only significant health difference found between LGB Mormons and any other group is a significantly higher number of days of poor mental health than non-LGB Mormons (6 days versus 3 days, p = .01 [in the last 30]); all other health comparisons are statistically insignificant. ...

[H]owever they do it, the LGB Mormon population’s reconciliation of particular facets of their sexual and religious identities does not lead them to having discernibly worse mental or physical health than their non-LBG Mormon and LGB non-Mormon counterparts.<ref>Stephen Cranney, "The LGB Mormon Paradox: Mental, Physical, and Self-Rated Health among Mormon and Non-Mormon LGB Individuals in the Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," ''Journal of Homosexuality'' 64/6 (2017): 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236570.</ref></blockquote>

So, LGB in the Church do have more days of poor mental health—but their mental health is still better than LGB ''outside'' the Church.

Separating those who are struggling from the Church may, then, not be helpful and might even be harmful.

==== Second study - Dyer, Goodman, and Wood (2022)====

The second study is from the 2019 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment, done as part of the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) survey by Utah's Department of Human Services.<ref>Justin Dyer, Michael Goodman, and David Wood, "Religion and Sexual Orientation as Predictors of Utah Youth Suicidality," BYU Studies Quarterly 61/2 (2022), {{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/religion-and-sexual-orientation-as-predictors-of-utah-youth-suicidality}}</ref>

{{HomosexualityDiscussionGraph}}

=== Why does the Church do better? ===
[[File:Figure_3b-Dyer_Goodman_and_Wood.png|thumb|200x|right|''Chart 5'': Figure 3B from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. Once social connectedness, family connectedness, and drug use is adjusted for, the suicidality rates are not statistically different for any group.]]

There are many known risk factors for suicidality. For example, those who abuse alcohol or other substances are more likely to feel depressed, contemplate suicide, and attempt suicide. So, if the Church kept you from drinking, that would probably lower your suicide risk.

This study decided to '''adjust''' for known benefits. So, they then looked at LGBTQ suicide rates once family connectedness, social connectedness, and drug use was taken into consideration.

When that is done, there is then no difference between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups' rates of suicidality. So, one plausible hypothesis is that (1) being in the Church makes you more socially connected; (2) Families in the Church may have better connections; and (3) the Church discourages drug use.

We must remember that these are averages. There will undoubtedly be terrible families in the Church whose behavior increases their children's risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. And there are also certainly equally strong families in other faiths, or in families of no faith.

''On average,'' however, an LGBTQ person is better off in terms of depression and suicidality in the Church than out of it.

At the very least, it is dishonest and unfair to blame the Church for suicides in LGBTQ members. There is simply no evidence that the Church is to blame, and considerable evidence that on balance it is helpful.

Individuals may have different experiences, and certainly some families or people in the Church do things contrary to Church doctrine which could make things much worse. But that is not the Church's fault.

==== Third study - McGraw et al. (2023)====

Looking at the same dataset as the second study,<ref>James S. McGraw, Meagan Docherty, Jay R. Chinn, and Annette Mahoney, “Family, Faith, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors (STBs) Among LGBTQ Youth in Utah," Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 20/2 (2023): 257-258, https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000517</ref> the non-LDS authors concluded:

<blockquote>
LGBTQ participants’ reports of higher family conflict and lower parental closeness were tied to higher depression, self-harm, and substance misuse, and these three factors were, in turn, associated with higher levels of STBs for LGBTQ youth in Utah. This path model did not differ significantly due to LDS versus non-LDS religious affiliation. ...

Among LGBTQ youth, non-LDS youth had higher mean levels of STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, substance misuse, a lower mean level of parental closeness. ... [Slide 27–31] Non-LDS LGBTQ youth reported the highest STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and substance misuse scores, and had a lower [average] level of parental closeness scores, followed by LDS LGBTQ, non-LDS heterosexual … youth, and then LDS heterosexual … youth
</blockquote>

So again, family conflict, lower family closeness, and substance misuse led (unsurprisingly) to more suicidal experience and behavior. These problems on balance were better in the LDS group than the non-LDS group, but when controlled for religion did not make a significant difference.

=== Suicide contagion ===

All of this matters a great deal, and the biggest problem is ''not'' that the Church and its members and leaders are slandered and tarred with causing the deaths of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The reason this matters is that there is a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion." This is a well-recognized phenomenon whereby people's tendency to suicide ''can be increased or decreased'' based on how media and other voices talk about suicide.<ref>Joiner, ''Why People Die of Suicide'', loc. 1846–49.</ref>

Psychiatric, psychologic, and suicide prevention agencies have done a great deal to publicize these risks, and have provided guides for media to talk about suicide in a helpful, not harmful.

A non-LDS expert on LGBTQ youth made this point very strongly:

<blockquote>
For me, first off, scientifically it's not true. That is that, as a developmental psychologist, when we look at the wide population of youth who identify as gay or who have same-sex attractions, it appears to me when I look at the data that they're actually just as healthy, and just as resilient, and just positive about their life as are straight youth. … So from a scientific perspective, there is certainly no gay suicide epidemic. But the more problematic aspect for me is that I worry a great deal about the image that we are giving gay-identified youth.<ref>Ritch Savin Williams, interview, “A Look At The Lives of Gay Teens,” ''All Things Considered'', National Public Radio (21 October 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732158. </ref>
</blockquote>

Telling gay youth that there is an epidemic breaks one of the cardinal rules of suicide prevention: '''Messages linking particular groups with high rates of suicide or mental illness'''.<ref>“The Messaging ‘Don’ts’,” suicidepreventionmessaging.org (accessed 23 January 2024), https://suicidepreventionmessaging.org/safety/messaging-donts</ref> Not only is this not true, as the quote above notes, but telling people the falsehood makes it more likely to happen!

Other messaging rules that the Church's critics often engage in include:

==== Don't include personal details ====
* ''"Don’t include personal details of people who have died by suicide."'' - Sadly, many LGBTQ advocates think they are helping by telling tragic, dramatic, tear-jerking stories about specific suicides. Each suicide is a tragedy and a devastating outcome for family and friends. But publicizing the suicide in this way just makes it more likely that other depressed teens may identify with the victim, and thus be more likely to immitate them.

==== Don't portray suicide as more common than it is or a typical way of coping ====

* ''"Don’t portray suicidal behavior as more common than it is or as a typical way of coping with adversity."'' - Again, when LGBTQ advocates insist that the Church's policies or doctrines lead to a great many suicides, and that nothing can stop this until the Church changes its doctrines, they ironically increase the risk of that happening. As the suicide prevention group cautions:

<blockquote>
While we don’t want to minimize the magnitude of the suicide problem, we also don’t want to imply that suicidal behavior is ''what most people do'' in a given circumstance. The vast majority of people who face adversity, mental illness, and other challenges—even those in high risk groups—do ''not'' die by suicide, but instead find support, treatment, or other ways to cope.</blockquote>

==== Don't use language or data to suggest suicide is inevitable or unsolvable ====
* ''Don’t use data or language that suggests suicide is inevitable or unsolvable'' - Calling suicides "an epidemic" (especially when there ''is'' no epidemic) plays right into this problem.

==== Don't oversimplify ====

* ''Don’t oversimplify causes'' - Suicide is a complex subject. It is not helpful—in fact, it is downright harmful—to use a suicide death to tell a simple cause-and-effect story, such as "The Church opposed gay marriage, and so John killed himself." Suicide is almost always accompanied by significant mental illness, and mental illness almost by definition involves choices and thoughts that are not rational or reasonable.

====Hurting when intending to help ====
Many of those who spread these rumors or propaganda probably think that they are helping solve a serious problem. If you are approaching the issue in this way, we encourage you to ''stop'' spreading false rumors, and to especially stop talking about this subject in ways that increases the risk of a mentally ill person acting on a suicidal thought or plan.

And, if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

'''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''

===Reducing suicide risk===
Steps that can help reduce suicidal thoughts and actions include some of the following encouraged by the Church:

==== Church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment ====
*"The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[http://lds.org/liahona/1979/07/questions-and-answers?lang=eng]

==== Church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills ====
*"Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." (''Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley'' [1997], 661, 665).

==== Church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties ====

*1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[http://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng]
*2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family
ties."[http://lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]

==== Church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction ====

*1974: "To "persecute" homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[http://lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng]
*1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God. ... We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[http://lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng]
*2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[http://lds.org/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle?lang=eng]
*2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [http://lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng]
}}
==== Bullying and Ostracization ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What did President Boyd K. Packer say during the October 2010 general conference of the Church on homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content = On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.<ref>An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/04/the-peaceable-followers-of-christ The Peaceable Followers of Christ]|date=April 1998|pages=62}}</ref>

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/revelation-in-a-changing-world Revelation in a Changing World]|date=November 1989|pages=16}}</ref>

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/05/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church]|date=May 1980|pages=65}}</ref>

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    —President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.<ref>Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}</ref>

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{{BoydKPackerHomosexuality}}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

:Isaiah warned, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." {{ea}}<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>

==== Subject of the talk ====

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

==== Feelings vs. acts ====

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.<ref>{{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that "God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

==== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ====
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome."<ref>Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.</ref>

Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|53}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==== Past talks on the same issue ====

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

==== 1978 ====
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.<ref>"I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.</ref> It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.<ref>"To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186-200, emphasis added; italics in original.</ref>

==== 1990 ====
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark 9:42).

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

==== 1995 ====

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see {{s|2|Ne.|2|26-27}}).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see {{s||John|8|34}}; {{s|2|Pet.|2|12-14}}, 18-19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven "before the foundation of the world" (D&C 132:5; 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see {{s||James|4|6-8}}; {{s|2|Ne.|9|39}}; {{s||Mosiah|3|19}}). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}</ref>

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in h{{s||is|0|}} talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. (D&C 101:78; Articles of Faith 1:2) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more}} {{ea}}</ref>

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==== Editing an apostle? ====

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson—the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).</ref>

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.<ref>See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}</ref> Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==== Propaganda and tactics ====

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==== Critics' direputable tactics ====

Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Hopefully the clarification offered addressed their concerns.

Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. Certainly, not all with same-sex attraction, who categorize themselves as homosexuals, or who are supportive of homosexual relationships are in this latter group, but there are some who consider themselves leaders of the gay community or gay activists who do fall into this category. For them, it is not politically expedient to accept any clarifications that may be offered because they disagree with the theological categorization of homosexual acts as "sinful." The actions taken by such individuals as a reaction to clarification was noted by the ''Deseret News'':

:Instead of seeking genuine common ground around issues of mutual concern, activists began this week with a grossly misguided caricature of the LDS Church's support of traditional morality.

:The tactic is now all-too familiar: take a statement out of context, embellish it with selective interpretation, presume hostile intent, and then use the distortion to isolate an entire group, in this case a church.<ref>Editorial, "[http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700072199/A-call-for-civility-following-Mormon-Apostle-Boyd-K-Packers-address.html A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address]," ''Deseret News'' (10 October 2010).</ref>

Such tactics (pulling statements out of context, interpreting selectively, presuming hostile intent, and stereotyping) are not new in the battle for public perception and support. In fact, tactics such as this have been specifically encouraged in the gay activist community. In 1993, two gay activists wrote a call-to-arms to their community, in which they outlined the strategies that they felt would be most successful in securing societal tolerance of homosexual acts as normal and appropriate. Among other techniques, they suggested "a propaganda campaign" (xxviii):

:There's a naive notion among folks in general—especially among gays—that you can argue a person out of a prejudice (such as homohatred) by overwhelming him with facts and logic about the group he hates. This is untrue....

:Logically speaking, nothing whatever is either disgusting or sinful, except as one feels it to be so...

:...if we're going to enter into arguments with [those who disagree with us] we'd better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket.

:...it gets a little tiresome to keep seeing and hearing [gays who]... damn all proposals as politically incorrect to precisely the degree that they rely upon cunning manipulation rather than pugnacity....

:...thus, propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred—suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause....Note that the bigot need not actually be made to ''believe'' that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering....Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof....

:...The objection will be raised...that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false sterotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is ''not'' how ''all'' gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes of course—we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones....<ref>{{CriticalWork:Kirk Madsen:After the Ball|pages=112, 139-141, 151-154}}</ref>

These tactics, outlined with such clarity, seemed to be almost a script for the reaction to President Packer's talk from organizations that promote homosexual relationships. Simply put, many dislike talk of sin, and are angered by those who claim to warn against it with divine authority. Many realize that they have not prevailed via a reasoned, rational discussion of the facts, and know that an ''emotional'' appeal is the only way of achieving their goals.

It is not surprising, then, that some activists have responded to President Packer's warning by attacking the messenger, reading him in a hostile light, caricaturing his message, reading his mind, and ascribing a variety of distasteful or even evil motives to him or the Church and its members. This should be recognized for what it is—an effort to vilify the messenger, downplay the totality of the message, and shame those who might listen to it, all part and parcel of political machinations.<ref>For extensive examples and a discussion, see {{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

==== Table comparing Boyd K. Packer talks on homosexual behavior over time ====

{{BoydKPackerHomosexualityOverTime}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts ====
Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

==== In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount ====

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

<blockquote>
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the lastand Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn theego, and sin no more. (John 8:7–11)
</blockquote>

It is important to recognize, however, that it is not cruel to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

=== 1980s ===

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

<blockquote>
There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage. ...

Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990s ===
In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

<blockquote>
"We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us."<ref>"An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency," ''Church News'' (15 April 1995), 1.</ref>
</blockquote>

He then said:

<blockquote>
Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks also taught:

<blockquote>
Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

A recent letter is illustrative:

<blockquote>
''"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid ... schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles."''
</blockquote>

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see {{s|3|Nephi|18|22-23,30,32}}). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=Nov 1999|pages=52|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}</ref>

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking" (D&C 20:54).

=== 2000s ===

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.
</blockquote>

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

<blockquote>
Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see {{s||D&C|84|110}}).<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

<blockquote>
Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

<blockquote>
Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: "Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters." And President Packer has echoed, "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you." With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2010s ===
In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

<blockquote>
...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has [[../Non discrimination ordinances|openly supported]] other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children?lang=eng Protect the Children]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Violence is not usually the best response to a problem, but everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence ====

It is claimed that Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourages "gay bashing" or physical assaults on gay people.

The Church does not teach that violence is the best response to problems. However, everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence. This applies to all: men and women, gay and straight. As Wikipedia notes, often the ''victim'' is blamed for the ''harasser's'' acts:

<blockquote>
Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.[17] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression....
</blockquote>

In this case, it is Elder Packer and ''all'' members of the Church who come in for criticism and attack because the unacceptable sexual harassment was homosexual. Readers should ask themselves how they would react if the story was about a ''woman'' sexually harassed by a man.

Critics who make this claim are either ignorant of the contents of then-Elder Packer's talk, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for polemical gain.

To understand, we will consider four aspects:
# The relevant full text of Elder Packer's remarks will be provided.
# Some background information will be provided. Some non-members may not understand the context of the experience described by Elder Packer (missionary companions on a full-time mission for the Church), and so this will be explained.
# We will then analyze the story and advice he gives, recognizing that the critics have misrepresented it almost beyond recognition.
# Some broader issues which this charge raises will be considered.

=== #1 Elder Packer's Remarks ===

Elder Packer said:

: I repeat, very plainly, '''physical mischief with another man''' is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
:There are some men who entice young men '''to join them''' in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to '''participate''' in anything like that, it is time to '''vigorously resist'''.
:While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
:After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
:"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
:"But I floored him," he said.
:After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
:'''I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.''' <ref>Boyd K. Packer, "To Young Men Only," priesthood session, general conference, 2 October 1976.</ref>

=== #2: Background information ===

=== Missionary companions ===

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. Missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"—this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are ''forbidden'' to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

# Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
# Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

=== Missionary covenants ===

All members of the Church are expected to observe the law of chastity. This means that no sexual activity outside of marriage is permitted. Furthermore, missionaries attend the temple prior to going on their missions, where they reaffirm this commitment. As noted above, missionaries further promise to not even engage in dating or other romantic activity while in full-time Church service.

=== #3: Examining the story ===

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.
* They story is ''not'' about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you against your will.
* Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".<ref>http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god</ref>
* The response only makes sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay.
* The extent of the attempt to have sex with the missionary is not disclosed, but at the least it was sexual harassment, while potentially up to and including sexual assault and attempted rape. Either case warrants self-defense.
* The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. We are not told for how how long the sexual harassment continued.
* The story is ''not'' about members of the Church going out and beating up gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical response which the missionary launched on his companion—it was not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself."
* Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to ''defend'' himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway."

=== Sexual harassment===
* Elder Packer has given [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|similar advice]] to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|multiple articles]] discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment Sexual harassment] of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harassment against women as:

<blockquote>such '''unwelcome''' sexually determined behavior as physical contact and '''advances''', sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.<ref>United Nations [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/generl19.htm General Recommendation 19] to the Convention on the [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e1cedaw.htm Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women]; cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

The European Union notes that harassment is:

<blockquote>'''unwanted''' conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct. ... <ref>As cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

There is absolutely no context in Church mission life where ''any'' sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate—with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, ''any'' sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate, and the guilty party would know that unequivocally. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details. Furthermore, the guilty party would have expressly promised never to engage in such behavior or anything like it.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

* Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story—we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.)

* The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion—it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.

* Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young members (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the ''idea'' of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect oneself.

=== #4: Further thoughts to conclude ===

==== Sexual harassment is unacceptable ====

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity—would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual—such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation—especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion—that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS ''sister'' missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor seeking homosexual gratification, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and those who support the victim in self-defense are vilified.

This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church and its leaders.

==== Men can be victims of sexual harassment ====
Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[http://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

:While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse. They must know that they have the right to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice is a refreshing reversal of society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

=== Church teachings on the right to self-defense ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====
* "Do not let anyone at all touch or handle your body, not anyone!" - {{NewEra1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=July 1972|article=Why Stay Morally Clean}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1972/07/why-stay-morally-clean}}
* "Never allow others to touch your body in a way that would be unworthy, and do not touch anyone else in any unworthy way." - {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article-Counsel to Young Men|date=May 2009}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/counsel-to-young-men}}

==== Church magazines ====
* There is a good chance that many women will at some time need to know how to avoid rape, mugging, robbery, or any of numerous other violent crimes. We cannot turn away from facts; these assaults occur regularly in public places and in private homes. A certain amount of preparation, a "healthy paranoia," might very well save a life....If you decide you must fight back, use your keys, purse, feet, or fingernails as weapons to throw the attacker off guard or to get free. Although it sounds cruel, always strike for the eyes and face. The momentary stunning effect of wounds to the face will give you the chance you need to run." {{Ensign|author=Esther R. Tutt|article=Random Sampler: Protect Yourself|date=September 1987}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/random-sampler/protect-yourself}}

* "We need to be absolutely clear that there is such a thing as justified self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself against physical harm if you are attacked. You have a right to use physical force to protect virtue, family, freedom." - {{Ensign1|author=Larry A. Hiller|article=Somebody's Going to Get Hurt!|date=September 1997}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt}}

* If someone is attempting to hurt us physically—even to destroy us—shouldn’t we resist in self-defense? The Doctrine and Covenants says "that all men are justified in defending themselves … from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded" (D&C134:11). {{Ensign1|author=Larry E. Dahl|article=The Higher Law|date=August 1999}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/08/the-higher-law}}

* Self-defense courses for youth are suggested in the New Era in at least [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/03/fyi-for-your-information 1980], [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/12/fyi-for-your-information 1982], and [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1992/02/fyi-for-your-info 1992].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Church family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic" ====

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic." LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

==== Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children ====

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]</ref>

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

==== While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states ====

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items f{{s||rom|2|}}, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.<ref>Jessica Gail, "Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless," Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless</ref>

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.<ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.<ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called "an epidemic." <ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

==== In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average ====

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose "other than heterosexual." <ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

==== Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah ====

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as "LGBT youth centers." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref> 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 "straight" youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, "Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref>

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t "fit in" in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were "happy" 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had "no adult to turn to" 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being "out" to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were "out" with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were "out" with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said "yes." That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were "not accepting" of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).<ref>Rebecca Trounson, "Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.</ref>

==== Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth ====

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." <ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why th{{s||is|2|}}% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

==== Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth ====

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref>

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

==== Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior ====

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||D&C|83|4}} reads:

<blockquote>
All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.
</blockquote>

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

<blockquote>
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
</blockquote>

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

<blockquote>
If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.<ref>Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

<blockquote>
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.<ref>{{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?cid=+HP14TPOTF&lang=eng&old=true}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

<blockquote>
It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: "The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

<blockquote>
With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

<blockquote>
I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." <ref>{{General Conference|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/09/the-best-thing-i-can-do-for-leigh?lang=eng|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

<blockquote>
Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
</blockquote>

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

<blockquote>
It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation "free for all men" but has "commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance." <ref>{{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
====Recommending Heterosexual Marriage for Those with Same-Sex Attraction====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction ====

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

==== 1970s ====
President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

<blockquote>
When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.
</blockquote>

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

==== 1980s ====

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

<blockquote>
CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. <ref>[http://www.affirmation.org/rhetoric_on_homosexuality/oaks_interview.shtml An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS]</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1990s ====
In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

<blockquote>
Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. <ref>Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====
Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====
Elder Holland said:
<blockquote>
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction ====

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

==== The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse ====

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty|Same-sex attraction/Honesty]]) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]])

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

==== Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse ====

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

==== Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction ====

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

<blockquote>
"The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out."[http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Closet-Coming-Out-Straight/dp/0471021520#reader_0471021520]
</blockquote>

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss]

==== Prevalence of marriages ====
According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.

{{statements}}
}}
'' Alleged Hypocrisy and Potential for Change in Church Teachings ''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is it hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when its members practiced plural marriage? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that it is hypocritical for the LDS Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself had an alternative form of marriage.

The Church supports all of the rights for same-sex couples that they sought for polygamous families plus some. Same-sex marriage is doing more than extending rights to same-sex couples, but is setting a new standard that excludes people with same-sex attraction who are living the gospel standards. The Church never sought to force polygamy on other people, yet the Supreme Courts and many gay right organizations are seeking to take away rights from people who do not live up to the new standards.

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Anti-polygamy laws did not allow men to live with their wives. Men were arrested for living in the homes where their children lived so that they could fulfill their parental responsibiliies. However, even where laws do not allow for same-sex marriage, same-sex couples may form a family and live together. They may even choose to hold their own "marriage" ceremony and introduce each other as husband or wife.

==== The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others ====

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others. The church never sought for polygamy to be held up as a national standard, requiring all citizens to accept a moral equivalence between polygamy and monogamy. In fact, the Church has already championed rights for people with same-sex attractions that go beyond any right they ever sought for themselves in their practice of polygamy. The right to set a new standard for marriage that would apply to the rest of the United States was not a right that the Church sought for polygamous families. It should not be a right that same-sex couples should seek for themselves.

==== Different levels of rights ====
Often, when we talk about rights, different kinds of rights get lumped together into one group. Everyone knows that humans have certain inalienable rights, but we often don't discuss what happens when those rights conflict. There are several different kinds of rights associated with sexual practices.

One basic right is the right to practice your desired sexual relationship. In most modern societies, any number or gender of consenting adults can usually practice their desired relationship without fear of legal retribution. But, even in the most liberal societies, this right is generally tempered by the right of other people to disagree about the morality of that relationship.

Another right is the right to legal protection from discrimination. This would include laws that would penalize people for treating you differently because of your sexual practices. For example, in most countries, it is illegal to treat an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple differently when it comes to housing or employment. The church has been a strong supporter of protection against discrimination in housing and employment for people with same-sex attraction, including same-sex couples.

Another set of rights includes government help in maintaining your family. This would include legal recognition of your relationship and associated rights such as visitation rights. It may also help subsidize the cost of your relationships, through tax breaks and other benefits. Some modern societies have extended these rights to same-sex couples, and the church has publicly stated that they do not oppose these rights.

A final right that might be discussed is to have your government adopt your sexual relationship as a model, requiring it to be taught in schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. The church is strongly opposed to this infringement of their religious right to determine their own standards of sexual morality according to the dictates of their own consciences.

==== Rights associated with plural marriage ====
When the church supported plural marriage, they were seeking for that most basic of rights - the right to practice their religion. They were not seeking for the United States to recognize their plural marriages, to subsidize their relationships with tax breaks, or to force all citizens to accept it as the moral equivalent of their own monogamous traditions. They only sought to be left to practice their religion in peace.

But the federal government would not allow them even this most basic of rights. Husbands were forcibly separated from their wives and children. Men who tried to sneak into their homes to provide food for their families were arrested, if they were caught. Some moved to other countries so they could continue to be with their families.

==== Rights for same-sex couples ====

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. The church has [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|publicly supported many rights]] and have pressed for changes in legal system to afford these rights to same-sex couples. The rights that the church supports for same-sex couples goes BEYOND any right that they have ever sought for polygamous families.

The Church has no problem with people living life as they see fit when it doesn't interfere with other rights. However, as is often the case, when some rights expand, others diminish. For example, while supporting the rights of people with same-sex attraction to be free from discrimination in employment and housing, the church was in essence restricting the rights of landlords to choose their tenants and employers to choose their employees.

Many people think legalizing same-sex marriage is a necessary step to ensure that same-sex couples have the rights they need to protect their families from discrimination. They do not understand why they Church would be opposed to these rights. As stated earlier, the Church is not opposed to these rights, but adopting same-sex marriage as a national standard equivalent to opposite-sex marriage goes beyond simply living peacefully with those who choose to live a different standard. It is disregarding the old standard and replacing it with a new standard. This will have a detrimental effect on those who do not live up to the new standard.

==== New standard being introduced with same-sex marriage ====

The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is setting a dangerous standard of what is expected for people with same-sex attractions. It used to be that society expected people with same-sex attraction to get married to people of the opposite-sex. This type of expectation can cause damage for people with same-sex attraction who are not ready for marriage, and has been opposed by the Church for decades. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]]

Now, a new expectation is beginning to form that people with same-sex attraction can't have a fulfilling and faithful marriage with someone of the opposite sex and that they must marry someone of the same sex. Expectations of any sort are dangerous and hurt people who do not meet those expectations. About half of faithful members of the Church with same-sex attraction are heterosexually married, and many others have found fulfillment in celibacy. The new standard being adopted by several courts does not have room for these faithful members.

For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that, for people with same-sex attraction, their "choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex", and that was what their "true identity" should be. Later, Judge Walker ruled that the marriages of many members of the church with same-sex attraction was "unrealistic". The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that these relationships were "unappealing" and was "no right at all".

While many same-sex marriage supporters do not wish to harm those who follow the law of chastity, many major organizations have actively sought to take away rights from those people who do not live up to the new standard. For example, the Human Rights Campaign has actively opposed anti-discrimination employment rights for gay people who do not have gay sex.[http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/victory-disney-shareholders-reject-ex-gay-proposal/] It is ironic that while the Church has been actively lobbying to extend employment rights for all LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign has worked and has succeeded in taking away those exact same rights from LGBT people who live Church standards.

By the Supreme Courts encoding this new standard into law, people with same-sex attraction who do not live up to the standard can be discriminated against in the private sector. For example, Apple recently removed an app from its iTune collection because the organization who put it up was composed of gay Christians who lived the law of chastity. A spokesperson for Apple explained that having an app for gay people who live the law of chastity "violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people". [http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/03/apple-removes-exodus-anti-lgbt-iphone-app/][http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-responds-to-apple-petition-to-pull-gay-cure-app-49513/][http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/23/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-following-controversy/] There is a difference between seeking for the right to live an alternative lifestyle and taking away rights from those who do not choose your lifestyle because you find it "offensive". It is interesting to note this organization has made a statement supporting people's right to choose same-sex relationships.[http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm]
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Isn't the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary ====
President McKay taught:
<blockquote>
There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.com/howtoreach.html]
</blockquote>

==== The priesthood ban was not based on a choice ====
Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

==== It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed ====

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:
<blockquote>
"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."<ref>Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, ''The Teachings of President Brigham Young'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard. ====

President Hinckley taught:
<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.<ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=969567700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a]</ref>
</blockquote>

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

==== 1983 ====

<blockquote>
Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, '''but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord.''' For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2012 ====
<blockquote>
Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. '''That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change.''' As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "How To Survive in Enemy Territory," address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2013 ====
<blockquote>
Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, '''the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.'''<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.'''<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity," video, [1:01-1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Central to God’s plan, '''the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and [https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions will not change].'''" "If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, '''that is incorrect.''' Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, '''traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.'''<ref>Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, "LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment," Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also "Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage," press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda—same-sex-marriage</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2015 ====
<blockquote>
When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "'''No.'''"<ref>Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2016 ====
<blockquote>
'''There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right.''' But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction," https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:'''

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.<ref>"Church Leaders," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2019 ====
<blockquote>
These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. '''The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.'''<ref>Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2020 ====
McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for ''The Atlantic'', quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):
<blockquote>
But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, "God loves all his children, just like you and I do," and "There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church." But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. '''"As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law," he said. "We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now."'''<ref>McKay Coppins, "The Most American Religion," ''The Atlantic'', December 18, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2022 ====
President Dallin H. Oaks:

<blockquote>
Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.<ref>Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," ''Church News'', April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.</ref>
</blockquote>

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

==== Scriptural precedence ====

* Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|Christ's teachings on homosexuality]])
* The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

==== It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. ====
As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"<ref>{{s||Mosiah|18|9}}.</ref> As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."<ref>"Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Question ====
Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

=== Response to Question ===
==== Feelings are Not Being ====
It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Is-Ought Fallacy] in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.<ref>Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.</ref>

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:
<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book ''Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self'', award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

==== The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage ====
We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
:16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
:17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:
#Marriage is ordained of God
#Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
#We were designed by God to be married this way.
#Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
#We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

<blockquote>
The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A "unifying good" is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.
 
Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.

They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called "common law marriage").

The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, "Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together." That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.<ref>"The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," ''Discussing Marriage'', accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.</ref>
</blockquote>

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

=== Objections to Church Standard ===
==== The Argument from Personal Revelation ====
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}}) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

{{Main|How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?}}

==== The Argument from Priesthood Restriction ====
As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

{{Main|Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?}}

=== Conclusion ===
Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8–9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in {{s||Mosiah|18|8-9}} and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

{{Seealso|Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?}}
}}

'' Aversion Therapy ''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s ====

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

==== In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality ====

The Church is a religious body, not a medical institution. People who are members of the Church or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a member or for everything done by someone at BYU (despite what one might think, not everyone at BYU is a member of the Church).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

==== The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done ====

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the Church.

==== Academic freedom at BYU ====
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|58|26}} reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy'' ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

<blockquote>
Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.
</blockquote>

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.
</blockquote>

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.
</blockquote>

==== In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences ====

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

=== Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Vomiting was not used ====

McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

<blockquote>
The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]
</blockquote>

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come f{{s||rom:|1|}}) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

=== Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Participation was voluntary ====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

=== How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Aversion therapy is a standard technique that is still used today for a variety of treatments ====

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." <ref>Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010</ref> The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

<blockquote>
A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. <ref>[http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s ====

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

==== History of therapy and homosexuality ====

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." <ref>Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156</ref> Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). <ref>[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007</ref>

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" <ref>"Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994</ref> and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

<blockquote>
Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). <ref>[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. </ref>
</blockquote>

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

==== Aversion therapy at other institutions ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{{AversionTherapyatHospitals}}
</center>

==== Purpose of psychological therapy ====

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Boyd K. Packer Oktober 2010 Konferenzansprache]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Das Gesetz des Mose]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Neigungen und Gefühle oder Handlungen]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Was Christus darüber lehrte]]
[[en:Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?]]

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:13:06Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | The Race Restrictions
{{Header}}
This page answers the questions that have arisen regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its historical restrictions on men and women of Black African descent from entering the Church's temples and being ordained to the Church's priesthood.
----
* [[The Origins of the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Origins of the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Scripture and the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders]]
* [[Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Ending the Restrictions]]
* [[Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Modern Race Relations]]

The Origins of the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:12:53Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Origins
{{Header}}
__NOTOC__
This page discusses the origins of the race restrictions placed on Black members of African descent.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the "priesthood ban" that was lifted in 1978?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
Members of the Church who were considered to be of African descent were restricted from holding the Church's lay priesthood prior to 1978. The reason for the ban is not known. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's implementation. There is no known written revelation instituting the ban. In 1949, the First Presidency, led by President George Albert Smith, indicated that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord."

<blockquote>
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. 
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949
</blockquote>

The First Presidency went on to state that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate."
Because of this, understanding the reason for the implementation of the priesthood ban is difficult.

Several 19th and 20th century Church leaders (most notably Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen) expressed strong opinions on what they ''believed'' was the purpose of the priesthood ban. Some believed that Church leaders implemented the ban in order to respond to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures persisted. Upon the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie stated,

<blockquote>
Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.<ref>Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," ''Priesthood'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137.</ref>
</blockquote>

It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which Latter-day Saints are often confronted.

This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence. The sub-articles listed below explore various aspects of the priesthood ban in detail.

====Past Church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers====

Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Overview/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What do we know about the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?===
| state = closed
| content =
The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban, although a number of Church leaders offered theories as to the reason for its existence. The Church currently provides the following background information regarding the initiation of the ban in its ''Gospel Topics'' essay "Race and the Priesthood":

<blockquote>
In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. <ref>[https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Race and the Priesthood," ] ''Gospel Topics'', LDS.org.</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that none of these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church members have generally taken one of three perspectives:
* Some members assume that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several men of African descent to the priesthood.
* Some believe that the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young. The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
* Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because: 
* there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but 
* many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and 
* priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.<ref>{{NeitherWhiteNorBlack0}}</ref> A good timeline can be found at FAIR's [http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history '''BlackLatterdaySaints''' site].

====Many leaders have indicated that the Church does not know why the ban was in place====

* Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:

:'''Q''': So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?
:'''A''' [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.
:'''Q''': What was the reason for that?
:'''A''': I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.<ref>{{Sunstone1|author=Anonymous|article=On the Record: 'We Stand For Something' President Gordon B. Hinckley [interview in Australia]|vol=21:4|num=112|date=December 1998|start=71}}</ref>

* Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

:If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

:...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

:...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.<ref>{{Speech:Oaks:5 June 1988}}</ref>

* Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

:One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

:It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.<ref>{{Speech:Holland:4 March 2006}}</ref>

* Elder Alexander B. Morrison:

:We do not know.<ref>{{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 24, page 4; citing Alexander Morrison, Salt Lake City local news station KTVX, channel 4, 8 June 1998.}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Smith confer the priesthood on several black men?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Missouri and Slavery====

As Mormons settled into Missouri, some of their viewpoints about slavery ({{s||D&C|101|79}},{{sv||D&C|87|4}}) did not mesh well with those of the older settlers. The 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion left many southerners nervous as church leaders later recognized: "All who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger, and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country."<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 56; citing {{EMS1|start=122|vol=2|date=January 1834|article=Outrage in Jackson County, Missouri|author=Editor}}</ref> Unfortunately, this recognition came after mobs persecuted the Missouri saints and destroyed their press in part because of W. W. Phelps's editorials supporting abolition.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 55.</ref>

====Early missionaries were instructed to not teach or baptize slaves without their master's consent, but Joseph Smith conferred the priesthood on several free black men====

Under these precarious conditions, early missionaries were instructed to not teach or baptize slaves without their master's consent (see {{s||D&C|134|12}}). Late, perhaps unreliable, recollections suggest that Joseph Smith received inspiration that blacks should not be ordained while contemplating the situation in the South.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 61,77.</ref> These accounts must be weighed against records of free blacks receiving the priesthood such as Black Pete (1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter (<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA). Since Ohio had a law discouraging Blacks from migrating there, this put a damper on early proselyting efforts which were largely based on the principle of the gathering.<ref>Newell G. Bringhurst, ''Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism'' (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981), ??.</ref> Parley Pratt wrote in 1839 that the Church had less than a dozen Black members.<ref>''Saints, Slaves, and Blacks'', ??</ref> In 1879, John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young, despite receiving mixed information.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 77–78.</ref> As part of this investigation Zebedee Coltrin recalled that Joseph Smith said in 1834 that "the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood" and stripped Elijah Abel of his priesthood ordination. However, this claim is suspect given Coltrin's errors on the circumstances of Elijah Abel's ordination, participation in Kirtland temple ordinances, and retention in the Seventies quorum all under the supervision of Joseph Smith.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 60–61, 77–78.</ref>

====Outsiders do not seem to have regarded members of the Church in the 1830s as sharing typical American ideas about race====

Outsiders do not seem to have regarded members of the Church in the 1830s as sharing typical American ideas about race. In 1835, a skeptical account of their doctrines and beliefs noted:

<blockquote>
As the promulgators of this extraordinary legend maintain the natural equality of mankind, '''without excepting the native Indians or the African race''', there is little reason to be surprised at the cruel persecution by which they have suffered, and still less at the continued accession of converts among those who sympathize with the wrongs of others or seek an asylum for their own.

The preachers and believers of the following doctrines '''were not likely to remain, unmolested, in the State of Missouri'''.

"The Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal, &c. He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness: and he denieth none that come unto him; black and white—bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." Again: "Behold! the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father, &c. Wherefore the Lord God will not destroy them; but will be merciful to them; and one day they shall become [58] a blessed people." "O my brethren, I fear, that, unless ye shall repent of your sins, that their skins shall be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God*. Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins," &c. "The king saith unto him, yea! if the Lord saith unto us, go! we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves, until we repair unto them the many murders and sins, which we have committed against them. But Ammon saith unto him, it is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should any slaves among them. Therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren."<ref>E.S. Abdy, ''Journal of a Residence and Tour in the United States of North America, from April, 1833, to October, 1834'', 3 Vols., (London: John Murray, 1835), 3:57-58 {{ea}}. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/BOMP&CISOPTR=1146&REC=2}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Brigham Young initiate the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Starting Potentially with William McCary====
Why Brigham Young started the priesthood ban is difficult to answer with exactitude; but it can be plausibly reconstructed. The following is the best scholars have.<ref>The following approach draws mostly on the language in the presentation given in Russell Stevenson, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/shouldering-the-cross Shouldering the Cross: How to Condemn Racism and Still Call Brigham Young a Prophet]," FairMormon Conference 2014.</ref>

William McCary was a runaway slave, a brilliant musician, very persuasive, very charismatic, knew how to pull in an audience, and he was baptized a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and ordained an elder at Council Bluffs, Iowa in February 1846.<ref>The following March, Brigham acknowledged the validity of the ordination of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Lewis Kwaku Walker Lewis] that likely occurred during Joseph's tenure, "we [have] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [,MA]—a barber." Church Historian's Office. General Church Minutes, 1839–1877, March 26, 1847, in ''Selected Collections from the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', 2 vols., DVD (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 2002), 1:18.</ref>

McCary went to Winter Quarters, Nebraska in the spring of 1847 and he promptly married a Caucasian girl by the name of Lucy Stanton who was the daughter of a former stake president. This was a great example of playing with fire. William McCary, by being so willing to walk around with his white spouse, was asking for criticism at the very least. In several instances it was not at all uncommon for an African-American man to lose his life over such an indiscretion. McCary also began claiming powers of prophecy and transfiguration. He claimed to have the power to appear as various biblical and Book of Mormon figures.

McCary made a comment upon arriving in the Winter Quarters community and marrying Lucy. He says, of the Latter-day Saints, "Some say 'there go the old n—– [N-word] and his white wife'" with clear disdain. People remembered Joseph Smith and they remembered that he had authorized the ordination of Elijah Ables. Further, they knew that Joseph Smith had a deep and abiding affection for Elijah Ables. This was the type of friendship that endured for generations. They talked about it even long after Elijah’s death – how good of a friend Elijah was to Joseph Smith and vice versa. The Latter-day Saints remembered this and they said, "Well, Joseph Smith was OK. He’s passed on now; but we are really, really uneasy with this situation."

McCary approached Brigham Young with complaints that racial discrimination was a motive behind other Mormon leaders questioning his strange teachings. President Young satisfied McCary that ideally race should not be the issue. Praising [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Lewis Kwaku Walker Lewis] as an example, Young suggested "Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh" and later added "we don't care about the color." <ref>General Church Minutes, March 26, 1847.</ref> Mid-April, Brigham Young leaves Winter Quarters for the Great Basin leaving William McCary and his white wife to their own devices. McCary immediately began to marry a series of other white women, practicing his own form of interracial polygamy. He succeeded in pushing the discomfort of Latter-day Saints over the edge. He was excommunicated and expelled from Winter Quarters– as one man recalled – "to Missouri on a fast trot." His wife Lucy followed close behind. Shortly after his expulsion, Orson Hyde preached a sermon against McCary and his claims.

[[File:Kwaku_Walker_Lewis_FairMormon.jpg|300px|thumb|center|'''Figure 1.''' Kwaku Walker Lewis. Brigham Young praised Kwaku in March 1847 as one of the best elders of the Church.]]

It is Parley P. Pratt who gives us at this time in April 1847 the very first evidence of the existence of a priesthood restriction. He gives it to us when Brigham Young is hundreds of miles away in the Great Basin. Latter-day Saints are pressuring Parley P. Pratt and Orson Hyde saying, "How dare you? What business do you have allowing a character like William McCary into our community? He is clearly a sexual predator. He is exactly what we would expect an African-American to be like. Here you are entertaining them. How dare you?" Parley P. Pratt says "Well, of course that’s going to happen: he has the blood of Ham in him and those who are descended from the blood of Ham cannot hold the priesthood." Notice what he said there: "The blood of Ham." He didn’t say "the curse of Cain."<ref>General Church Minutes, April 25, 1847.</ref> This is point upon which Parley P. Pratt and Brigham Young differed quite significantly. Brigham Young was insistent in later years that it was the curse of Cain. Parley P. Pratt believed it was the curse of Ham. Which is it? Already we are seeing that the foundations of the priesthood restriction are, as Sterling McMurrin said, "shot through with ambiguity."

Brigham Young returned to Winter’s Quarters in December of 1847. At this time he had said, "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_the_Place_Monument [t]his is the place]," in Utah. He’s had the great experience of starting up the Mormon experiment in the West and he is coming to see how matters are in Winter Quarters. One of the first things he hears about is the William McCary incident. When Brigham Young was telling William McCary that he supported McCary’s involvement in the community (in fact he even supported McCary holding the priesthood – which he did – he had been ordained by Orson Hyde himself), he still had a line that he didn't believe McCary should cross. He believed that as much as it was acceptable for McCary to be a member of the community and even as acceptable as it was for him to have a white wife, he didn’t believe that there should ever be interracial offspring. It’s one thing if two people want to get married but once you start having children, then that is something that has an impact on the human family and ultimately eternity, not to mention the priesthood.

Also awaiting Brigham was William Appleby, the president over eastern branches of the Church. He had encountered Kwaku Lewis and his wife and suspected that William Smith (Joseph Smith's brother) had acted improperly by ordaining a black elder. He was also alarmed that Enoch Lewis (Kwaku's son) had married a white wife and had a child. Brigham responded to this news in a manner that is, by modern sensitivities, quite disturbing. He was adamantly against interracial marriages having children (see [[Brigham Young on race mixing]] for more context).

From here, December 1847, to February 1849, Church leaders and other Saints are moving to Utah. At this time, the documentary record goes cold. We have no one that is mentioning the priesthood ban and how it might be evolving. Nonetheless, it is strongly believed that during that time, the ban became more comprehensive to include not just McCary, but all blacks believed to have inherited the Curse of Cain through Ham.

====The priesthood ban became more comprehensive to include not only slaves and free blacks in the South, but all persons deemed to have inherited the curse of Cain through Ham====

The priesthood ban, following the McCary incident, the Lewis discovery, and the passage of Slavery in Utah, then became more comprehensive to include not only slaves and free blacks in the South, but all persons deemed to have inherited the [[Blacks_and_the_priesthood/The_%22curse_of_Cain%22_and_%22curse_of_Ham%22 | curse of Cain through Ham]]. The motivation for the latter part, as the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Gospel Topics Essay on Race and the Priesthood] was brought about by "[s]outherners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves [who] raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination."

====Brigham Young never presented a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed====

However, Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. Governor Young declared in those 1852 addresses that "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." <ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 70–72.</ref> Like the Missouri period, the Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.

Those who believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to these pivotal events as examples of a prophet learning "line upon line," with revelation being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that the ban was based on Brigham's cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.<ref>For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But...: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title= ===What did Church leaders after Brigham Young think of the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young====

In 1879, John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young, despite receiving mixed information.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 77–78.</ref> As part of this investigation Zebedee Coltrin recalled that Joseph Smith said in 1834 that "the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." However, this claim is suspect given Coltrin's errors on the circumstances of Elijah Abel's ordination, participation in Kirtland temple ordinances, and retention in the Seventies quorum all under the supervision of Joseph Smith.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 60–61, 77–78.</ref>

President George Q. Cannon in 1895 asserted that some of Young's teachings about miscegenation and the seed of Cain had first been taught by Joseph Smith.<ref>''Neither White nor Black'', 79–81.</ref>

====B.H. Roberts was the first to argue, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued to modern blacks through the lineage of Ham====

Nearly forty years after the ban started, B.H. Roberts was the first to argue, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued to modern blacks through the lineage of Ham.<ref>B.H. Roberts, "To the Youth of Israel," ''The Contributor'' 6 (May 1885): 296–97.</ref>

====Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan====
In 1907 Joseph Fielding Smith rejected less valiance in the pre-mortal existence as an explanation for the restrictions entirely. In 1924, he wrote as if he were more open to it, though he still kept it in the realm of speculation. By 1931, he embraced the explanation wholeheartedly--opining that blacks may have been less valiant in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan (however, he rejected that they may have been neutral in the war in heaven).<ref>Stevenson, "For the Cause of Righteousness", 308-9;{{DoS1|vol=1|start=65}}</ref>

====The First Presidency under George Albert Smith seems to have believed that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord"====

The First Presidency under George Albert Smith seems to have believed that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord." There is a statement from them in 1949 that "was never released as a circular, officially read to congregations, or included in James R. Clark's comprehensive six-volume ''Messages of the First Presidency'' series. It was likely drafted as a letter sent in response to public inquiries."<ref>Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 310.</ref>
<blockquote>
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. 
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949.<ref>The period of Latter-day Saint history in which this statement was penned reflected the time in which the racial theories had become most crystallized in Latter-day Saint consciousness. Two previous official communications to Dr. Lowry Nelson (in which it was stated that "From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church...that the Negros are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." and that interracial marriage was "most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now." and that it was "contrary to Church doctrine") demonstrate this. See Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness,'' 302–12 for an excellent commentary on the major documents of this period including the Lowry Nelson Letters, this 1949 First Presidency draft, and the evolution of Mormon thought from the turn of the 20th century to the 1950s that shaped attitudes surrounding the priesthood and temple restrictions.</ref>
</blockquote>

====David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy"====

* David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin,<ref>Sterling M. McMurrin and and L. Jackson Newell, ''Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin On Philosophy, Education, and Religion'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1996), 199–201; cited in {{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 20, page 5, footnote 17}}</ref> his son Llewelyn McKay,<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20, page 5, footnote 17.</ref> and Elder Paul H. Dunn.<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20, page 5–, footnote 17.</ref> President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 20 working draft, 13.</ref> 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."<ref>Edward L. Kimball, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood]," ''BYU Studies'' 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 21-22; Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, ''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 104; Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 120; W. Paul Reeve, ''Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 259: "In contrast, McKay, as president, believed divine intervention necessary regardless of the restriction's origins, something he reportedly sought but did not receive."</ref>
* The "Missouri policy theory" attributing the ban to Joseph Smith arising from condition in Missouri was first popularized in 1970 by author Stephen Taggert,<ref>Steven Taggert, ''Mormonism's Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1970).</ref> and President Hugh B. Brown reportedly embraced it.<ref>{{Sunstone|author=Edwin B. Firmage|article=Hugh B. Brown in His Final Years|vol=11:6|num=67|date=November 1987|start=7|end=8}}</ref> Other authors found this theory wanting.<ref> {{BlackAndMormon1|start=13|author=Newell G. Bringhurst|article=The 'Missouri Thesis' Revisited: Early Mormonism, Slavery, and the Status of Black People}}</ref>

====Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban====

* Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban,<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', 204–205.</ref> though Church Historian Leonard Arrington

:...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.<ref>''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22, footnote 105; citing for the affirmative Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' and Arrington to author, February 10 and June 15, 1998; for the negative, L. Brent Goates, interview by author, February 9, 1998.</ref>

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks...It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, ''Harold B. Lee'', 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.</ref>

====President Kimball said that the day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but should the day come it will be a matter of revelation====

President Kimball began his administration by holding a press conference. When asked about the ban, he said:

<blockquote>
[I have given it] "a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 1; citing Charles J. Seldin, "Priesthood of LDS Opened to Blacks," ''Salt Lake City Tribune'' (10 June 1978), 1A.</ref>
</blockquote>

He had previously written to his son:
<blockquote>
"...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough...I know the Lord could change His policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error (?) which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 4; citing letter of 15 June 1963 to Edward Kimball.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1976, he mentioned

<blockquote>
"his concern for giving the priesthood to all men, and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer...but I am going to keep praying about it."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 21, page 7; citing F. Burton Howard to author, June 15, 1995; F. Burton Howard, interview by author, July 30, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were blacks denied access to temple open houses?===
| state = closed
| content =
====There is no priesthood requirement to tour a temple during an open house, and all were welcome====
A message to FAIR reads: "I heard that, prior to 1978, blacks were denied access to temple open houses because they carried the "mark of Cain."" Is this true?

It would be surprising and unfortunate if a black person in the 1960's was turned away from a temple open house during the period that the priesthood ban was in place. Blacks were certainly allowed in during a temple open house, and many did tour the temple during these times. There is no priesthood requirement to tour a temple during an open house, and all were welcome. This is not to say, however, that such an unfortunate denial of entry did not take place. Sadly, prevailing racial attitudes during the 1950’s and 1960’s make it quite possible that a member might have denied such entry, even going so far as to say that the person carried the "mark of Cain." Even highly placed Church leaders made [[Racist statements by Church leaders|statements during this period]] which would now be considered quite racist. Such attitudes are, of course, repugnant to modern Latter-day Saints.

FAIR is not aware, however, of any policy of forbidding entry to open houses to people of a given race or ethnicity.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]
[[Category:John Dehlin's "Questions and Answers"]]
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
[[Category:MormonThink]]
[[Category:Questions]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Smith confirió el sacerdocio a varios hombres negros?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué iniciar Brigham Young la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué sabemos sobre el origen de la prohibición del sacerdocio a los miembros de la Iglesia de ascendencia africana?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Joseph Smith conferiu o sacerdócio a vários homens negros?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que sabemos sobre a origem da restrição do sacerdócio aos membros da Igreja descendentes de Africanos?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Por que Brigham Young iniciou a restrição ao Sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Qual é o Mormon "sacerdócio proibição" que foi levantada em 1978?]]
[[de:Schwarze und das Priestertum/Ursache des Priestertumverbots]]
[[es:Las cuestiones raciales y el Mormonismo/Los negros y el sacerdocio/Origen de la prohibición del sacerdocio]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Assuntos Raciais/Negros e do sacerdócio/Origem da proibição do sacerdócio]]

Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:11:35Z

SpencerMarsh:

Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:10:06Z

SpencerMarsh:

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:07:46Z

SpencerMarsh:

Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:04:54Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Scripture
{{Header}}
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} There were several ideas that leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promoted to justify the historical restrictions on Black members of African descent. Members and leaders claimed came from the scriptures. Among these were the notions that Blacks were neutral in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were less valiant than others in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were descendants of the biblical Cain who slew his brother Abel and had a mark placed upon him for his murder, and that Blacks were cursed with the curse of Ham. None of these ideas are fully substantiated by the scriptures, and the Church today disavows these ideas as explanations for the race restrictions.
----
''Pre-Mortal Neutrality or Lesser Valiance in the War in Heaven''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Church leaders ever teach that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Yes, some Church leaders promoted the idea as a way to explain the priesthood ban====
Despite the explicit denial of this concept by Brigham Young, the idea that people born with black skin as a result of their behavior in the pre-existence was used by several 20th century Church leaders in order to try and provide an explanation for the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]].

====The First Presidency, in a statement issued on August 17, 1949, actually attributed the ban to "conduct of spirits in the premortal existence"====
The First Presidency stated in 1949:
<blockquote>
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. <ref>First Presidency Statement (George Albert Smith), August 17, 1949. {{link|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Fielding Smith said in 1954 that there were no "neutrals in the war in heaven," but that rewards in this life may have "reflected actions taken in the pre-existence====

In the 1954 book ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (compiled by Bruce R. McConkie), Joseph Fielding Smith stated that "there were no neutrals in the war in heaven," but suggested that the rewards received in this life reflected actions taken in the pre-existence:

<blockquote>
NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. ''All took sides either with Christ or with Satan''. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. <ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954) , 1:65-66. {{eo}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Bruce R. McConkie said in 1966 that they were ''less valiant'' in the pre-existence====

The most well-known of these was the statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in his book ''Mormon Doctrine''. McConkie offered the following opinion:

<blockquote>
Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'' (1966), p. 527.</ref>
</blockquote>

====These statements by Church leaders reflected ideas which were prevalent in society during the 1950s and 1960s====

These statements by 20th century leaders did not represent thinking that was unique to the Church, but instead reflected [[Racist statements by Church leaders|ideas which were much more prevalent in society]] during the 1950's and 1960's.

====When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously====

Elder McConkie retracted his previous statements regarding the priesthood ban when it was lifted in 1978:

<blockquote>
Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137.</ref>
</blockquote>

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was the idea that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven" ever official doctrine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The "neutral in the war in heaven" argument was never doctrine. In fact, some Church leaders, starting with Brigham Young, explicitly repudiated the idea====

This idea was repudiated well before the priesthood ban was rescinded. President Brigham Young rejected it in an account recorded by Wilford Woodruff in 1869:

<blockquote>
Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. <ref>{{WWJ1|vol=6|start=511|date=25 December 1869}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====The First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith also rejected this idea====

<blockquote>
there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church … [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him. <ref>First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Smith never taught the idea that those born with black skin were "neutral" during the war in heaven====

Brigham Young, when asked this question, repudiated the idea. Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal:

<blockquote>
December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he commit[ted] murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition. <ref>Wilford Woodruff's Journal, entry dated Dec. 25, 1869.</ref>
</blockquote>

The idea that anyone who came to earth was "neutral" in the premortal existence is not a doctrine of the Church. Early Church leaders had a variety of opinions regarding the status of blacks in the pre-existence, and some of these were expressed in an attempt to explain the priesthood ban. The scriptures, however, do not explicitly state that the status or family into which we were born on earth had anything to do with our "degree of valiance" in our pre-mortal life.

Other religions would not have had reason for such a teaching because they do not believe in the pre-existence or the "war in heaven."

The scriptures themselves do not state that anyone was neutral in the pre-existence.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did the Church repudiate the idea of neutrality in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation====

Some members and leaders explained the ban as congruent with the justice of God by suggesting that those who were denied the priesthood had done something in the pre-mortal life to deny themselves the priesthood. President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation:

<blockquote>
President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence." <ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, "Mormonism Enters a New Era," ''Time'' (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball's biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).</ref>
</blockquote>

====Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was "valiant" in the premortal existence====

Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today's youth, said in 2005:

<blockquote>
Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence. <ref>M. Russell Ballard, "One More," ''Ensign'', May 2005, p. 69.</ref>
</blockquote>

====''Gospel Topics'': "Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood"====
''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org:
<blockquote>
Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Race and the Priesthood,"] ''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org. (2013)</ref> {{read more|url=http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Mormon link someone's dark skin to pre-mortal valiance?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Book of Mormon does not appear to have been used in a justification for the priesthood ban==
It has been claimed that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence. Those who claim that the Book of Mormon is racist often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.

Richard L. Bushman, Latter-day Saint author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

<blockquote>
...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.<ref>{{RSR1|start=99}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
''The Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
The "curse of Cain" resulted in Cain being cut off from the presence of the Lord. The Genesis and Moses accounts both attest to this. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle in general when it speaks about those who keep the commandments will prosper in the land, while those who don't will be cut off from the presence of the Lord. This type of curse was applied to the [[Lamanite curse|Lamanites]] when they rejected the teachings of the prophets.

The exact nature of the "mark" of Cain, on the other hand, is unknown. The scriptures don't say specifically what it was, except that it was for Cain's protection, so that those finding him wouldn't slay him. Many people, both in an out of the Church, have assumed that the mark and the curse are the same thing.
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years====

The basis used is {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}}:

<blockquote>
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japhethand '''Ham is the father of Canaan'''. These are the three sons of Noahand of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, '''Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren'''. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}} {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Although these verses clearly state that Canaan is cursed, it is not clear that the curse would be extended to his descendants. The use of {{s||Genesis|9|}} to associate a biblical curse with the ''descendants'' of Ham actually began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. <ref>Stephen R. Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)</ref> This "curse" became associated with the Canaanites. Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, makes reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" and the "ignobility of the race he fathered." <ref>Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.</ref> Likewise, Augustine and Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This concept was shared among Jews, Muslims and Christians. The first "racial justification" for slavery appeared in the fifteenth century in Spain and Portugal. In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was being used in the late 1600's to justify the practice of slavery. <ref>Haynes, p. 7-8.</ref> As author Stephen R. Haynes puts it, "Noah's curse had become a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to {{s||Genesis|9|}} appeared prominently in their publications." <ref>Haynes, p. 8.</ref>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did the "mark of Cain" become associated with black skin?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The biblical "mark of Cain" associated with black skin by Protestants to justify slavery====

The idea that the "mark of Cain" and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept.

Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans from 1956 until 1902, was a "moving force" in the Southern Presbyterian church during that period. Palmer believed that the South's cause during the Civil War was supported by God. Palmer believed the Hebrew history supported the concept that God had intended for some people to be formed "apart from others" and placed in separate territories in order to "prevent admixture of races." <ref>Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'', p. 127-8 citing Palmer, "The Import of Hebrew History," ''Southern Presbyterian Review 9 (April 1856) 591</ref> Palmer claimed that, "[t]he descendants of Ham, on the contrary, in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonized with their brutal and savage disposition." <ref>Haynes, p. 129, citing Palmer, ''Our Historic Mission, An Address Delivered before the Eunomian and PhiMu Societies of La Grange Synodical College, July 7 1858'' (New Orleans: True Witness Office, 1859), 4-5.</ref> Palmer declared:

<blockquote>
Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude—proclaimed with double emphasis, as it is twice repeated that he shall be the servant of Japheth and the servant of Shem. Accordingly, history records not a single example of any member of this group lifting itself, by any process of self-development, above the savage condition. From first to last their mental and moral characteristics, together with the guidance of Providence, have marked them for servitude; while their comparative advance in civilization and their participation in the blessings of salvation, have ever been suspended upon this decreed connexion [sic] with Japhet [sic] and with Shem. <ref>Haynes, p. 132, citing Cherry, ''God's New Israel'', 179-180 who in turn is citing one of Palmer's sermons.</ref>
</blockquote>

Unfortunately, among some, the Protestant concept that God has separated people by race has persisted even into modern times.

<blockquote>
God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. (Letter to James Landrith from Bob Jones University, 1998) <ref>Haynes, p. 161.</ref>
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with the Church?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Early members of the Church brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism====
Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelatory prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith [[Blacks and the priesthood/Origin of the priesthood ban|ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood]]: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of {{s||Abraham|1|}}). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see [[Blacks and the priesthood]].

Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood:
<blockquote>
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 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 any more. 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. 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. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html "All Are Alike unto God,"] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.</ref>
</blockquote>

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the [[Premortal existence|premortal existence]], certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan ({{s||Genesis|4|11-15}}; {{s||Moses|5|23-25}}, {{s_short||Moses|5|36-40}}), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow [[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|less valiant than their premortal brethren]] during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood [[Blacks and the priesthood|was to be withheld]] from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Moses teach that the descendants of Cain have black skin?===
| state =
| content =
{{s||Moses|7|}} is part of a vision of the prophet Enoch. Verses 8 and 22 have caused some concern for some. The texts state:

<blockquote>
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
</blockquote>

Some wonder if these verses can justify seeing black skin as a sign of divine disfavor or curse.

====The Text Never Connects Blackness to Skin Color====
Author Stephen O. Smoot explains clearly why these verses should not be interpreted as referring to a literal change in skin color.

<blockquote>
The text describes a curse of barrenness upon the land of the people of Canaan as well as a "blackness" covering the people. The curse applies only to the land, however, with no mention of a curse upon the pre-Flood Canaanites themselves. The "blackness" of the people of Canaan is never explicitly depicted in a racialized manner (that is, as speaking of skin color). Elsewhere in the text, "blackness" is used to describe the presence of Satan in contrast to the brilliant glory of God, suggesting that a spiritual or metaphorical reading of the "blackness" of the Canaanites and the descendants of Cain ({{s||Moses|7|22}}) is to be preferred. (See the commentary at 1:15.) Modern leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have officially rejected any racist interpretations of these and related passages of scripture that attempt to link personal worthiness and value in the eyes of God with skin color.<ref>Stephen O. Smoot, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/commentary-moses-7 ''The Pearl of Great Price: A Study Edition for Latter-day Saints''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 38.</ref>
</blockquote>

Author Adam Stokes has also proposed alternative, informed, non-racist readings of the Book of Moses' passages at length.<ref>{{Interpreter:Stokes:The People Of Canaan A New Reading Of:2021}}.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Abraham teach that the descendants of Ham are not supposed to have the priesthood?===
| state = closed
| content =
One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuals from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

====Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions====
The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

====Historical Use vs. Textual Content====
While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

====Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance====
According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

====Lack of Original Doctrinal Application====
Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. [https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham An article on the topic] notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

====Modern Interpretations and Disavowals====
Scholars and [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng the Church’s own historical essays] have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

====Further Reading====
*Shannon, Avram R. "'That Lineage': Rival Priesthood Claims in Abraham 1." In ''Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition: Proceedings of the Conference Held May 3 & 10, 2025 at Brigham Young University'', ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely, 2 vols. (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2025), 1:207–39.
*Smoot, Stephen O., John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson. "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham The Priesthood Ban and the Book of Abraham]." In ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 61, no. 4 (2022): 56–64.
*Thompson, John S. "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/being-of-that-lineage-generational-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham 'Being of That Linage': Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham]." ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 54 (2022) : 97–146.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:04:22Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Scripture
{{Header}}
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} There were several ideas that leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promoted to justify the historical restrictions on Black members of Afircan descent. Members and leaders claimed came from the scriptures. Among these were the notions that Blacks were neutral in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were less valiant than others in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were descendants of the biblical Cain who slew his brother Abel and had a mark placed upon him for his murder, and that Blacks were cursed with the curse of Ham. None of these ideas are fully substantiated by the scriptures, and the Church today disavows these ideas as explanations for the race restrictions.
----
''Pre-Mortal Neutrality or Lesser Valiance in the War in Heaven''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Church leaders ever teach that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Yes, some Church leaders promoted the idea as a way to explain the priesthood ban====
Despite the explicit denial of this concept by Brigham Young, the idea that people born with black skin as a result of their behavior in the pre-existence was used by several 20th century Church leaders in order to try and provide an explanation for the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]].

====The First Presidency, in a statement issued on August 17, 1949, actually attributed the ban to "conduct of spirits in the premortal existence"====
The First Presidency stated in 1949:
<blockquote>
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. <ref>First Presidency Statement (George Albert Smith), August 17, 1949. {{link|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Fielding Smith said in 1954 that there were no "neutrals in the war in heaven," but that rewards in this life may have "reflected actions taken in the pre-existence====

In the 1954 book ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (compiled by Bruce R. McConkie), Joseph Fielding Smith stated that "there were no neutrals in the war in heaven," but suggested that the rewards received in this life reflected actions taken in the pre-existence:

<blockquote>
NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. ''All took sides either with Christ or with Satan''. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. <ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954) , 1:65-66. {{eo}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Bruce R. McConkie said in 1966 that they were ''less valiant'' in the pre-existence====

The most well-known of these was the statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in his book ''Mormon Doctrine''. McConkie offered the following opinion:

<blockquote>
Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'' (1966), p. 527.</ref>
</blockquote>

====These statements by Church leaders reflected ideas which were prevalent in society during the 1950s and 1960s====

These statements by 20th century leaders did not represent thinking that was unique to the Church, but instead reflected [[Racist statements by Church leaders|ideas which were much more prevalent in society]] during the 1950's and 1960's.

====When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously====

Elder McConkie retracted his previous statements regarding the priesthood ban when it was lifted in 1978:

<blockquote>
Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137.</ref>
</blockquote>

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was the idea that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven" ever official doctrine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The "neutral in the war in heaven" argument was never doctrine. In fact, some Church leaders, starting with Brigham Young, explicitly repudiated the idea====

This idea was repudiated well before the priesthood ban was rescinded. President Brigham Young rejected it in an account recorded by Wilford Woodruff in 1869:

<blockquote>
Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. <ref>{{WWJ1|vol=6|start=511|date=25 December 1869}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====The First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith also rejected this idea====

<blockquote>
there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church … [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him. <ref>First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Smith never taught the idea that those born with black skin were "neutral" during the war in heaven====

Brigham Young, when asked this question, repudiated the idea. Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal:

<blockquote>
December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he commit[ted] murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition. <ref>Wilford Woodruff's Journal, entry dated Dec. 25, 1869.</ref>
</blockquote>

The idea that anyone who came to earth was "neutral" in the premortal existence is not a doctrine of the Church. Early Church leaders had a variety of opinions regarding the status of blacks in the pre-existence, and some of these were expressed in an attempt to explain the priesthood ban. The scriptures, however, do not explicitly state that the status or family into which we were born on earth had anything to do with our "degree of valiance" in our pre-mortal life.

Other religions would not have had reason for such a teaching because they do not believe in the pre-existence or the "war in heaven."

The scriptures themselves do not state that anyone was neutral in the pre-existence.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did the Church repudiate the idea of neutrality in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation====

Some members and leaders explained the ban as congruent with the justice of God by suggesting that those who were denied the priesthood had done something in the pre-mortal life to deny themselves the priesthood. President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation:

<blockquote>
President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence." <ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, "Mormonism Enters a New Era," ''Time'' (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball's biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).</ref>
</blockquote>

====Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was "valiant" in the premortal existence====

Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today's youth, said in 2005:

<blockquote>
Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence. <ref>M. Russell Ballard, "One More," ''Ensign'', May 2005, p. 69.</ref>
</blockquote>

====''Gospel Topics'': "Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood"====
''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org:
<blockquote>
Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Race and the Priesthood,"] ''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org. (2013)</ref> {{read more|url=http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Mormon link someone's dark skin to pre-mortal valiance?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Book of Mormon does not appear to have been used in a justification for the priesthood ban==
It has been claimed that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence. Those who claim that the Book of Mormon is racist often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.

Richard L. Bushman, Latter-day Saint author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

<blockquote>
...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.<ref>{{RSR1|start=99}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
''The Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
The "curse of Cain" resulted in Cain being cut off from the presence of the Lord. The Genesis and Moses accounts both attest to this. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle in general when it speaks about those who keep the commandments will prosper in the land, while those who don't will be cut off from the presence of the Lord. This type of curse was applied to the [[Lamanite curse|Lamanites]] when they rejected the teachings of the prophets.

The exact nature of the "mark" of Cain, on the other hand, is unknown. The scriptures don't say specifically what it was, except that it was for Cain's protection, so that those finding him wouldn't slay him. Many people, both in an out of the Church, have assumed that the mark and the curse are the same thing.
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years====

The basis used is {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}}:

<blockquote>
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japhethand '''Ham is the father of Canaan'''. These are the three sons of Noahand of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, '''Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren'''. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}} {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Although these verses clearly state that Canaan is cursed, it is not clear that the curse would be extended to his descendants. The use of {{s||Genesis|9|}} to associate a biblical curse with the ''descendants'' of Ham actually began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. <ref>Stephen R. Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)</ref> This "curse" became associated with the Canaanites. Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, makes reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" and the "ignobility of the race he fathered." <ref>Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.</ref> Likewise, Augustine and Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This concept was shared among Jews, Muslims and Christians. The first "racial justification" for slavery appeared in the fifteenth century in Spain and Portugal. In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was being used in the late 1600's to justify the practice of slavery. <ref>Haynes, p. 7-8.</ref> As author Stephen R. Haynes puts it, "Noah's curse had become a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to {{s||Genesis|9|}} appeared prominently in their publications." <ref>Haynes, p. 8.</ref>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did the "mark of Cain" become associated with black skin?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The biblical "mark of Cain" associated with black skin by Protestants to justify slavery====

The idea that the "mark of Cain" and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept.

Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans from 1956 until 1902, was a "moving force" in the Southern Presbyterian church during that period. Palmer believed that the South's cause during the Civil War was supported by God. Palmer believed the Hebrew history supported the concept that God had intended for some people to be formed "apart from others" and placed in separate territories in order to "prevent admixture of races." <ref>Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'', p. 127-8 citing Palmer, "The Import of Hebrew History," ''Southern Presbyterian Review 9 (April 1856) 591</ref> Palmer claimed that, "[t]he descendants of Ham, on the contrary, in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonized with their brutal and savage disposition." <ref>Haynes, p. 129, citing Palmer, ''Our Historic Mission, An Address Delivered before the Eunomian and PhiMu Societies of La Grange Synodical College, July 7 1858'' (New Orleans: True Witness Office, 1859), 4-5.</ref> Palmer declared:

<blockquote>
Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude—proclaimed with double emphasis, as it is twice repeated that he shall be the servant of Japheth and the servant of Shem. Accordingly, history records not a single example of any member of this group lifting itself, by any process of self-development, above the savage condition. From first to last their mental and moral characteristics, together with the guidance of Providence, have marked them for servitude; while their comparative advance in civilization and their participation in the blessings of salvation, have ever been suspended upon this decreed connexion [sic] with Japhet [sic] and with Shem. <ref>Haynes, p. 132, citing Cherry, ''God's New Israel'', 179-180 who in turn is citing one of Palmer's sermons.</ref>
</blockquote>

Unfortunately, among some, the Protestant concept that God has separated people by race has persisted even into modern times.

<blockquote>
God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. (Letter to James Landrith from Bob Jones University, 1998) <ref>Haynes, p. 161.</ref>
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with the Church?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Early members of the Church brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism====
Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelatory prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith [[Blacks and the priesthood/Origin of the priesthood ban|ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood]]: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of {{s||Abraham|1|}}). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see [[Blacks and the priesthood]].

Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood:
<blockquote>
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 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 any more. 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. 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. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html "All Are Alike unto God,"] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.</ref>
</blockquote>

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the [[Premortal existence|premortal existence]], certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan ({{s||Genesis|4|11-15}}; {{s||Moses|5|23-25}}, {{s_short||Moses|5|36-40}}), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow [[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|less valiant than their premortal brethren]] during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood [[Blacks and the priesthood|was to be withheld]] from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Moses teach that the descendants of Cain have black skin?===
| state =
| content =
{{s||Moses|7|}} is part of a vision of the prophet Enoch. Verses 8 and 22 have caused some concern for some. The texts state:

<blockquote>
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
</blockquote>

Some wonder if these verses can justify seeing black skin as a sign of divine disfavor or curse.

====The Text Never Connects Blackness to Skin Color====
Author Stephen O. Smoot explains clearly why these verses should not be interpreted as referring to a literal change in skin color.

<blockquote>
The text describes a curse of barrenness upon the land of the people of Canaan as well as a "blackness" covering the people. The curse applies only to the land, however, with no mention of a curse upon the pre-Flood Canaanites themselves. The "blackness" of the people of Canaan is never explicitly depicted in a racialized manner (that is, as speaking of skin color). Elsewhere in the text, "blackness" is used to describe the presence of Satan in contrast to the brilliant glory of God, suggesting that a spiritual or metaphorical reading of the "blackness" of the Canaanites and the descendants of Cain ({{s||Moses|7|22}}) is to be preferred. (See the commentary at 1:15.) Modern leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have officially rejected any racist interpretations of these and related passages of scripture that attempt to link personal worthiness and value in the eyes of God with skin color.<ref>Stephen O. Smoot, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/commentary-moses-7 ''The Pearl of Great Price: A Study Edition for Latter-day Saints''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 38.</ref>
</blockquote>

Author Adam Stokes has also proposed alternative, informed, non-racist readings of the Book of Moses' passages at length.<ref>{{Interpreter:Stokes:The People Of Canaan A New Reading Of:2021}}.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Abraham teach that the descendants of Ham are not supposed to have the priesthood?===
| state = closed
| content =
One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuals from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

====Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions====
The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

====Historical Use vs. Textual Content====
While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

====Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance====
According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

====Lack of Original Doctrinal Application====
Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. [https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham An article on the topic] notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

====Modern Interpretations and Disavowals====
Scholars and [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng the Church’s own historical essays] have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

====Further Reading====
*Shannon, Avram R. "'That Lineage': Rival Priesthood Claims in Abraham 1." In ''Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition: Proceedings of the Conference Held May 3 & 10, 2025 at Brigham Young University'', ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely, 2 vols. (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2025), 1:207–39.
*Smoot, Stephen O., John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson. "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham The Priesthood Ban and the Book of Abraham]." In ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 61, no. 4 (2022): 56–64.
*Thompson, John S. "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/being-of-that-lineage-generational-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham 'Being of That Linage': Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham]." ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 54 (2022) : 97–146.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T19:04:10Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Scripture
{{Header}}
__NOTOC__
{{Summary1}} There were several ideas that leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints promoted to justify the historical restrictions on Black members of Afircan descent. Members and leaders claimed came from the scriptures. Among these were the notions that Blacks were neutral in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were less valiant than others in the pre-mortal battle against Lucifer and his followers, that Blacks were descendants of the biblical Cain who slew his brother Abel and had a mark placed upon him for his murder, and that Blacks were cursed with the curse of Ham. None of these ideas are fully substantiated by the scriptures, and the Church today disavows these ideas as explanations for the race restrictions.
----
''Pre-Mortal Neutrality or Lesser Valiance in the War in Heaven''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Church leaders ever teach that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Yes, some Church leaders promoted the idea as a way to explain the priesthood ban====
Despite the explicit denial of this concept by Brigham Young, the idea that people born with black skin as a result of their behavior in the pre-existence was used by several 20th century Church leaders in order to try and provide an explanation for the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]].

====The First Presidency, in a statement issued on August 17, 1949, actually attributed the ban to "conduct of spirits in the premortal existence"====
The First Presidency stated in 1949:
<blockquote>
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. <ref>First Presidency Statement (George Albert Smith), August 17, 1949. {{link|url=http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Fielding Smith said in 1954 that there were no "neutrals in the war in heaven," but that rewards in this life may have "reflected actions taken in the pre-existence====

In the 1954 book ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (compiled by Bruce R. McConkie), Joseph Fielding Smith stated that "there were no neutrals in the war in heaven," but suggested that the rewards received in this life reflected actions taken in the pre-existence:

<blockquote>
NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. ''All took sides either with Christ or with Satan''. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. <ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954) , 1:65-66. {{eo}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Bruce R. McConkie said in 1966 that they were ''less valiant'' in the pre-existence====

The most well-known of these was the statement made by Bruce R. McConkie in his book ''Mormon Doctrine''. McConkie offered the following opinion:

<blockquote>
Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'' (1966), p. 527.</ref>
</blockquote>

====These statements by Church leaders reflected ideas which were prevalent in society during the 1950s and 1960s====

These statements by 20th century leaders did not represent thinking that was unique to the Church, but instead reflected [[Racist statements by Church leaders|ideas which were much more prevalent in society]] during the 1950's and 1960's.

====When the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, McConkie retracted what he had said previously====

Elder McConkie retracted his previous statements regarding the priesthood ban when it was lifted in 1978:

<blockquote>
Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137.</ref>
</blockquote>

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was the idea that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven" ever official doctrine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The "neutral in the war in heaven" argument was never doctrine. In fact, some Church leaders, starting with Brigham Young, explicitly repudiated the idea====

This idea was repudiated well before the priesthood ban was rescinded. President Brigham Young rejected it in an account recorded by Wilford Woodruff in 1869:

<blockquote>
Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition. <ref>{{WWJ1|vol=6|start=511|date=25 December 1869}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====The First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith also rejected this idea====

<blockquote>
there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church … [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him. <ref>First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Joseph Smith never taught the idea that those born with black skin were "neutral" during the war in heaven====

Brigham Young, when asked this question, repudiated the idea. Wilford Woodruff recorded the following in his journal:

<blockquote>
December 25, 1869: I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he commit[ted] murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition. <ref>Wilford Woodruff's Journal, entry dated Dec. 25, 1869.</ref>
</blockquote>

The idea that anyone who came to earth was "neutral" in the premortal existence is not a doctrine of the Church. Early Church leaders had a variety of opinions regarding the status of blacks in the pre-existence, and some of these were expressed in an attempt to explain the priesthood ban. The scriptures, however, do not explicitly state that the status or family into which we were born on earth had anything to do with our "degree of valiance" in our pre-mortal life.

Other religions would not have had reason for such a teaching because they do not believe in the pre-existence or the "war in heaven."

The scriptures themselves do not state that anyone was neutral in the pre-existence.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did the Church repudiate the idea of neutrality in the "war in heaven?"===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation====

Some members and leaders explained the ban as congruent with the justice of God by suggesting that those who were denied the priesthood had done something in the pre-mortal life to deny themselves the priesthood. President Kimball was reported as repudiating this idea following the 1978 revelation:

<blockquote>
President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence." <ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, "Mormonism Enters a New Era," ''Time'' (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball's biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).</ref>
</blockquote>

====Modern Church leaders teach that everyone who came to earth in this day was "valiant" in the premortal existence====

Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today's youth, said in 2005:

<blockquote>
Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence. <ref>M. Russell Ballard, "One More," ''Ensign'', May 2005, p. 69.</ref>
</blockquote>

====''Gospel Topics'': "Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood"====
''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org:
<blockquote>
Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Race and the Priesthood,"] ''Gospel Topics'' on churchofjesuschrist.org. (2013)</ref> {{read more|url=http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Mormon link someone's dark skin to pre-mortal valiance?
| state = closed
| content =
====The Book of Mormon does not appear to have been used in a justification for the priesthood ban==
It has been claimed that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence. Those who claim that the Book of Mormon is racist often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.

Richard L. Bushman, Latter-day Saint author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

<blockquote>
...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.<ref>{{RSR1|start=99}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
''The Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
The "curse of Cain" resulted in Cain being cut off from the presence of the Lord. The Genesis and Moses accounts both attest to this. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle in general when it speaks about those who keep the commandments will prosper in the land, while those who don't will be cut off from the presence of the Lord. This type of curse was applied to the [[Lamanite curse|Lamanites]] when they rejected the teachings of the prophets.

The exact nature of the "mark" of Cain, on the other hand, is unknown. The scriptures don't say specifically what it was, except that it was for Cain's protection, so that those finding him wouldn't slay him. Many people, both in an out of the Church, have assumed that the mark and the curse are the same thing.
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The origin of the "curse of Ham" pre-dates the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by hundreds of years====

The basis used is {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}}:

<blockquote>
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japhethand '''Ham is the father of Canaan'''. These are the three sons of Noahand of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, '''Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren'''. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and '''Canaan shall be his servant'''. {{s||Genesis|9|18-27}} {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Although these verses clearly state that Canaan is cursed, it is not clear that the curse would be extended to his descendants. The use of {{s||Genesis|9|}} to associate a biblical curse with the ''descendants'' of Ham actually began in the third and fourth centuries A.D. <ref>Stephen R. Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)</ref> This "curse" became associated with the Canaanites. Origen, an early Christian scholar and theologian, makes reference to Ham's "discolored posterity" and the "ignobility of the race he fathered." <ref>Origen, "Genesis Homily XVI," in ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 215, referenced in Haynes.</ref> Likewise, Augustine and Ambrose of Milan speculated that the descendants of Ham carried a curse that was associated with a darkness of skin. This concept was shared among Jews, Muslims and Christians. The first "racial justification" for slavery appeared in the fifteenth century in Spain and Portugal. In the American colonies, the "curse of Ham" was being used in the late 1600's to justify the practice of slavery. <ref>Haynes, p. 7-8.</ref> As author Stephen R. Haynes puts it, "Noah's curse had become a stock weapon in the arsenal of slavery's apologists, and references to {{s||Genesis|9|}} appeared prominently in their publications." <ref>Haynes, p. 8.</ref>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===When did the "mark of Cain" become associated with black skin?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The biblical "mark of Cain" associated with black skin by Protestants to justify slavery====

The idea that the "mark of Cain" and the "curse of Ham" was a black skin is something that was used by many Protestants as a way to morally and biblically justify slavery. This idea did not originate with Latter-day Saints, although the existence of the priesthood ban prior to 1978 tends to cause some people to assume that it was a Latter-day Saint concept.

Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans from 1956 until 1902, was a "moving force" in the Southern Presbyterian church during that period. Palmer believed that the South's cause during the Civil War was supported by God. Palmer believed the Hebrew history supported the concept that God had intended for some people to be formed "apart from others" and placed in separate territories in order to "prevent admixture of races." <ref>Haynes, ''Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery'', p. 127-8 citing Palmer, "The Import of Hebrew History," ''Southern Presbyterian Review 9 (April 1856) 591</ref> Palmer claimed that, "[t]he descendants of Ham, on the contrary, in whom the sensual and corporeal appetites predominate, are driven like an infected race beyond the deserts of Sahara, where under a glowing sky nature harmonized with their brutal and savage disposition." <ref>Haynes, p. 129, citing Palmer, ''Our Historic Mission, An Address Delivered before the Eunomian and PhiMu Societies of La Grange Synodical College, July 7 1858'' (New Orleans: True Witness Office, 1859), 4-5.</ref> Palmer declared:

<blockquote>
Upon Ham was pronounced the doom of perpetual servitude—proclaimed with double emphasis, as it is twice repeated that he shall be the servant of Japheth and the servant of Shem. Accordingly, history records not a single example of any member of this group lifting itself, by any process of self-development, above the savage condition. From first to last their mental and moral characteristics, together with the guidance of Providence, have marked them for servitude; while their comparative advance in civilization and their participation in the blessings of salvation, have ever been suspended upon this decreed connexion [sic] with Japhet [sic] and with Shem. <ref>Haynes, p. 132, citing Cherry, ''God's New Israel'', 179-180 who in turn is citing one of Palmer's sermons.</ref>
</blockquote>

Unfortunately, among some, the Protestant concept that God has separated people by race has persisted even into modern times.

<blockquote>
God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain. (Letter to James Landrith from Bob Jones University, 1998) <ref>Haynes, p. 161.</ref>
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with the Church?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Early members of the Church brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism====
Prior to 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelatory prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

Early members of the Church were, for the most part, converts from Protestant sects. It is understandable that they naturally brought this culturally-conditioned belief in the "curse of Ham" with them into Mormonism. Many modern members of the Church, for instance, are unaware that Joseph Smith [[Blacks and the priesthood/Origin of the priesthood ban|ordained at least one African-American man to the priesthood]]: Elijah Abel.

At some point during Brigham Young's administration, the priesthood ban was initiated. No revelation, if there ever was one, was published, although many throughout the history of the Church have assumed that the reason for the ban must be that blacks were the cursed seed of Cain, and therefore not allowed the priesthood (usually stemming from a misreading of {{s||Abraham|1|}}). The correct answer as to why the ban was put into place is: we don't know. For further information on the priesthood ban, see [[Blacks and the priesthood]].

Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood:
<blockquote>
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 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 any more. 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. 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. <ref>Bruce R. McConkie, [http://www.zionsbest.com/alike.html "All Are Alike unto God,"] address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, Salt Lake City, August 1978.</ref>
</blockquote>

Prior to this statement by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, the doctrinal folklore that blacks are the descendants of Cain and Ham and that they carry the "mark of Cain" was a belief among some members of the Church, and is occasionally heard even today. The dubious "folk doctrine" in question is no longer even relevant, since it was used to incorrectly explain and justify a Church policy that was reversed over thirty years ago. Prior to the 1978 revelation, however, the Saints used the "mark of Cain" to explain the policy of denying priesthood ordination to those of African descent—a policy for which no revelation or prophetic explanation was ever actually given.

The speculation was that in the [[Premortal existence|premortal existence]], certain spirits were set aside to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain’s murder of his brother and covenant with Satan ({{s||Genesis|4|11-15}}; {{s||Moses|5|23-25}}, {{s_short||Moses|5|36-40}}), and then again later by Ham’s offense against his father Noah. The reasons why this lineage was set apart weren’t clear, but it was speculated they were somehow [[Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence|less valiant than their premortal brethren]] during the war in heaven. In this life, then, the holy priesthood [[Blacks and the priesthood|was to be withheld]] from all who had had any trace of that lineage.

As neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot logically be interpreted this way unless one starts with the priesthood ban itself and then works backward, looking for scriptures to support a predetermined belief.

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Moses teach that the descendants of Cain have black skin?===
| state =
| content =
{{s||Moses|7|}} is part of a vision of the prophet Enoch. Verses 8 and 22 have caused some concern for some. The texts state:

<blockquote>
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
</blockquote>

Some wonder if these verses can justify seeing black skin as a sign of divine disfavor or curse.

====The Text Never Connects Blackness to Skin Color====
Author Stephen O. Smoot explains clearly why these verses should not be interpreted as referring to a literal change in skin color.

<blockquote>
The text describes a curse of barrenness upon the land of the people of Canaan as well as a "blackness" covering the people. The curse applies only to the land, however, with no mention of a curse upon the pre-Flood Canaanites themselves. The "blackness" of the people of Canaan is never explicitly depicted in a racialized manner (that is, as speaking of skin color). Elsewhere in the text, "blackness" is used to describe the presence of Satan in contrast to the brilliant glory of God, suggesting that a spiritual or metaphorical reading of the "blackness" of the Canaanites and the descendants of Cain ({{s||Moses|7|22}}) is to be preferred. (See the commentary at 1:15.) Modern leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have officially rejected any racist interpretations of these and related passages of scripture that attempt to link personal worthiness and value in the eyes of God with skin color.<ref>Stephen O. Smoot, [https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/commentary-moses-7 ''The Pearl of Great Price: A Study Edition for Latter-day Saints''] (Springville, UT: Book of Mormon Central, 2022), 38.</ref>
</blockquote>

Author Adam Stokes has also proposed alternative, informed, non-racist readings of the Book of Moses' passages at length.<ref>{{Interpreter:Stokes:The People Of Canaan A New Reading Of:2021}}.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Book of Abraham teach that the descendants of Ham are not supposed to have the priesthood?===
| state = closed
| content =
One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuals from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

====Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions====
The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

====Historical Use vs. Textual Content====
While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

====Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance====
According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

====Lack of Original Doctrinal Application====
Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. [https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham An article on the topic] notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

====Modern Interpretations and Disavowals====
Scholars and [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng the Church’s own historical essays] have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

====Further Reading====
*Shannon, Avram R. "'That Lineage': Rival Priesthood Claims in Abraham 1." In ''Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition: Proceedings of the Conference Held May 3 & 10, 2025 at Brigham Young University'', ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely, 2 vols. (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2025), 1:207–39.
*Smoot, Stephen O., John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson. "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-priesthood-ban-and-the-book-of-abraham The Priesthood Ban and the Book of Abraham]." In ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 61, no. 4 (2022): 56–64.
*Thompson, John S. "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/being-of-that-lineage-generational-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham 'Being of That Linage': Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham]." ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 54 (2022) : 97–146.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:59:39Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:58:58Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Statements by Leaders
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
----
''The First Presidency''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What has the First Presidency said about the race restrictions over time?===
| state = closed
| content =
====1949====
=====First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)=====
<blockquote>
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 <ref>Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.</ref>
</blockquote>

====1969====
<blockquote>
December 15, 1969
 
To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
 
Dear Brethren:
 
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
 
First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.
 
We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.
 
In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.
 
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
 
However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
 
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
 
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
 
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 into the beginning with God….
 
"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state."
 
President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."
 
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
 
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.
 
Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.
 
We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.
 
We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
 
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.
 
Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
 
Faithfully your brethren, 
The First Presidency 
By Hugh B. Brown 
N. Eldon Tanner 
</blockquote>
====1978====
Official Declaration 2:

<blockquote>
To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

:In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

:President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

::June 8, 1978

::To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

::Dear Brethren:

::As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

::Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

::He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

::We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
:::::Sincerely yours,
:::::::Spencer W. Kimball
:::::::N. Eldon Tanner
:::::::Marion G. Romney
:::::::The First Presidency

:Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.
</blockquote>
}}
''Brigham Young''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Brigham Young a racist?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist====

Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}; {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}; {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=10–11}}; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles|pages=3}}</ref>

Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{b||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

Elder Neil L. Anderson said,
<blockquote>
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Ether|12|6}}). <ref>Neil L. Anderson, [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith], ''Ensign'' (November 2012)</ref>
</blockquote>

====We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day====

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{b||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{b||Matthew|7|2}}, {{b||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

{{Epigraph|"On the day I arrived, students had seen the segment in which Governor Ross Barnett physically bars James Meredith from registering at Ole Miss. In the ensuing discussion, the teacher asked students why Barnett objected to Meredith’s enrollment. One boy raised his hand and volunteered, ‘Prejudice.’ The teacher nodded and the discussion moved on. 

"That simple ‘prejudice’ unsettled me. Four hundred years of racial history reduced to a one-word response? This set me to wondering what would it take before we begin to think historically about such concepts as ‘prejudice,’ racism,’ ‘tolerance,’ fairness,’ and ‘equity.’ At what point do we come to see these abstractions not as transcendent truths soaring above time and place, but as patterns of thought that take root in particular historical moments, develop, grow, and emerge in new forms in successive generations while still bearing traces of their former selves?"
::: — Sam Wineburg, ''Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts'', 17.}}

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements|l2=Understanding pre-1978 statements}}

====The perception that past prophets were "just like us" is incorrect====

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{b||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{b||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{b||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{b||Psalms|93|1}}; {{b||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=269}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young say that race mixing was punishable by death?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Brigham Young said that race mixing was punishable by death====

Yes, Brigham Young did makes statements to this effect. One of the most well known is this one from March 8, 1863:
<blockquote>
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=10|disc=25|start=110|date=March 8, 1863.}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It was a complex issue. After all, laws against interracial marriage still existed in a number of states until June of 1967—with Utah making interracial marriage legal in 1963—when the Supreme Court finally argued that they were unconstitutional - a hundred years after some of Brigham Young's comments. At the time that the supreme court made interracial marriage legal in all states, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. In 1958, the number was 24.

President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.

====While there were a couple of instances where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this, and this was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit.====

While there were a [[Was Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn) "blood atoned"?|couple of instances]] where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this. There were, at the time, interracial marriages in Utah that were already solemnized and others that were solemnized after this statement was made and yet Brigham never ordered such an execution. Was he aware of these marriages? One would assume he that he likely did become aware of at least one during his ~30-year tenure as Prophet, President of the Church, and Governor of Utah. We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.

{{To learn more box:racial issues}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
''Mark E. Petersen''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Race Problems - As They Affect the Church====
Elder Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church" back on August 27, 1954. It was delivered at BYU at the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level. In it, Elder Petersen aims to give the Church's position on the issue of racial segregation and integration as well as intermarriage, the reasons for the priesthood and temple restrictions.

One can read a full reproduction of the talk elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki:

{{Main|Primary sources/Mark E. Petersen/Race Problems - As They Affect the Church|l1=Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect the Church}}

Elder Petersen makes several statements related to these issues that are considered entirely false today by the Church. For example, the rationale that blacks were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings because of the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|Curse of Cain]] or [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"|premortal neutrality/less valiance]]. Or the claim that [[Repudiated ideas about race#Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?|interracial marriages are biologically wrong or spiritually sinful]]. Thus, the problems with Elder Petersen's talk are not limited to his unique statement about blacks being servants to sealed whites in the next life. Indeed, Elder Petersen, as far as this author is aware, is the only general authority to make a statement to that effect. The reader is encouraged to follow the linked articles to learn more about the Curse of Cain and other disavowed ideas that pop up in Elder Petersen's talk.

====Not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine====

Elder Mark E. Petersen said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

First, it should be remembered that not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine. Just because an apostle says something, does not make it binding doctrine, especially if he was speaking at a Convention of Teachers of Religion, as Elder Petersen did. For more information, please read:

[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"], Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

====We believe revelation is continual, and we do not claim to have all the answers now, nor did we claim to have all the answers in 1952====

We believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. For more information, please read:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&query=%22he+will+yet+reveal+many+great+and+important+things+pertaining+to+the+kingdom+of+god%22 The 9th Article of Faith]

====It is important to understand that the term "servant" was not uniquely applied to black people====

It may be assumed by some, based upon Elder Petersen's statement, that white people would not go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. However, we must examine {{s||D&C|132|16}} which Elder Petersen is basing his comments on:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
As you can see, the Doctrine and Covenants makes no mention that the servants are limited to any race. Blacks and whites will serve alongside each other.

====Even Petersen's view that blacks can only serve alongside whites as servants in the Celestial Kingdom has been contradicted by almost every president of the Church since Joseph Smith====

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders that say blacks will be able to receive ALL blessings, including that of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

In regards to black people, Joseph Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 269. ISBN 087579243X
</blockquote>

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|"Curse of Cain,"]] said
<blockquote>
"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 are now entitled to." —quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

Wilford Woodruff said,
<blockquote>
"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have" —quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949

David McKay taught,
<blockquote>
"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." —(''Mormonism and the Negro'', 23).
</blockquote>

In reference to black people, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency." —Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' 1:61.
</blockquote>

In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
<blockquote>
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." —Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, Harold B. Lee, 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===In the 1950s, did the Church teach that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The claim is likely based on talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior====

Television personality Bill Maher said, "...[I]n the [19]50s, the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave." <ref>Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007. {{antilink|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs}}</ref>

While it is unknown to what sources Bill Maher looks for his information about the Church, it is possible that they were influenced by a talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. Elder Petersen's comments were made during a very different time from the one in which we now live. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior, and that the nascent American civil rights movement was a bad idea. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood was almost 25 years in the future.

====It has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves====

It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

<blockquote>
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. ... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin. ... 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, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.<ref>Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the [http://speeches.byu.edu BYU Speeches] web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address.</ref>
</blockquote>

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=Blacks_and_the_priesthood
|subject1=Pre-1978 Priesthood ban
|summary1=
}}

====Despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom====

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see {{s||D&C|76|50-70}}). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" ({{s||D&C|76|96}}). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." ({{s||D&C|76|98}}).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood {{s||D&C|131|1-4}} as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

<blockquote>
To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.<ref>{{EaR |start=200|end=201}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

<blockquote>
...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there ''they enter as servants''-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." {{ia}}<ref>{{DoS1 | vol=2|start=62}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members ''would not'' receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they ''could not'' because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

====Given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants"====

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

====Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban====

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

====Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.====

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

====Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past====

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible]] Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

<blockquote>
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.<ref>{{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng The Need for Greater Kindness]|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}).

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Fallibility_of_prophets
|subject1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders
|summary1=
}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
''Joseph Fielding Smith''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Fielding Smith make derogatory racial comments in the 22 October 1963 issue of Look magazine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The critics appeal to an audience that is ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues====

A statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 22 October 1963 issue of ''LOOK'' Magazine is used as an illustration of the Church's racism,
<blockquote>
I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith
Look magazine, 22 October 1963, 79 [sic]<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=233}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be levelled in our society, and thus a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."<ref name="manis"></ref>{{Rp|33}} Thus, the critics appeal to an audience that is often ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues. They are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination or outright expulsion of black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

<blockquote>
Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest unidimensional solutions to racial division.<ref name="emerson">Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).</ref>{{Rp|170}}
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human weaknesses. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. At present, Latter-day Saints do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than personal preference or race. Our members have never travelled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

We can only hope that our critics will desist in their racially divisive campaign against other religions. We challenge them to focus their talents on the important question of pastor Gregory E. Thomas as he says, "we must again note that a predominant pattern of church life for black churches has been that of racial separation. The question remains: why?"<ref>Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," 75.</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

====Bruce R. McConkie: "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"====

One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone eras:
<blockquote>
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… 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 any more. 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.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====A Look Through LOOK Magazine: Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American====

Now that the reader is aware of the true position of the LDS church on the subject of racism, let us review the authors' favored medium for authoritative information, LOOK magazine. It provides an excellent lesson in how easily sources can be excised from the very surroundings that explain them when the intent is to sensationalize rather than to inform.

The cover of the October 22, 1963 issue reflects the prevailing social culture of the nation. It pictures a radiant Jackie Kennedy-like woman sitting in a new car, smiling with her laughing toddler who is standing on the car seat next to her. The child is dressed in an unbuttoned red cardigan, the collar of her crisp white blouse peeks over the sweater and her pleated plaid skirt is accessorized with stylish black and white oxfords and bobby socks.

This issue highlighted new 1964 cars. The full-page ad on page 55 tells us "what every girl should know." Women of that era evidently needed to know that "the man who drives a Super Torque Ford is a man of substance" and that she should "marry him at the first opportunity."

Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness.

"Memo From a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes" is an article that indicates a growing awareness by the magazine of the need to talk about "Negroes," but there is no urgent need to talk to them or with them. The article itself is well done and fairly presented from the point of view of a young man who wished an end to the practice of allowing blacks full membership but restricting them from participation in the lay priesthood. The rogue quote used by the authors is only found in the "Editor's Note" attached to the article. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, interviewed Joseph Fielding Smith, then acting president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The full quote, following an explanatory paragraph, is as follows:
<blockquote>
"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate."
 
Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, "No". He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was "No." "Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?" Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, "no."
 
"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church," President Smith said. "No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.
 
"I wouldn't want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church."<ref name="nye">Jeff Nye, "Memo from a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes," LOOK (October 22, 1963)</ref>{{Rp|97}}
</blockquote>
Interestingly, the article ends here. However, a statement from the body of the featured article is worth noting as it pinpoints the uncomfortable situation for LOOK's selectiveness in highlighting only Mormons.
<blockquote>
The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.
 
It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?<ref name="nye"></ref>{{Rp|76}}
</blockquote>

====A Convenient Double Standard====

Perhaps the annoyance of President Smith over the double standard being applied to Mormons would be better understood if placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in the same year.<ref name="manis">Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999)</ref>{{Rp|41}} Would the critics really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? While President Smith was quoted as saying "darkie" in 1963, what were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars outline how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.
<blockquote>
In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|47}}
</blockquote>
Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:
<blockquote>
So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.<ref>Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.</ref>
</blockquote>
It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as the critics have chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one has to ask, with so many others, why do critics persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve for them?

The critics' barrage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the LDS might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.
<blockquote>
Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.<ref>Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.</ref>
 
By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.<ref>Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.</ref>
 
The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.<ref name="wood">Forrest G. Wood. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).</ref>{{Rp|318}}
 
After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|293}}
 
By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.<ref>Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.</ref>
 
The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.<ref>Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.</ref>
 
Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.<ref>J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.</ref>
 
According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|136}}
 
About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.<ref name="thomas">Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002).</ref>{{Rp|68}}
 
In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.<ref name="thomas"></ref>{{Rp|68-69}}
</blockquote>
As can be seen by this parade of statistics, the critics' talents might be more profitably spent in their own congregations rather than in pointing at the proverbial mote in their neighbor's eye.

==Critics' attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention==

Now let us look at the critics' stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. The authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101/Short|pages=243}}</ref> Again, we should review the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:
<blockquote>
This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.<ref>H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.</ref>
 
The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|107}}
</blockquote>
Once again, the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:58:19Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Statements by Leaders
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
----
''The First Presidency''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What has the First Presidency said about the race restrictions over time?===
| state = closed
| content =
====1949====
=====First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)=====
<blockquote>
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 <ref>Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.</ref>
</blockquote>

====1969====
<blockquote>
December 15, 1969
 
To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
 
Dear Brethren:
 
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
 
First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.
 
We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.
 
In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.
 
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
 
However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
 
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
 
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
 
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 into the beginning with God….
 
"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state."
 
President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."
 
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
 
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.
 
Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.
 
We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.
 
We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
 
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.
 
Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
 
Faithfully your brethren, 
The First Presidency 
By Hugh B. Brown 
N. Eldon Tanner 
</blockquote>
====1978====
Official Declaration 2:

<blockquote>
To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

:In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

:President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

::June 8, 1978

::To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

::Dear Brethren:

::As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

::He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

::We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
:::::Sincerely yours,
:::::::Spencer W. Kimball
:::::::N. Eldon Tanner
:::::::Marion G. Romney
:::::::The First Presidency

:Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.
</blockquote>
}}
''Brigham Young''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Brigham Young a racist?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist====

Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}; {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}; {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=10–11}}; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles|pages=3}}</ref>

Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{b||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

Elder Neil L. Anderson said,
<blockquote>
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Ether|12|6}}). <ref>Neil L. Anderson, [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith], ''Ensign'' (November 2012)</ref>
</blockquote>

====We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day====

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{b||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{b||Matthew|7|2}}, {{b||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

{{Epigraph|"On the day I arrived, students had seen the segment in which Governor Ross Barnett physically bars James Meredith from registering at Ole Miss. In the ensuing discussion, the teacher asked students why Barnett objected to Meredith’s enrollment. One boy raised his hand and volunteered, ‘Prejudice.’ The teacher nodded and the discussion moved on. 

"That simple ‘prejudice’ unsettled me. Four hundred years of racial history reduced to a one-word response? This set me to wondering what would it take before we begin to think historically about such concepts as ‘prejudice,’ racism,’ ‘tolerance,’ fairness,’ and ‘equity.’ At what point do we come to see these abstractions not as transcendent truths soaring above time and place, but as patterns of thought that take root in particular historical moments, develop, grow, and emerge in new forms in successive generations while still bearing traces of their former selves?"
::: — Sam Wineburg, ''Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts'', 17.}}

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements|l2=Understanding pre-1978 statements}}

====The perception that past prophets were "just like us" is incorrect====

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{b||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{b||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{b||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{b||Psalms|93|1}}; {{b||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=269}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young say that race mixing was punishable by death?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Brigham Young said that race mixing was punishable by death====

Yes, Brigham Young did makes statements to this effect. One of the most well known is this one from March 8, 1863:
<blockquote>
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=10|disc=25|start=110|date=March 8, 1863.}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It was a complex issue. After all, laws against interracial marriage still existed in a number of states until June of 1967—with Utah making interracial marriage legal in 1963—when the Supreme Court finally argued that they were unconstitutional - a hundred years after some of Brigham Young's comments. At the time that the supreme court made interracial marriage legal in all states, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. In 1958, the number was 24.

President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.

====While there were a couple of instances where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this, and this was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit.====

While there were a [[Was Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn) "blood atoned"?|couple of instances]] where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this. There were, at the time, interracial marriages in Utah that were already solemnized and others that were solemnized after this statement was made and yet Brigham never ordered such an execution. Was he aware of these marriages? One would assume he that he likely did become aware of at least one during his ~30-year tenure as Prophet, President of the Church, and Governor of Utah. We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.

{{To learn more box:racial issues}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
''Mark E. Petersen''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Race Problems - As They Affect the Church====
Elder Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church" back on August 27, 1954. It was delivered at BYU at the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level. In it, Elder Petersen aims to give the Church's position on the issue of racial segregation and integration as well as intermarriage, the reasons for the priesthood and temple restrictions.

One can read a full reproduction of the talk elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki:

{{Main|Primary sources/Mark E. Petersen/Race Problems - As They Affect the Church|l1=Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect the Church}}

Elder Petersen makes several statements related to these issues that are considered entirely false today by the Church. For example, the rationale that blacks were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings because of the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|Curse of Cain]] or [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"|premortal neutrality/less valiance]]. Or the claim that [[Repudiated ideas about race#Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?|interracial marriages are biologically wrong or spiritually sinful]]. Thus, the problems with Elder Petersen's talk are not limited to his unique statement about blacks being servants to sealed whites in the next life. Indeed, Elder Petersen, as far as this author is aware, is the only general authority to make a statement to that effect. The reader is encouraged to follow the linked articles to learn more about the Curse of Cain and other disavowed ideas that pop up in Elder Petersen's talk.

====Not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine====

Elder Mark E. Petersen said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

First, it should be remembered that not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine. Just because an apostle says something, does not make it binding doctrine, especially if he was speaking at a Convention of Teachers of Religion, as Elder Petersen did. For more information, please read:

[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"], Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

====We believe revelation is continual, and we do not claim to have all the answers now, nor did we claim to have all the answers in 1952====

We believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. For more information, please read:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&query=%22he+will+yet+reveal+many+great+and+important+things+pertaining+to+the+kingdom+of+god%22 The 9th Article of Faith]

====It is important to understand that the term "servant" was not uniquely applied to black people====

It may be assumed by some, based upon Elder Petersen's statement, that white people would not go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. However, we must examine {{s||D&C|132|16}} which Elder Petersen is basing his comments on:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
As you can see, the Doctrine and Covenants makes no mention that the servants are limited to any race. Blacks and whites will serve alongside each other.

====Even Petersen's view that blacks can only serve alongside whites as servants in the Celestial Kingdom has been contradicted by almost every president of the Church since Joseph Smith====

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders that say blacks will be able to receive ALL blessings, including that of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

In regards to black people, Joseph Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 269. ISBN 087579243X
</blockquote>

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|"Curse of Cain,"]] said
<blockquote>
"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 are now entitled to." —quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

Wilford Woodruff said,
<blockquote>
"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have" —quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949

David McKay taught,
<blockquote>
"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." —(''Mormonism and the Negro'', 23).
</blockquote>

In reference to black people, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency." —Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' 1:61.
</blockquote>

In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
<blockquote>
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." —Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, Harold B. Lee, 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===In the 1950s, did the Church teach that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The claim is likely based on talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior====

Television personality Bill Maher said, "...[I]n the [19]50s, the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave." <ref>Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007. {{antilink|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs}}</ref>

While it is unknown to what sources Bill Maher looks for his information about the Church, it is possible that they were influenced by a talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. Elder Petersen's comments were made during a very different time from the one in which we now live. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior, and that the nascent American civil rights movement was a bad idea. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood was almost 25 years in the future.

====It has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves====

It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

<blockquote>
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. ... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin. ... 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, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.<ref>Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the [http://speeches.byu.edu BYU Speeches] web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address.</ref>
</blockquote>

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=Blacks_and_the_priesthood
|subject1=Pre-1978 Priesthood ban
|summary1=
}}

====Despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom====

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see {{s||D&C|76|50-70}}). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" ({{s||D&C|76|96}}). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." ({{s||D&C|76|98}}).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood {{s||D&C|131|1-4}} as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

<blockquote>
To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.<ref>{{EaR |start=200|end=201}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

<blockquote>
...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there ''they enter as servants''-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." {{ia}}<ref>{{DoS1 | vol=2|start=62}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members ''would not'' receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they ''could not'' because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

====Given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants"====

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

====Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban====

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

====Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.====

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

====Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past====

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible]] Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

<blockquote>
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.<ref>{{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng The Need for Greater Kindness]|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}).

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Fallibility_of_prophets
|subject1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders
|summary1=
}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
''Joseph Fielding Smith''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Fielding Smith make derogatory racial comments in the 22 October 1963 issue of Look magazine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The critics appeal to an audience that is ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues====

A statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 22 October 1963 issue of ''LOOK'' Magazine is used as an illustration of the Church's racism,
<blockquote>
I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith
Look magazine, 22 October 1963, 79 [sic]<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=233}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be levelled in our society, and thus a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."<ref name="manis"></ref>{{Rp|33}} Thus, the critics appeal to an audience that is often ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues. They are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination or outright expulsion of black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

<blockquote>
Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest unidimensional solutions to racial division.<ref name="emerson">Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).</ref>{{Rp|170}}
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human weaknesses. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. At present, Latter-day Saints do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than personal preference or race. Our members have never travelled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

We can only hope that our critics will desist in their racially divisive campaign against other religions. We challenge them to focus their talents on the important question of pastor Gregory E. Thomas as he says, "we must again note that a predominant pattern of church life for black churches has been that of racial separation. The question remains: why?"<ref>Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," 75.</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

====Bruce R. McConkie: "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"====

One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone eras:
<blockquote>
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… 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 any more. 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.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====A Look Through LOOK Magazine: Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American====

Now that the reader is aware of the true position of the LDS church on the subject of racism, let us review the authors' favored medium for authoritative information, LOOK magazine. It provides an excellent lesson in how easily sources can be excised from the very surroundings that explain them when the intent is to sensationalize rather than to inform.

The cover of the October 22, 1963 issue reflects the prevailing social culture of the nation. It pictures a radiant Jackie Kennedy-like woman sitting in a new car, smiling with her laughing toddler who is standing on the car seat next to her. The child is dressed in an unbuttoned red cardigan, the collar of her crisp white blouse peeks over the sweater and her pleated plaid skirt is accessorized with stylish black and white oxfords and bobby socks.

This issue highlighted new 1964 cars. The full-page ad on page 55 tells us "what every girl should know." Women of that era evidently needed to know that "the man who drives a Super Torque Ford is a man of substance" and that she should "marry him at the first opportunity."

Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness.

"Memo From a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes" is an article that indicates a growing awareness by the magazine of the need to talk about "Negroes," but there is no urgent need to talk to them or with them. The article itself is well done and fairly presented from the point of view of a young man who wished an end to the practice of allowing blacks full membership but restricting them from participation in the lay priesthood. The rogue quote used by the authors is only found in the "Editor's Note" attached to the article. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, interviewed Joseph Fielding Smith, then acting president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The full quote, following an explanatory paragraph, is as follows:
<blockquote>
"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate."
 
Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, "No". He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was "No." "Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?" Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, "no."
 
"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church," President Smith said. "No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.
 
"I wouldn't want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church."<ref name="nye">Jeff Nye, "Memo from a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes," LOOK (October 22, 1963)</ref>{{Rp|97}}
</blockquote>
Interestingly, the article ends here. However, a statement from the body of the featured article is worth noting as it pinpoints the uncomfortable situation for LOOK's selectiveness in highlighting only Mormons.
<blockquote>
The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.
 
It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?<ref name="nye"></ref>{{Rp|76}}
</blockquote>

====A Convenient Double Standard====

Perhaps the annoyance of President Smith over the double standard being applied to Mormons would be better understood if placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in the same year.<ref name="manis">Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999)</ref>{{Rp|41}} Would the critics really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? While President Smith was quoted as saying "darkie" in 1963, what were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars outline how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.
<blockquote>
In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|47}}
</blockquote>
Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:
<blockquote>
So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.<ref>Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.</ref>
</blockquote>
It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as the critics have chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one has to ask, with so many others, why do critics persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve for them?

The critics' barrage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the LDS might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.
<blockquote>
Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.<ref>Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.</ref>
 
By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.<ref>Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.</ref>
 
The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.<ref name="wood">Forrest G. Wood. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).</ref>{{Rp|318}}
 
After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|293}}
 
By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.<ref>Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.</ref>
 
The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.<ref>Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.</ref>
 
Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.<ref>J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.</ref>
 
According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|136}}
 
About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.<ref name="thomas">Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002).</ref>{{Rp|68}}
 
In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.<ref name="thomas"></ref>{{Rp|68-69}}
</blockquote>
As can be seen by this parade of statistics, the critics' talents might be more profitably spent in their own congregations rather than in pointing at the proverbial mote in their neighbor's eye.

==Critics' attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention==

Now let us look at the critics' stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. The authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101/Short|pages=243}}</ref> Again, we should review the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:
<blockquote>
This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.<ref>H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.</ref>
 
The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|107}}
</blockquote>
Once again, the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:54:57Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:53:34Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Statements by Leaders
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
----
''The First Presidency''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What has the First Presidency said about the race restrictions over time?===
| state = closed
| content =
====1949====
=====First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)=====
<blockquote>
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 <ref>Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.</ref>
</blockquote>

====1969====
<blockquote>
December 15, 1969
 
To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
 
Dear Brethren:
 
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
 
First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.
 
We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.
 
In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.
 
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.
 
However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
 
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
 
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
 
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 into the beginning with God….
 
"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state."
 
President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."
 
Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.
 
We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.
 
Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.
 
We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.
 
We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.
 
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.
 
Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.
 
Faithfully your brethren, 
The First Presidency 
By Hugh B. Brown 
N. Eldon Tanner 
</blockquote>
}}
''Brigham Young''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Brigham Young a racist?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist====

Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}; {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}; {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=10–11}}; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles|pages=3}}</ref>

Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{b||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

Elder Neil L. Anderson said,
<blockquote>
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Ether|12|6}}). <ref>Neil L. Anderson, [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith], ''Ensign'' (November 2012)</ref>
</blockquote>

====We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day====

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{b||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{b||Matthew|7|2}}, {{b||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

{{Epigraph|"On the day I arrived, students had seen the segment in which Governor Ross Barnett physically bars James Meredith from registering at Ole Miss. In the ensuing discussion, the teacher asked students why Barnett objected to Meredith’s enrollment. One boy raised his hand and volunteered, ‘Prejudice.’ The teacher nodded and the discussion moved on. 

"That simple ‘prejudice’ unsettled me. Four hundred years of racial history reduced to a one-word response? This set me to wondering what would it take before we begin to think historically about such concepts as ‘prejudice,’ racism,’ ‘tolerance,’ fairness,’ and ‘equity.’ At what point do we come to see these abstractions not as transcendent truths soaring above time and place, but as patterns of thought that take root in particular historical moments, develop, grow, and emerge in new forms in successive generations while still bearing traces of their former selves?"
::: — Sam Wineburg, ''Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts'', 17.}}

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements|l2=Understanding pre-1978 statements}}

====The perception that past prophets were "just like us" is incorrect====

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{b||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{b||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{b||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{b||Psalms|93|1}}; {{b||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=269}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young say that race mixing was punishable by death?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Brigham Young said that race mixing was punishable by death====

Yes, Brigham Young did makes statements to this effect. One of the most well known is this one from March 8, 1863:
<blockquote>
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=10|disc=25|start=110|date=March 8, 1863.}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It was a complex issue. After all, laws against interracial marriage still existed in a number of states until June of 1967—with Utah making interracial marriage legal in 1963—when the Supreme Court finally argued that they were unconstitutional - a hundred years after some of Brigham Young's comments. At the time that the supreme court made interracial marriage legal in all states, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. In 1958, the number was 24.

President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.

====While there were a couple of instances where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this, and this was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit.====

While there were a [[Was Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn) "blood atoned"?|couple of instances]] where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this. There were, at the time, interracial marriages in Utah that were already solemnized and others that were solemnized after this statement was made and yet Brigham never ordered such an execution. Was he aware of these marriages? One would assume he that he likely did become aware of at least one during his ~30-year tenure as Prophet, President of the Church, and Governor of Utah. We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.

{{To learn more box:racial issues}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
''Mark E. Petersen''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Race Problems - As They Affect the Church====
Elder Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church" back on August 27, 1954. It was delivered at BYU at the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level. In it, Elder Petersen aims to give the Church's position on the issue of racial segregation and integration as well as intermarriage, the reasons for the priesthood and temple restrictions.

One can read a full reproduction of the talk elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki:

{{Main|Primary sources/Mark E. Petersen/Race Problems - As They Affect the Church|l1=Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect the Church}}

Elder Petersen makes several statements related to these issues that are considered entirely false today by the Church. For example, the rationale that blacks were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings because of the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|Curse of Cain]] or [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"|premortal neutrality/less valiance]]. Or the claim that [[Repudiated ideas about race#Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?|interracial marriages are biologically wrong or spiritually sinful]]. Thus, the problems with Elder Petersen's talk are not limited to his unique statement about blacks being servants to sealed whites in the next life. Indeed, Elder Petersen, as far as this author is aware, is the only general authority to make a statement to that effect. The reader is encouraged to follow the linked articles to learn more about the Curse of Cain and other disavowed ideas that pop up in Elder Petersen's talk.

====Not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine====

Elder Mark E. Petersen said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

First, it should be remembered that not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine. Just because an apostle says something, does not make it binding doctrine, especially if he was speaking at a Convention of Teachers of Religion, as Elder Petersen did. For more information, please read:

[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"], Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

====We believe revelation is continual, and we do not claim to have all the answers now, nor did we claim to have all the answers in 1952====

We believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. For more information, please read:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&query=%22he+will+yet+reveal+many+great+and+important+things+pertaining+to+the+kingdom+of+god%22 The 9th Article of Faith]

====It is important to understand that the term "servant" was not uniquely applied to black people====

It may be assumed by some, based upon Elder Petersen's statement, that white people would not go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. However, we must examine {{s||D&C|132|16}} which Elder Petersen is basing his comments on:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
As you can see, the Doctrine and Covenants makes no mention that the servants are limited to any race. Blacks and whites will serve alongside each other.

====Even Petersen's view that blacks can only serve alongside whites as servants in the Celestial Kingdom has been contradicted by almost every president of the Church since Joseph Smith====

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders that say blacks will be able to receive ALL blessings, including that of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

In regards to black people, Joseph Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 269. ISBN 087579243X
</blockquote>

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|"Curse of Cain,"]] said
<blockquote>
"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 are now entitled to." —quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

Wilford Woodruff said,
<blockquote>
"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have" —quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949

David McKay taught,
<blockquote>
"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." —(''Mormonism and the Negro'', 23).
</blockquote>

In reference to black people, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency." —Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' 1:61.
</blockquote>

In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
<blockquote>
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." —Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, Harold B. Lee, 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===In the 1950s, did the Church teach that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The claim is likely based on talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior====

Television personality Bill Maher said, "...[I]n the [19]50s, the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave." <ref>Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007. {{antilink|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs}}</ref>

While it is unknown to what sources Bill Maher looks for his information about the Church, it is possible that they were influenced by a talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. Elder Petersen's comments were made during a very different time from the one in which we now live. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior, and that the nascent American civil rights movement was a bad idea. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood was almost 25 years in the future.

====It has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves====

It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

<blockquote>
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. ... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin. ... 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, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.<ref>Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the [http://speeches.byu.edu BYU Speeches] web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address.</ref>
</blockquote>

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=Blacks_and_the_priesthood
|subject1=Pre-1978 Priesthood ban
|summary1=
}}

====Despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom====

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see {{s||D&C|76|50-70}}). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" ({{s||D&C|76|96}}). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." ({{s||D&C|76|98}}).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood {{s||D&C|131|1-4}} as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

<blockquote>
To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.<ref>{{EaR |start=200|end=201}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

<blockquote>
...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there ''they enter as servants''-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." {{ia}}<ref>{{DoS1 | vol=2|start=62}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members ''would not'' receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they ''could not'' because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

====Given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants"====

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

====Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban====

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

====Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.====

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

====Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past====

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible]] Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

<blockquote>
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.<ref>{{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng The Need for Greater Kindness]|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}).

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Fallibility_of_prophets
|subject1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders
|summary1=
}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
''Joseph Fielding Smith''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Fielding Smith make derogatory racial comments in the 22 October 1963 issue of Look magazine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The critics appeal to an audience that is ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues====

A statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 22 October 1963 issue of ''LOOK'' Magazine is used as an illustration of the Church's racism,
<blockquote>
I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith
Look magazine, 22 October 1963, 79 [sic]<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=233}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be levelled in our society, and thus a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."<ref name="manis"></ref>{{Rp|33}} Thus, the critics appeal to an audience that is often ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues. They are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination or outright expulsion of black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

<blockquote>
Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest unidimensional solutions to racial division.<ref name="emerson">Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).</ref>{{Rp|170}}
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human weaknesses. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. At present, Latter-day Saints do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than personal preference or race. Our members have never travelled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

We can only hope that our critics will desist in their racially divisive campaign against other religions. We challenge them to focus their talents on the important question of pastor Gregory E. Thomas as he says, "we must again note that a predominant pattern of church life for black churches has been that of racial separation. The question remains: why?"<ref>Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," 75.</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

====Bruce R. McConkie: "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"====

One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone eras:
<blockquote>
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… 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 any more. 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.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====A Look Through LOOK Magazine: Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American====

Now that the reader is aware of the true position of the LDS church on the subject of racism, let us review the authors' favored medium for authoritative information, LOOK magazine. It provides an excellent lesson in how easily sources can be excised from the very surroundings that explain them when the intent is to sensationalize rather than to inform.

The cover of the October 22, 1963 issue reflects the prevailing social culture of the nation. It pictures a radiant Jackie Kennedy-like woman sitting in a new car, smiling with her laughing toddler who is standing on the car seat next to her. The child is dressed in an unbuttoned red cardigan, the collar of her crisp white blouse peeks over the sweater and her pleated plaid skirt is accessorized with stylish black and white oxfords and bobby socks.

This issue highlighted new 1964 cars. The full-page ad on page 55 tells us "what every girl should know." Women of that era evidently needed to know that "the man who drives a Super Torque Ford is a man of substance" and that she should "marry him at the first opportunity."

Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness.

"Memo From a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes" is an article that indicates a growing awareness by the magazine of the need to talk about "Negroes," but there is no urgent need to talk to them or with them. The article itself is well done and fairly presented from the point of view of a young man who wished an end to the practice of allowing blacks full membership but restricting them from participation in the lay priesthood. The rogue quote used by the authors is only found in the "Editor's Note" attached to the article. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, interviewed Joseph Fielding Smith, then acting president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The full quote, following an explanatory paragraph, is as follows:
<blockquote>
"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate."
 
Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, "No". He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was "No." "Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?" Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, "no."
 
"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church," President Smith said. "No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.
 
"I wouldn't want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church."<ref name="nye">Jeff Nye, "Memo from a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes," LOOK (October 22, 1963)</ref>{{Rp|97}}
</blockquote>
Interestingly, the article ends here. However, a statement from the body of the featured article is worth noting as it pinpoints the uncomfortable situation for LOOK's selectiveness in highlighting only Mormons.
<blockquote>
The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.
 
It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?<ref name="nye"></ref>{{Rp|76}}
</blockquote>

====A Convenient Double Standard====

Perhaps the annoyance of President Smith over the double standard being applied to Mormons would be better understood if placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in the same year.<ref name="manis">Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999)</ref>{{Rp|41}} Would the critics really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? While President Smith was quoted as saying "darkie" in 1963, what were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars outline how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.
<blockquote>
In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|47}}
</blockquote>
Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:
<blockquote>
So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.<ref>Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.</ref>
</blockquote>
It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as the critics have chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one has to ask, with so many others, why do critics persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve for them?

The critics' barrage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the LDS might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.
<blockquote>
Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.<ref>Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.</ref>
 
By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.<ref>Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.</ref>
 
The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.<ref name="wood">Forrest G. Wood. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).</ref>{{Rp|318}}
 
After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|293}}
 
By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.<ref>Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.</ref>
 
The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.<ref>Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.</ref>
 
Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.<ref>J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.</ref>
 
According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|136}}
 
About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.<ref name="thomas">Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002).</ref>{{Rp|68}}
 
In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.<ref name="thomas"></ref>{{Rp|68-69}}
</blockquote>
As can be seen by this parade of statistics, the critics' talents might be more profitably spent in their own congregations rather than in pointing at the proverbial mote in their neighbor's eye.

==Critics' attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention==

Now let us look at the critics' stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. The authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101/Short|pages=243}}</ref> Again, we should review the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:
<blockquote>
This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.<ref>H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.</ref>
 
The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|107}}
</blockquote>
Once again, the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:50:54Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | The Race Restrictions
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
This page answers the questions that have arisen regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its historical restrictions on men and women of Black African descent from entering the Church's temples and being ordained to the Church's priesthood.
----
* [[The Origins of the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Origins of the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Scripture and the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders]]
* [[Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Ending the Restrictions]]
* [[Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Modern Race Relations]]

*[[Nature of the priesthood ban|Policy or doctrine]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?|Scripture and the ban]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban|Ending the ban]]
*[[Social pressure and the priesthood ban|Social pressure]]
*[[Statements about the priesthood ban|First Pres statements]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban#Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?|Testimonies of the revelation]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race|Repudiated ideas]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding race|Brigham Young]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?|Mark E. Petersen]]
*[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng Official Declaration 2]

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:49:52Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | The Race Restrictions
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
This page answers the questions that have arisen regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its historical restrictions on men and women of Black African descent from entering the Church's temples and being ordained to the Church's priesthood.
----
* [[The Origins of the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Origins of the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Scripture and the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders]]
* [[Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Ending the Restrictions]]
* [[Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Modern Race Relations]]

*[[Nature of the priesthood ban|Policy or doctrine]]
*[[Understanding pre-1978 statements about race|Racist statements]]

*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?|Scripture and the ban]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban|Ending the ban]]
*[[Social pressure and the priesthood ban|Social pressure]]
*[[Statements about the priesthood ban|First Pres statements]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban#Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?|Testimonies of the revelation]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race|Repudiated ideas]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding race|Brigham Young]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?|Mark E. Petersen]]
*[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng Official Declaration 2]

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:49:12Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | The Race Restrictions
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
This page answers the questions that have arisen regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its historical restrictions on men and women of Black African descent from entering the Church's temples and being ordained to the Church's priesthood.
----
* [[The Origins of the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Origins of the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Scripture and the Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Scripture and the Race Restrictions]]
* [[Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders]]
* [[Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Ending the Restrictions]]
* [[Modern Race Relations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|Modern Race Relations]]

*[[Origin of the priesthood ban|Origin]]
*[[Nature of the priesthood ban|Policy or doctrine]]
*[[Understanding pre-1978 statements about race|Racist statements]]
*[[Repudiated_ideas_about_race#Joseph_Fielding_Smith:_.22We_know_of_no_scripture.2C_ancient_or_modern.2C_that_declares_that_at_the_time_of_the_rebellion_in_heaven_that_one-third_of_the_hosts_of_heaven_remained_neutral.22|Neural or less valiant]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"?|Curse of Ham]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?|Scripture and the ban]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban|Ending the ban]]
*[[Social pressure and the priesthood ban|Social pressure]]
*[[Statements about the priesthood ban|First Pres statements]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban#Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?|Testimonies of the revelation]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race|Repudiated ideas]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding race|Brigham Young]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?|Mark E. Petersen]]
*[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng Official Declaration 2]

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:45:20Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Statements by Leaders
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
----
''Brigham Young''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Brigham Young a racist?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist====

Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}; {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}; {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=10–11}}; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles|pages=3}}</ref>

Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{b||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

Elder Neil L. Anderson said,
<blockquote>
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Ether|12|6}}). <ref>Neil L. Anderson, [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith], ''Ensign'' (November 2012)</ref>
</blockquote>

====We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day====

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{b||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{b||Matthew|7|2}}, {{b||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

{{Epigraph|"On the day I arrived, students had seen the segment in which Governor Ross Barnett physically bars James Meredith from registering at Ole Miss. In the ensuing discussion, the teacher asked students why Barnett objected to Meredith’s enrollment. One boy raised his hand and volunteered, ‘Prejudice.’ The teacher nodded and the discussion moved on. 

"That simple ‘prejudice’ unsettled me. Four hundred years of racial history reduced to a one-word response? This set me to wondering what would it take before we begin to think historically about such concepts as ‘prejudice,’ racism,’ ‘tolerance,’ fairness,’ and ‘equity.’ At what point do we come to see these abstractions not as transcendent truths soaring above time and place, but as patterns of thought that take root in particular historical moments, develop, grow, and emerge in new forms in successive generations while still bearing traces of their former selves?"
::: — Sam Wineburg, ''Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts'', 17.}}

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements|l2=Understanding pre-1978 statements}}

====The perception that past prophets were "just like us" is incorrect====

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{b||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{b||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{b||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{b||Psalms|93|1}}; {{b||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=269}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young say that race mixing was punishable by death?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Brigham Young said that race mixing was punishable by death====

Yes, Brigham Young did makes statements to this effect. One of the most well known is this one from March 8, 1863:
<blockquote>
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=10|disc=25|start=110|date=March 8, 1863.}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It was a complex issue. After all, laws against interracial marriage still existed in a number of states until June of 1967—with Utah making interracial marriage legal in 1963—when the Supreme Court finally argued that they were unconstitutional - a hundred years after some of Brigham Young's comments. At the time that the supreme court made interracial marriage legal in all states, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. In 1958, the number was 24.

President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.

====While there were a couple of instances where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this, and this was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit.====

While there were a [[Was Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn) "blood atoned"?|couple of instances]] where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this. There were, at the time, interracial marriages in Utah that were already solemnized and others that were solemnized after this statement was made and yet Brigham never ordered such an execution. Was he aware of these marriages? One would assume he that he likely did become aware of at least one during his ~30-year tenure as Prophet, President of the Church, and Governor of Utah. We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.

{{To learn more box:racial issues}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
''Mark E. Petersen''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Race Problems - As They Affect the Church====
Elder Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church" back on August 27, 1954. It was delivered at BYU at the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level. In it, Elder Petersen aims to give the Church's position on the issue of racial segregation and integration as well as intermarriage, the reasons for the priesthood and temple restrictions.

One can read a full reproduction of the talk elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki:

{{Main|Primary sources/Mark E. Petersen/Race Problems - As They Affect the Church|l1=Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect the Church}}

Elder Petersen makes several statements related to these issues that are considered entirely false today by the Church. For example, the rationale that blacks were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings because of the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|Curse of Cain]] or [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"|premortal neutrality/less valiance]]. Or the claim that [[Repudiated ideas about race#Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?|interracial marriages are biologically wrong or spiritually sinful]]. Thus, the problems with Elder Petersen's talk are not limited to his unique statement about blacks being servants to sealed whites in the next life. Indeed, Elder Petersen, as far as this author is aware, is the only general authority to make a statement to that effect. The reader is encouraged to follow the linked articles to learn more about the Curse of Cain and other disavowed ideas that pop up in Elder Petersen's talk.

====Not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine====

Elder Mark E. Petersen said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

First, it should be remembered that not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine. Just because an apostle says something, does not make it binding doctrine, especially if he was speaking at a Convention of Teachers of Religion, as Elder Petersen did. For more information, please read:

[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"], Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

====We believe revelation is continual, and we do not claim to have all the answers now, nor did we claim to have all the answers in 1952====

We believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. For more information, please read:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&query=%22he+will+yet+reveal+many+great+and+important+things+pertaining+to+the+kingdom+of+god%22 The 9th Article of Faith]

====It is important to understand that the term "servant" was not uniquely applied to black people====

It may be assumed by some, based upon Elder Petersen's statement, that white people would not go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. However, we must examine {{s||D&C|132|16}} which Elder Petersen is basing his comments on:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
As you can see, the Doctrine and Covenants makes no mention that the servants are limited to any race. Blacks and whites will serve alongside each other.

====Even Petersen's view that blacks can only serve alongside whites as servants in the Celestial Kingdom has been contradicted by almost every president of the Church since Joseph Smith====

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders that say blacks will be able to receive ALL blessings, including that of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

In regards to black people, Joseph Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 269. ISBN 087579243X
</blockquote>

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|"Curse of Cain,"]] said
<blockquote>
"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 are now entitled to." —quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

Wilford Woodruff said,
<blockquote>
"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have" —quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949

David McKay taught,
<blockquote>
"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." —(''Mormonism and the Negro'', 23).
</blockquote>

In reference to black people, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency." —Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' 1:61.
</blockquote>

In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
<blockquote>
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." —Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, Harold B. Lee, 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===In the 1950s, did the Church teach that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The claim is likely based on talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior====

Television personality Bill Maher said, "...[I]n the [19]50s, the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave." <ref>Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007. {{antilink|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs}}</ref>

While it is unknown to what sources Bill Maher looks for his information about the Church, it is possible that they were influenced by a talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. Elder Petersen's comments were made during a very different time from the one in which we now live. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior, and that the nascent American civil rights movement was a bad idea. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood was almost 25 years in the future.

====It has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves====

It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

<blockquote>
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. ... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin. ... 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, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.<ref>Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the [http://speeches.byu.edu BYU Speeches] web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address.</ref>
</blockquote>

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=Blacks_and_the_priesthood
|subject1=Pre-1978 Priesthood ban
|summary1=
}}

====Despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom====

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see {{s||D&C|76|50-70}}). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" ({{s||D&C|76|96}}). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." ({{s||D&C|76|98}}).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood {{s||D&C|131|1-4}} as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

<blockquote>
To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.<ref>{{EaR |start=200|end=201}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

<blockquote>
...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there ''they enter as servants''-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." {{ia}}<ref>{{DoS1 | vol=2|start=62}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members ''would not'' receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they ''could not'' because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

====Given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants"====

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

====Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban====

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

====Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.====

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

====Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past====

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible]] Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

<blockquote>
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.<ref>{{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng The Need for Greater Kindness]|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}).

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Fallibility_of_prophets
|subject1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders
|summary1=
}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
''Joseph Fielding Smith''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Fielding Smith make derogatory racial comments in the 22 October 1963 issue of Look magazine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The critics appeal to an audience that is ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues====

A statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 22 October 1963 issue of ''LOOK'' Magazine is used as an illustration of the Church's racism,
<blockquote>
I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith
Look magazine, 22 October 1963, 79 [sic]<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=233}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be levelled in our society, and thus a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."<ref name="manis"></ref>{{Rp|33}} Thus, the critics appeal to an audience that is often ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues. They are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination or outright expulsion of black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

<blockquote>
Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest unidimensional solutions to racial division.<ref name="emerson">Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).</ref>{{Rp|170}}
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human weaknesses. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. At present, Latter-day Saints do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than personal preference or race. Our members have never travelled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

We can only hope that our critics will desist in their racially divisive campaign against other religions. We challenge them to focus their talents on the important question of pastor Gregory E. Thomas as he says, "we must again note that a predominant pattern of church life for black churches has been that of racial separation. The question remains: why?"<ref>Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," 75.</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

====Bruce R. McConkie: "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"====

One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone eras:
<blockquote>
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… 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 any more. 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.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====A Look Through LOOK Magazine: Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American====

Now that the reader is aware of the true position of the LDS church on the subject of racism, let us review the authors' favored medium for authoritative information, LOOK magazine. It provides an excellent lesson in how easily sources can be excised from the very surroundings that explain them when the intent is to sensationalize rather than to inform.

The cover of the October 22, 1963 issue reflects the prevailing social culture of the nation. It pictures a radiant Jackie Kennedy-like woman sitting in a new car, smiling with her laughing toddler who is standing on the car seat next to her. The child is dressed in an unbuttoned red cardigan, the collar of her crisp white blouse peeks over the sweater and her pleated plaid skirt is accessorized with stylish black and white oxfords and bobby socks.

This issue highlighted new 1964 cars. The full-page ad on page 55 tells us "what every girl should know." Women of that era evidently needed to know that "the man who drives a Super Torque Ford is a man of substance" and that she should "marry him at the first opportunity."

Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness.

"Memo From a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes" is an article that indicates a growing awareness by the magazine of the need to talk about "Negroes," but there is no urgent need to talk to them or with them. The article itself is well done and fairly presented from the point of view of a young man who wished an end to the practice of allowing blacks full membership but restricting them from participation in the lay priesthood. The rogue quote used by the authors is only found in the "Editor's Note" attached to the article. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, interviewed Joseph Fielding Smith, then acting president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The full quote, following an explanatory paragraph, is as follows:
<blockquote>
"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate."
 
Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, "No". He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was "No." "Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?" Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, "no."
 
"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church," President Smith said. "No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.
 
"I wouldn't want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church."<ref name="nye">Jeff Nye, "Memo from a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes," LOOK (October 22, 1963)</ref>{{Rp|97}}
</blockquote>
Interestingly, the article ends here. However, a statement from the body of the featured article is worth noting as it pinpoints the uncomfortable situation for LOOK's selectiveness in highlighting only Mormons.
<blockquote>
The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.
 
It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?<ref name="nye"></ref>{{Rp|76}}
</blockquote>

====A Convenient Double Standard====

Perhaps the annoyance of President Smith over the double standard being applied to Mormons would be better understood if placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in the same year.<ref name="manis">Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999)</ref>{{Rp|41}} Would the critics really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? While President Smith was quoted as saying "darkie" in 1963, what were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars outline how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.
<blockquote>
In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|47}}
</blockquote>
Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:
<blockquote>
So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.<ref>Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.</ref>
</blockquote>
It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as the critics have chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one has to ask, with so many others, why do critics persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve for them?

The critics' barrage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the LDS might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.
<blockquote>
Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.<ref>Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.</ref>
 
By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.<ref>Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.</ref>
 
The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.<ref name="wood">Forrest G. Wood. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).</ref>{{Rp|318}}
 
After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|293}}
 
By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.<ref>Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.</ref>
 
The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.<ref>Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.</ref>
 
Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.<ref>J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.</ref>
 
According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|136}}
 
About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.<ref name="thomas">Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002).</ref>{{Rp|68}}
 
In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.<ref name="thomas"></ref>{{Rp|68-69}}
</blockquote>
As can be seen by this parade of statistics, the critics' talents might be more profitably spent in their own congregations rather than in pointing at the proverbial mote in their neighbor's eye.

==Critics' attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention==

Now let us look at the critics' stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. The authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101/Short|pages=243}}</ref> Again, we should review the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:
<blockquote>
This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.<ref>H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.</ref>
 
The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|107}}
</blockquote>
Once again, the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:44:10Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Statements by Leaders
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
----
''Mark E. Petersen''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Race Problems - As They Affect the Church====
Elder Mark E. Petersen delivered a speech entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church" back on August 27, 1954. It was delivered at BYU at the Convention of Teachers of Religion On the College Level. In it, Elder Petersen aims to give the Church's position on the issue of racial segregation and integration as well as intermarriage, the reasons for the priesthood and temple restrictions.

One can read a full reproduction of the talk elsewhere on the FAIR Wiki:

{{Main|Primary sources/Mark E. Petersen/Race Problems - As They Affect the Church|l1=Mark E. Petersen: Race Problems - As They Affect the Church}}

Elder Petersen makes several statements related to these issues that are considered entirely false today by the Church. For example, the rationale that blacks were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings because of the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|Curse of Cain]] or [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Repudiated ideas/Neutral in "war in heaven"|premortal neutrality/less valiance]]. Or the claim that [[Repudiated ideas about race#Is interracial marriage prohibited or condemned within the Church?|interracial marriages are biologically wrong or spiritually sinful]]. Thus, the problems with Elder Petersen's talk are not limited to his unique statement about blacks being servants to sealed whites in the next life. Indeed, Elder Petersen, as far as this author is aware, is the only general authority to make a statement to that effect. The reader is encouraged to follow the linked articles to learn more about the Curse of Cain and other disavowed ideas that pop up in Elder Petersen's talk.

====Not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine====

Elder Mark E. Petersen said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

First, it should be remembered that not everything said by a leader of the Church is considered doctrine. Just because an apostle says something, does not make it binding doctrine, especially if he was speaking at a Convention of Teachers of Religion, as Elder Petersen did. For more information, please read:

[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine "Approaching Mormon Doctrine"], Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

====We believe revelation is continual, and we do not claim to have all the answers now, nor did we claim to have all the answers in 1952====

We believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. For more information, please read:

[http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&query=%22he+will+yet+reveal+many+great+and+important+things+pertaining+to+the+kingdom+of+god%22 The 9th Article of Faith]

====It is important to understand that the term "servant" was not uniquely applied to black people====

It may be assumed by some, based upon Elder Petersen's statement, that white people would not go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. However, we must examine {{s||D&C|132|16}} which Elder Petersen is basing his comments on:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
As you can see, the Doctrine and Covenants makes no mention that the servants are limited to any race. Blacks and whites will serve alongside each other.

====Even Petersen's view that blacks can only serve alongside whites as servants in the Celestial Kingdom has been contradicted by almost every president of the Church since Joseph Smith====

Here are some quotes from Mormon leaders that say blacks will be able to receive ALL blessings, including that of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

In regards to black people, Joseph Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." —Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 269. ISBN 087579243X
</blockquote>

Brigham Young, who clearly believed in the [[Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"|"Curse of Cain,"]] said
<blockquote>
"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 are now entitled to." —quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

Wilford Woodruff said,
<blockquote>
"The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have" —quoted by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949.
</blockquote>

George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949

David McKay taught,
<blockquote>
"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation." —(''Mormonism and the Negro'', 23).
</blockquote>

In reference to black people, Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith taught,
<blockquote>
"Every soul coming into this world came here with the promise that through obedience he would receive the blessings of salvation. No person was foreordained or appointed to sin or to perform a mission of evil. No person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency." —Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Doctrines of Salvation'' 1:61.
</blockquote>

In 1972, Harold B. Lee said,
<blockquote>
"It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time." —Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, Harold B. Lee, 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.
</blockquote>
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===In the 1950s, did the Church teach that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The claim is likely based on talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior====

Television personality Bill Maher said, "...[I]n the [19]50s, the Mormons preached that the only way a black man could get into heaven was as a slave." <ref>Bill Maher, ''Real Time with Bill Maher'', HBO, 16 February 2007. {{antilink|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs}}</ref>

While it is unknown to what sources Bill Maher looks for his information about the Church, it is possible that they were influenced by a talk presented by Elder Mark E. Petersen at BYU in the early 1950s. Elder Petersen's comments were made during a very different time from the one in which we now live. At the time, much of American society believed that blacks were socially and culturally inferior, and that the nascent American civil rights movement was a bad idea. The 1978 revelation on the priesthood was almost 25 years in the future.

====It has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves====

It is unknown exactly what Maher was using as the source of such a comment, as it has never been a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ that blacks would enter heaven only as slaves. It is possible, however, that Maher misread and was referring to an address given by Elder Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University on 27 August 1954 entitled "Race Problems—As They Affect the Church." Elder Petersen said in this address:

<blockquote>
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. ... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin. ... 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, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.<ref>Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," address at Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954. This address is not available at the [http://speeches.byu.edu BYU Speeches] web site. The text is (perhaps not surprisingly) available on various anti-Mormon web sites. Its absence from the BYU site would seem to suggest that the Church disavows the concepts taught in this address.</ref>
</blockquote>

At the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members of the Church did not and could not hold the priesthood in this life. The reasons behind this are complex, and still debated.

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=Blacks_and_the_priesthood
|subject1=Pre-1978 Priesthood ban
|summary1=
}}

====Despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom====

However, despite the restriction on priesthood, Elder Petersen asserted that black members of the Church who were faithful to their covenants would be exalted in the celestial kingdom, the highest degree of glory in LDS theology (see {{s||D&C|76|50-70}}). Those who attain to this glory are "the church of the Firstborn," brought forth in the "resurrection of the just," who have "overcome all things." They are "just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."

It is not clear what he meant by saying a faithful black would have to go "as a servant." Glory within the celestial kingdom is not differentiated, since the "glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one" ({{s||D&C|76|96}}). Only the telestial kingdom has differentiated levels of glory between members in LDS theology, "for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world..." ({{s||D&C|76|98}}).

However, many LDS members and leaders have understood {{s||D&C|131|1-4}} as teaching that there are three "subkingdoms" within the celestial kingdom. As Elder John A. Widtsoe explained this view:

<blockquote>
To enter the highest of these degrees in the celestial kingdom is to be exalted in the kingdom of God. Such exaltation comes to those who receive the higher ordinances of the Church, such as the temple endowment, and afterwards are sealed in marriage for time and eternity, whether on earth or in the hereafter.<ref>{{EaR |start=200|end=201}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Under this view, access to the celestial kingdom requires baptism (which black members could receive), while access to the two higher "subdegrees" requires temple ordinances, for which black members were not eligible to receive, in this life, under the pre-1978 policy.

As Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, without reference to black members or the priesthood ban:

<blockquote>
...they who are clean in their lives; who are virtuous; who are honorable; but who will not receive this covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God, shall come forth-and they may even enter into the celestial kingdom, but when they enter there ''they enter as servants''-to wait upon those "who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." {{ia}}<ref>{{DoS1 | vol=2|start=62}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The difference, of course, is that it was not that black members ''would not'' receive the "covenant of eternal marriage in the house of God," but that they ''could not'' because of the priesthood ban. The same is true of any person, of any race, who will not receive the covenant of eternal marriage, for whatever reason. Black members have always had the opportunity to eventually receive that blessing, even if after this life—though at the time of Elder Petersen's talk, the timing of that opportunity was unknown.

====Given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants"====

Thus, given the policy in place at the time of Elder Petersen's remarks, black members would be eligible for exaltation, though they like others who had not received all the ordinances would assist and help others as "servants." This is not slavery, but a partnership between exalted beings. A modification would have required a lifting of the priesthood ban. Elder Petersen appears to be pointing out that black members are candidates for exaltation, even if the priesthood ban was never lifted in this life. (The lifting of the ban was a subject of intense debate at the time.) This eventual exaltation would presumably mean that the priesthood would have been received in the spirit world after this mortal existence. It is clear from other comments in Elder Petersen's talk that he expected this eventuality.

====Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban====

Elder Petersen acknowledged that leaders and members did not have full information on the removal of the priesthood ban, and that those who spoke of the timing of the removal were expressing their own ideas. In 1978, as a result of the revelation on the priesthood, further knowledge was available and the change was welcomed by virtually all members of the Church.

====Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S.====

Elder Petersen's comments were, to some degree, a reflection of the cultural beliefs of his time and generation in the U.S., and were based on his interpretation of the limited light and knowledge he had available. Many of the expressions he used in his speech are objectionable to a twenty-first century audience that has better learned the lessons of racial equality and tolerance.

It is clear from the context of this talk that Elder Petersen did not believe that any group or race would be slaves in heaven. That notion goes against all teachings concerning the nature of the Celestial kingdom. It is a notion that is completely reprehensible to any responsible member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who believes that there will be slavery in heaven is absolutely mistaken.

====Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to fallible Church leaders in the past====

Latter-day Saints need feel no responsibility to defend what may, by today's standards, seem to be racist statements attributed to [[Fallibility_of_prophets|fallible]] Church leaders in the past. No mortal man is above error, and there has been only one perfect person in all of human history. Each of us, to one degree or another, reflects the culture in which we are raised. As President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded Church members:

<blockquote>
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ...

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.<ref>{{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/05/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng The Need for Greater Kindness]|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

No person will be judged by the fallible ideas or policies of men; "the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and he employeth no servant there" ({{s|2|Nephi|9|41}}).

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=Fallibility_of_prophets
|subject1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders
|summary1=
}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
''Joseph Fielding Smith''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Fielding Smith make derogatory racial comments in the 22 October 1963 issue of Look magazine?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====The critics appeal to an audience that is ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues====

A statement by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 22 October 1963 issue of ''LOOK'' Magazine is used as an illustration of the Church's racism,
<blockquote>
I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.
 
President Joseph Fielding Smith
Look magazine, 22 October 1963, 79 [sic]<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101|pages=233}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Racism has become one of the most strident and damaging accusations that can be levelled in our society, and thus a useful weapon for those who wish to harm an organization or individual. As Southern Baptists know, "Few chapters in American religious history prove as embarrassing as the response of the American churches to the issue of race."<ref name="manis"></ref>{{Rp|33}} Thus, the critics appeal to an audience that is often ignorant of the abysmal history of most of Christianity's dealings on race issues. They are obviously hoping their target audience will not notice that Latter-day Saints have always had integrated churches while other Protestant churches struggle with the residual division brought about by their own prolonged discrimination or outright expulsion of black members. Emerson and Smith assess the problem in the following manner:

<blockquote>
Our examination of a variety of data and consideration of a variety of levels of social influence suggest that many race issues that white evangelicals want to see solved are generated in part by the way they themselves do religion, interpret their world, and live their own lives. These factors range from the ways evangelicals and others organize into internally similar congregations, and the segregation and inequality such congregations help produce; to theologically rooted evangelical cultural tools, which tend to (1) minimize and individualize the race problem, (2) assign blame to blacks themselves for racial inequality, (3) obscure inequality as part of racial division, and (4) suggest unidimensional solutions to racial division.<ref name="emerson">Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, ''Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).</ref>{{Rp|170}}
</blockquote>

Latter-day Saints are, of course, not immune from the same human weaknesses. We, like all Christians, might wish that we had played a larger role in correcting social injustices. We must all look at our past and learn from it. At present, Latter-day Saints do have a decided advantage in our centralized leadership and our historical practice of maintaining congregations based on geographical boundaries rather than personal preference or race. Our members have never travelled past a white or black church to get to their own. We cannot fire ministers who do not succumb to the wishes of a congregation to remain racially segregated. Yet, we join all concerned followers of Christ in acknowledging that we have work ahead of us in putting aside differences accumulated through centuries of misunderstanding and intolerance.

We can only hope that our critics will desist in their racially divisive campaign against other religions. We challenge them to focus their talents on the important question of pastor Gregory E. Thomas as he says, "we must again note that a predominant pattern of church life for black churches has been that of racial separation. The question remains: why?"<ref>Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," 75.</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Double standard/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}

====Bruce R. McConkie: "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"====

One statement alone, given by Bruce R. McConkie to Church seminary and institute teachers shortly after the 1978 revelation granting priesthood to all races, answers each and every objectionable statement or action that the authors can dredge up from bygone eras:
<blockquote>
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… 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 any more. 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.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====A Look Through LOOK Magazine: Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American====

Now that the reader is aware of the true position of the LDS church on the subject of racism, let us review the authors' favored medium for authoritative information, LOOK magazine. It provides an excellent lesson in how easily sources can be excised from the very surroundings that explain them when the intent is to sensationalize rather than to inform.

The cover of the October 22, 1963 issue reflects the prevailing social culture of the nation. It pictures a radiant Jackie Kennedy-like woman sitting in a new car, smiling with her laughing toddler who is standing on the car seat next to her. The child is dressed in an unbuttoned red cardigan, the collar of her crisp white blouse peeks over the sweater and her pleated plaid skirt is accessorized with stylish black and white oxfords and bobby socks.

This issue highlighted new 1964 cars. The full-page ad on page 55 tells us "what every girl should know." Women of that era evidently needed to know that "the man who drives a Super Torque Ford is a man of substance" and that she should "marry him at the first opportunity."

Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness.

"Memo From a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes" is an article that indicates a growing awareness by the magazine of the need to talk about "Negroes," but there is no urgent need to talk to them or with them. The article itself is well done and fairly presented from the point of view of a young man who wished an end to the practice of allowing blacks full membership but restricting them from participation in the lay priesthood. The rogue quote used by the authors is only found in the "Editor's Note" attached to the article. William B. Arthur, managing editor of LOOK, interviewed Joseph Fielding Smith, then acting president of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. The full quote, following an explanatory paragraph, is as follows:
<blockquote>
"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potential of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate."
 
Mr. Arthur asked President Smith if a Negro boy can pass the sacrament in the Mormon Church, as 12- and 13-year-old white Mormon boys do. President Smith replied, "No". He then was asked whether Negro boys could prepare the sacrament, as 14- and 15-year old white Mormon boys do. The answer was "No." "Can he bless the sacrament or perform baptism, as the 16-, 17-and 18-year old white Mormon boys do?" Mr. Arthur asked. Again the reply was, "no."
 
"The Negro cannot achieve priesthood in the Mormon Church," President Smith said. "No consideration is being given now to changing the doctrine of the Church to permit him to attain that status. Such a change can come about only through divine revelation, and no one can predict when a divine revelation will occur.
 
"I wouldn't want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our Church."<ref name="nye">Jeff Nye, "Memo from a Mormon: In which a troubled young man raises the question of his church's attitude toward Negroes," LOOK (October 22, 1963)</ref>{{Rp|97}}
</blockquote>
Interestingly, the article ends here. However, a statement from the body of the featured article is worth noting as it pinpoints the uncomfortable situation for LOOK's selectiveness in highlighting only Mormons.
<blockquote>
The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.
 
It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?<ref name="nye"></ref>{{Rp|76}}
</blockquote>

====A Convenient Double Standard====

Perhaps the annoyance of President Smith over the double standard being applied to Mormons would be better understood if placed next to the image of Ferrell Griswold, pastor of the Minor Heights Baptist Church, addressing Klan supporters as Birmingham public schools began their first week of desegregation in the same year.<ref name="manis">Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying From the Neck Up:' Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999)</ref>{{Rp|41}} Would the critics really have the reader believe there were no Christian leaders among those who refused blacks their basic civil liberties and denied them entrance to their churches, schools, civic centers and voting booths? While President Smith was quoted as saying "darkie" in 1963, what were other high profile white religious leaders saying and doing to give blacks basic rights, let alone positions of leadership within their own churches? Two scholars outline how white leaders left the battle for civil rights to the black churches.
<blockquote>
In response to King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|47}}
</blockquote>
Three years later on October 9, 1966, Martin Luther King gave his "The Pharisee and Publican" sermon to the Ebenezer Baptist Church in which he said:
<blockquote>
So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.<ref>Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 13.</ref>
</blockquote>
It is easy to look at the worst in one another, as the critics have chosen to do. There are enough quotes indicting every religious tradition to make any thoughtful person cringe. There are also well-researched, honest and informative books and articles available from scholars on every aspect of race and religion. So one has to ask, with so many others, why do critics persist in this course of action? What purpose does it serve for them?

The critics' barrage of the most negative and obscure data they can muster against the LDS might lead one to conclude that all other Christian churches were fully integrated with all races participating in leadership positions in 1963, or even in 1978 when blacks were given the priesthood by the LDS Church. The following quotes from varied and respected sources are provided so the reader has the appropriate historical context. They are not meant in any way to criticize other churches who are working so diligently to close the racial divide.
<blockquote>
Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small.<ref>Thomas F. Gossett, ''Race: The History of An Idea in America'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 447.</ref>
 
By the 1830's most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members.<ref>Nathan O. Hatch, ''The Democratization of American Christianity'' (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1989), 107.</ref>
 
The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ.<ref name="wood">Forrest G. Wood. The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in America from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).</ref>{{Rp|318}}
 
After the war the southern churches, continuing the legacy of slavery, were among the first institutions to call for the separation of the races; by the twentieth century they had become bastions of segregation. With no desire to intrude into places where they were not welcome, most black Southerners were more comfortable in their own congregations.<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|293}}
 
By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans.<ref>Dana Martin, "The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement: Rhetoric and Response," ''Baptist History and Heritage'' (Winter 1999), 44.</ref>
 
The most extensive research on integration was undertaken jointly by the United Lutherans, Congregational Christians, and Presbyterians (U.S.A.). They found that 1,331 out of 13,597 predominantly white churches have nonwhite members or attenders. That is just short of 10 per cent.<ref>Robert Root, ''Progress Against Prejudice: The Church Confronts the Race Problem'' (New York: Friendship Press, 1957), 59.</ref>
 
Still in 1964, no more than 10 per cent of the white Protestant congregations had Negroes worshiping with them. Even these 10 per cent had only a few members or occasional attenders, so that throughout the US probably no more than 1 per cent of all Negroes worshiped in integrated congregations on Sunday mornings.<ref>J.C. Hough, ''Black Power and White Protestants: A Christian Response to the New Negro Pluralism'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 177.</ref>
 
According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.<ref name="emerson"></ref>{{Rp|136}}
 
About eighty percent of all black Christians are in seven major denominations.<ref name="thomas">Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," ''American Baptist Quarterly'' (March, 2002).</ref>{{Rp|68}}
 
In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.<ref name="thomas"></ref>{{Rp|68-69}}
</blockquote>
As can be seen by this parade of statistics, the critics' talents might be more profitably spent in their own congregations rather than in pointing at the proverbial mote in their neighbor's eye.

==Critics' attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention==

Now let us look at the critics' stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. The authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"<ref>{{CriticalWork:McKeever Johnson:Mormonism 101/Short|pages=243}}</ref> Again, we should review the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:
<blockquote>
This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.<ref>H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But… Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.</ref>
 
The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."<ref name="wood"></ref>{{Rp|107}}
</blockquote>
Once again, the reader is left to decide whether critics are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.
</wt>
}}
''Brigham Young''
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was Brigham Young a racist?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist====

Brigham Young made a number of statements which are now considered blatantly racist. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}; {{CriticalWork:McKeeverJohnson:Mormonism 101|pages=Chapter 16}}; {{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=10–11}}; {{CriticalWork:Watchman Fellowship:Articles|pages=3}}</ref>

Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed ({{b||Acts|10|9-16}}), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that?

Elder Neil L. Anderson said,
<blockquote>
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been" ({{s||Ether|12|6}}). <ref>Neil L. Anderson, [https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng Trial of Your Faith], ''Ensign'' (November 2012)</ref>
</blockquote>

====We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day====

We should be forgiving of past prophets who we today would perceive as being "racists," or otherwise unsophisticated when compared to the present day. Lest we judge harshly, we ought to consider that even the Savior himself spoke of "outsiders" using language that we today would consider grossly offensive ({{b||Matthew|15|26}}).

We are warned, however, that ''we'' will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others ({{b||Matthew|7|2}}, {{b||Mark|4|24}}). If we condemn those of the past for being imperfect or influenced by their culture, what can we expect for ourselves?

{{Epigraph|"On the day I arrived, students had seen the segment in which Governor Ross Barnett physically bars James Meredith from registering at Ole Miss. In the ensuing discussion, the teacher asked students why Barnett objected to Meredith’s enrollment. One boy raised his hand and volunteered, ‘Prejudice.’ The teacher nodded and the discussion moved on. 

"That simple ‘prejudice’ unsettled me. Four hundred years of racial history reduced to a one-word response? This set me to wondering what would it take before we begin to think historically about such concepts as ‘prejudice,’ racism,’ ‘tolerance,’ fairness,’ and ‘equity.’ At what point do we come to see these abstractions not as transcendent truths soaring above time and place, but as patterns of thought that take root in particular historical moments, develop, grow, and emerge in new forms in successive generations while still bearing traces of their former selves?"
::: — Sam Wineburg, ''Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts'', 17.}}

{{SeeAlso|Fallibility_of_prophets|l1=Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders|Blacks and the priesthood/Understanding pre-1978 statements|l2=Understanding pre-1978 statements}}

====The perception that past prophets were "just like us" is incorrect====

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase ({{s|1|Nephi|19|23}}).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way ''everyone'' understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" ({{b||Isaiah|11|12}}; {{b||Ezekiel|7|2}}), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror ({{b||Job|37|18}}), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it ({{b||Psalms|93|1}}; {{b||Psalms|19|4-6}}).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks ''did'' have souls and could be saved.<ref>{{TPJS1|start=269}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Brigham Young say that race mixing was punishable by death?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Brigham Young said that race mixing was punishable by death====

Yes, Brigham Young did makes statements to this effect. One of the most well known is this one from March 8, 1863:
<blockquote>
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=10|disc=25|start=110|date=March 8, 1863.}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It was a complex issue. After all, laws against interracial marriage still existed in a number of states until June of 1967—with Utah making interracial marriage legal in 1963—when the Supreme Court finally argued that they were unconstitutional - a hundred years after some of Brigham Young's comments. At the time that the supreme court made interracial marriage legal in all states, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriage. In 1958, the number was 24.

President Young's views were connected to his views on priesthood and sealings, they were affected by his own cultural upbringing, and they were affected by changes that happened in the late 1840s. Among these was this challenge posed to his and the other Saints' worldview of black men actually marrying white women in the Church.

====While there were a couple of instances where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this, and this was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit.====

While there were a [[Was Thomas Coleman (or Colbourn) "blood atoned"?|couple of instances]] where violence actually happened (and several cases of interracial marriage), Brigham Young didn't ever actually try to have someone killed for doing this. There were, at the time, interracial marriages in Utah that were already solemnized and others that were solemnized after this statement was made and yet Brigham never ordered such an execution. Was he aware of these marriages? One would assume he that he likely did become aware of at least one during his ~30-year tenure as Prophet, President of the Church, and Governor of Utah. We may well assume that some of this (although based in racist attitudes that were prevalent in American society and held by Brigham Young) was typical of Young's over the top rhetoric that he used from time to time at the pulpit for effect--showing that often he had more bark than he did bite.

{{To learn more box:racial issues}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Brigham Young/Race mixing punishable by death/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:37:35Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:33:27Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:33:12Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:32:48Z

SpencerMarsh:

Statements About the Race Restrictions By Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:32:38Z

SpencerMarsh:

Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:26:01Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Ending
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Many critics believe that the historical race restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came about merely because of external pressures to the Church. There were many factors that led to the restrictions' end, but external pressure played a relatively minor role.
----


{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How do Latter-day Saints expect for revelation to function in ending something like the race restrictions?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Revelation is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires"====

In other words, mortals must generally seek insight and full perspective ''before'' they receive inspiration. God will generally not provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked.

Furthermore, if we are unable to receive and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations.

God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit God's will word for word—he requires his prophets to inquire ''with some thought as to potential answers'' ({{s||D&C|9|7-9}}). After they seek confirmation, the Lord can gently correct or confirm.

A striking Biblical example of this principle comes from King David: He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee."

However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he later received a revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm. (See {{s|2|Samuel|7|2-17}}.) God corrected his prophet and enhanced his imperfect understanding of the divine will.

====Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner====

Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles: "...the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."<ref>{{NeitherWhiteNorBlack|start=209|end=210}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What circumstances preceded the 1978 revelation which ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====In 1954, after visiting the struggling South African mission, David O. McKay began to consider lifting the ban====

In a conversation with Sterling McMurrin, President McKay said, "It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."<ref>{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}</ref> This was a departure from a [[Statements about the priesthood ban#First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)|1949 First Presidency statement]] defending the ban as doctrinal, indicating a shift in his opinion. Leonard Arrington reported that President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal."<ref>{{Book:Arrington:Adventures of a Church Historian|pages=183}}</ref>

However, David O. McKay felt that only a revelation could end the ban. 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."<ref>Edward L. Kimball, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood]," ''BYU Studies'' 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 21-22; Gregory Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, ''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 104; Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 120; W. Paul Reeve, ''Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 259: "In contrast, McKay, as president, believed divine intervention necessary regardless of the restriction's origins, something he reportedly sought but did not receive."</ref>

====As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown, attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision====

However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelatory basis for the policy.

President McKay reportedly told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."<ref>{{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 20 working draft, 13}}.</ref>

====Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban====

Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban <ref>{{LYS-CD1}}</ref>{{Rp|204-205}} though Church Historian Leonard Arrington

<blockquote>
...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22, footnote 105; citing for the affirmative Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' and Arrington to author, February 10 and June 15, 1998; for the negative, L. Brent Goates, interview by author, February 9, 1998.</ref>
</blockquote>

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks. ... It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, ''Harold B. Lee'', 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.</ref>

====Lester Bush authored an important piece in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought''====
As Latter-day Saint Historian Russell Stevenson wrote, the late 1960s brought "a groundswell of scholarly interest in the history of the priesthood ban ... and it won the attention of top-level Church leaders."<ref>Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 136.</ref> In 1973, Dr. Lester Bush, an army physician stationed in Saigon, wrote the first scholarly analysis of the Church's racial restriction based on primary source documentation. As Stevenson has written concerning Bush:

<blockquote>Elijah Abels was not the exception, Bush argued; indeed, Ables had been the rule. Joseph Smith had not implemented the priesthood ban, contrary to accepted wisdom. That distinction belonged to Brigham Young. Perhaps the Church could start asking new questions, he hoped, about why it was following the course it was when Church leaders apparently did not fully understand why they were doing it.[48]

[Grant Shreeve's] fear-based wailing had fallen on deaf ears, but Bush's arguments received widespread attention at [Church headquarters in Salt Lake City].[49] Marion D. Hanks, then Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, later observed that Bush's article "had far more influence than the Bretheren would ever acknowledge and that it 'started to foment the pot.'" Edward Ashment, then employed by the Church Translation Department and a scholar of the Book of Abraham, observed Bruce R. McConkie reading the article. [Spencer W. Kimball] himself also highlighted several sections of the piece.[50]<ref>''Ibid.'', 137. Stevenson cites in order: 48 - Lester E. Bush, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 8, no. 1 (Spring 1973): 11-68; "New LDS Office Building Nearly Finished," [Provo] Daily Herald, June 18, 1972, 32; 50 - Lester E. Bush, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287744?seq=1 'Writing Mormonism's Negro Doctrine': An Historical Overview (1973): Context and Reflections]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 266-67. Edward L. Kimball, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood]," ''BYU Studies'' 47, no. 2. (2008): 5–78.</ref></blockquote>

====The Church continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, such as Brazil====

As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, leaders continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, most notably Brazil. The prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Many witnesses described the 1978 revelation on the priesthood====

Wrote the past Church Historian:

<blockquote>
As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . .

Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve—at least two who have said so publicly—were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . .

At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the quorum members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God—an ineffable experience.

Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.<ref>{{Book:Arrington:Adventures of a Church Historian|pages=176-177}} </ref>
</blockquote>

Elder David B. Haight said of the same experience:

<blockquote>
I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.

But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper—little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=David B. Haight|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/this-work-is-true?lang=eng This Work Is True]|date=May 1996|start=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What testimonies were offered regarding the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Testimonies regarding the revelation====

{{Epigraph|The Spirit of God was there. ... Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. ... The voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls. ... We left that meeting subdued reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. —Gordon B. Hinckley<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng Priesthood Restoration]|date=October 1988|pages=70}}</ref>}}

Bruce R. McConkie:

<blockquote>
We were all fasting and had just concluded a meeting of some three hours duration that was attended by nearly all the General Authorities. That meeting also was held in the room of the First Presidency and the Twelve in the holy temple. ...

After this meeting, which was one of great spiritual uplift and enlightenment, all of the brethren except those in the First Presidency and the Twelve were excused. When we were alone by ourselves in that sacred place where we meet weekly to wait upon the Lord, to seek guidance from his Spirit, and to transact the affairs of his earthly kingdom, President Kimball brought up the matter of the possible conferral of the priesthood upon those of all races. This was a subject that the group of us had discussed at length on numerous occasions in the preceding weeks and months.

The President restated the problem involved, reminded us of our discussions, and said he had spent many days in this upper room pleading with the Lord for an answer to our prayers. He said that if the answer was to continue our present course of denying the priesthood to the seed of Cain, as the Lord had therefore directed, he was prepared to defend that decision to the death. But, he said, if the long sought day had come in which the curse of the past was to be removed, he thought we might prevail upon the Lord so to indicate.

He expressed the hope that we might receive a clear answer one way or the other so the matter might be laid to rest. At this point President Kimball asked the brethren if any of them desired to express their feelings and views as to the matter in hand. We all did so, freely and fluently and at considerable length, each person stating his views and manifesting the feelings of his heart. ...

This session continued for somewhat more than two hours. Then President Kimball suggested that we united in formal prayer. ...

It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, speak to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fulness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. President Kimball’s prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice. All doubt and uncertainty fled. He knew the answer and we knew the answer. ...

In the days that followed the receipt of the new revelation, President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson—the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: It is true; I was there; I heard the voice; and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Priesthood|article=The New Revelation on Priesthood|pages=127-28}}</ref></blockquote>

Bruce R. McConkie:
<blockquote>
The Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present. ...

The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the Gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God|pages=4}}</ref></blockquote>

Bruce R. McConkie:

<blockquote>
All of us then present in the Holy Temple on that blessed occasion became living witnesses of the reality of the revealed word that then came to the one appointed to receive revelation for the Church and for the world. Each of us received a confirming witness in our souls—The Holy Spirit of God speaking to the spirits within us–so that we can and do testify to the world that the revelation came and that it is the mind and will and voice of the Lord.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Millennial Messiah|pages=243}}</ref></blockquote>

{{Epigraph|The outpouring of the Spirit in that room [was] so strong that none of us could speak afterward. ... No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience. ... I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. ... It was truly a revelation from God. ... I was a witness to it. — David B. Haight<ref>{{CR|author=David B. Haight|date=April 1996|pages=31}}</ref>}}

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren.

The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage. Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet sublime occasion. There was not the sound `as of a rushing mighty wind,’ there were not `cloven tongues like as of fire’ (Acts 2:2-3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentecostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very soul. It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, `And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind’ ({{s||Enos |1|10}}). So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978.

We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng Priesthood Restoration]|date=October 1988|pages=70}}</ref></blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
I was in that circle in that sacred room when President Spencer W. Kimball on a June day in 1978 pleaded with the Lord for direction on a matter fraught with tremendous consequences. It concerned the eligibility of all worthy men to receive the priesthood. I can testify now, as I have testified before, that the spirit of revelation was felt on that occasion, and that the fruits which have flowed from that revelation have been sweet and wonderful for great numbers of people across the world.<ref> {{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/03/the-salt-lake-temple?lang=eng The Salt Lake Temple]]|vol=23|num=3|date=March 1993|pages=6}}</ref></blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Each Thursday, when we are at home, the First Presidency and the twelve meet in the temple, in those sacred hallowed precincts, and we pray together and discuss certain matters together, and the spirit of revelation comes upon those present. I know. I have seen it. I was there that June day in 1978 when President Kimball received revelation, surrounded by members of the Twelve of whom I was one at the time. This is the work of God. This is his almighty work. No man can stop or hinder it. It will go on and continue to grow and bless the lives of people across the earth.<ref>Gordon B. Hinkley, Ketchikan Alaska Fireside, 22 June 1995; in {{TGBH|pages=555}}</ref></blockquote>

{{Epigraph|"This revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it." —Spencer W. Kimball<ref>Gerry Avant, "Pres. Kimball says Revelation was Clear," ''Church News'' (6 January 1979): 15.</ref>}}

Ezra Taft Benson:

<blockquote>
* We experienced the sweetest spirit of unity and conviction that I have ever experienced. ... We took each other in our arms, we were so impressed with the sweet spirit that was in evidence. Our bosoms burned with the righteousness of the decision we had made. Thank God for the inspired leadership and the great and enduring principle of revelation.<ref>Sheri L. Dew, ''Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 457.</ref></blockquote>

Howard W. Hunter:

<blockquote>
* Seldom, if ever, had there been greater unanimity in the council [He also referred to] the powerful witness of the Spirit last Thursday, and how this confirmed the divine origin of the revelation".<ref> Howard W. Hunter, cited in Eleanor Knowles, ''Howard W. Hunter'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 235-36.</ref></blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Lifting the ban/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Was the priesthood ban lifted as the result of social or government pressure?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Social pressure was actually on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971====

Jan Shipps, a Methodist scholar and celebrated scholar of Mormon history and culture, considers it factual that "this revelation came in the context of worldwide evangelism rather than domestic politics or American social and cultural circumstances." She wrote:

<blockquote>
A revelation in Mormondom rarely comes as a bolt from the blue; the process involves asking questions and getting answers. The occasion of questioning has to be considered, and it must be recalled that while questions about priesthood and the black man may have been asked, an answer was not forthcoming in the ‘60s when the church was under pressure about the matter from without, nor in the early ‘70s when liberal Latter-day Saints agitated the issue from within. The inspiration which led President Kimball and his counselors to spend many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple pleading long and earnestly for divine guidance did not stem from a messy situation with blacks picketing the church’s annual conference in Salt Lake City, but was "the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth." <ref>Jan Shipps, "The Mormons: Looking Forward and Outward" ''Christian Century'' (Aug. 16-23, 1978), 761–766 {{link|url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1808}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====''Gospel Topics'': "Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter"====
"Race and the Priesthood," ''Gospel Topics'' (2013):
<blockquote>
Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng "Race and the Priesthood,"] ''Gospel Topics'' (2013)</ref>{{read more|url=http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did President Jimmy Carter threaten the Church's tax-exempt status because of their policy on blacks and the priesthood?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====President Carter had a brief meeting with President Kimball, Representative Gunn McKay, and Representative Jim Santini on 11 March 1977 at the White House====

On March 11, 1977 at 12:03 pm President Carter met with Spencer W. Kimball, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Representative Gunn McKay (D-Utah), and Representative Jim Santini (D-Nevada) for approximately 20 minutes in the White House.<ref>''The Daily Diary of President Jimmy Carter'', Jimmy Carter Library & Museum {{link|url=http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/diary/1977/d031177t.pdf}}</ref> This meeting, noted in President Carter's White House diary, is popularly rumored among ex-Mormons to be the meeting in which Carter threatened the Church with a rescinding of the Church's tax-exempt status over the issue of the priesthood ban.

[[File:President carter meeting with president kimball 11 March 1977 diary entry.jpg|thumb|center|500px|An image of a page from President Jimmy Carter's White House diary for the day of 11 March 1977 showing a meeting with President Spencer W. Kimball. ''The Daily Diary of President Jimmy Carter'', Jimmy Carter Library & Museum {{link|url=http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/diary/1977/d031177t.pdf}}]]

====President Carter visited Salt Lake City on November 27 1978 for program in the Salt Lake Tabernacle====

One ex-Mormon on the ''Recovery from Mormonism'' message board claimed to have located an "the actual photograph" of the 11 March 1977 meeting on LDS.org! <ref>"According to the President Carter Library," posted by "CLee the Anti-Mormon," 8 February 2006.</ref> That photograph, however, is actually of a meeting in the Tabernacle on November 27, 1978.

[[File:Spencer kimball jimmy carter 1978.jpg|thumb|center|600px|President Kimball presents U.S. President Jimmy Carter with statue, Salt Lake Tabernacle, November 27, 1978. Photo located on https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=12&topic=multimedia#]]

This meeting was documented in the January 1979 ''Ensign'':
<blockquote>
Two presidents saluted the family as one of life’s greatest institutions at a special November 27 program in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, culminating National Family Week in the United States.

Before a capacity crowd, with national and international television cameras whirring, President Spencer W. Kimball urged his listeners to recognize the family as "our chief source of physical, emotional, and moral strength." He presented United States President Jimmy Carter with a bronze statuette depicting the family circle. The miniature of a father, mother, and child is based on the original work by Utah sculptor Dennis Smith, Circle of Love, one of the pieces in the Relief Society monument to women in Nauvoo. <ref>[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/01/news-of-the-church/church-honors-president-carters-support-of-the-family?lang=eng "Church Honors President Carter’s Support of the Family,"] ''Ensign'' (January 1979)</ref>
</blockquote>

====President Kimball wrote a letter to President Carter in May 1977 to present a copy of Carter's genealogy====

President Kimball wrote a letter to President Carter in May 1977, only two months after the March 11 meeting:
<blockquote>W. Don Ladd, Regional Representative of the Twelve, and Thomas E. Daniels of the Genealogical Department of the Church presented a family tree and a leather-bound volume of genealogical information on the Carter family to the President on 31 May.

The book included a letter to President Carter from President Spencer W. Kimball, in which he spoke of the Latter-day Saints’ "deep reverence and gratitude for our ancestors, which in turn gives us greater sense of responsibility to our posterity."

President Carter found the Church’s research "very exciting to me," and he said, "I look forward to studying the chart. This is an area of knowledge I’ve never had." The two-inch thick volume included several 8-by-10-inch pedigree charts and family group sheets, along with a research summary of each line researched and what was still missing from those lines. This is the first time the Church has ever given such a gift to a president of the United States. <ref>[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/08/news-of-the-church/church-gives-genealogy-to-president-jimmy-carter?lang=eng "Church Give Genealogy to President Jimmy Carter,"] ''Ensign'' (August 1977).</ref>
</blockquote>

====The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened in 1978 seems to have originated prior to 1988, and resurfaced in 2001====

On June 2, 1988, the ''Chicago Tribune'' quoted "critics" of the Church as speculating that Kimball's meeting with Carter involved the threat of the Church losing its tax exemption. The ''Tribune'' quotes Ogden Kraut, whom they stated was an "an excommunicated Mormon fundamentalist writer-photographer":
<blockquote>
Despite church claims that the change came from revelation, critics say the move was pure business, that the Mormons wanted to expand further into black Third World countries and would not be able to do so as long as blacks were discriminated against, and that the Mormon church, the fastest growing mainstream church in the U.S., stood to lose its tax-exempt status for discriminating against blacks.

``We were told by a secretary in the church that Spencer Kimball spent 36 minutes talking to President (Jimmy) Carter, and shortly thereafter, the so-called `revelation` came down,`` said Ogden Kraut, an excommunicated Mormon fundamentalist writer-photographer.

Fundamentalist Mormons take the Bible and the Book of Mormon literally, and insist that God doesn`t make revelations to earthlings, Kraut said.

``My belief is that it was the expedient thing to do. The church didn`t want to lose its exemption,`` Kraut said. <ref>Lance Gurwell, [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-06-02/news/8801040230_1_president-spencer-w-kimball-church-spokesman-jerry-cahill-mormon-church "Critics Still Question `Revelation` On Blacks,"] ''Chicago Tribune'', June 02, 1988.</ref>
</blockquote>

The claim resurfaced in 2001 when a claim that the federal government had threatened to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status back in 1978 was made by a woman named Kathy Erickson in a letter to the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on March 11, 2001. Erickson stated,
<blockquote>
Gainful Revelation
Date: March 11, 2001

What’s done is done. There no longer is any prejudice against blacks in the Mormon church, the power of money took care of that. Back in 1978 the federal government informed the LDS Church that unless it allowed blacks full membership (including the priesthood) they would have to cease calling themselves a non-profit organization and start paying income taxes. On $16.5 million a day in tithing alone that’s a lot of tax monies that could be better used in building up the Kingdom of God.

The church immediately saw the error of its ways and the brethren appealed to God for a revelation; it came quickly. God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform, and today The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing but love for all races of people on Earth."<ref>Kathy Erickson, letter to the ''Salt Lake Tribune'', 11 March 11, 2001.</ref>
</blockquote>

A representative of the Church Public Affairs department responded:

<blockquote>
Distorted History
Thursday, April 5, 2001

It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson (Forum, March 11) claims that the federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the church's position regarding blacks and the priesthood.

We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.

BRUCE L. OLSEN
Public Affairs Department
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints <ref>Bruce L. Olsen, cited in ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on 5 April 2001.</ref>
</blockquote>

{{To learn more box:priesthood: racial ban: removal}}{{blankline}}

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Social pressure/CriticalSources}}{{blankline}}
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo funciona el proceso revelador en el caso de algo como el levantamiento de la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hubo testigos de la revelación que puso fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué circunstancias precedieron a la revelación de 1978 que puso fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué obstáculos sociales y culturales se interponían en el camino para poner fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Temas del Evangelio: "Llevaron a reflexionar sobre las promesas que otros profetas como Brigham Young habían hecho diciendo que los miembros de raza negra iban a recibir un día las bendiciones del sacerdocio y del templo"]]
[[pt:Fonte:Tópicos do Evangelho:As Etnias e o Sacerdócio:Os líderes da Igreja ponderaram as promessas feitas pelos profetas, tais como Brigham Young de que os negros um dia receberiam as bênçãos do sacerdócio e do templo]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como funciona o processo de revelação no caso de algo parecido com o levantamento da proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Houve testemunhas da revelação que terminou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que os testemunhos foram oferecidos sobre a revelação de que terminou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Quais os obstáculos sociais e culturais ficou no caminho de acabar com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Que circunstâncias que precedeu a revelação 1978 que acabou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y cuestiones raciales/Los negros y el sacerdocio/Levantando la prohibición]]
[[de:Schwarze und das Priestertum/Aufhebung des Verbots#Hinweise auf den offenbarenden Prozess]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Assuntos Raciais/Negros e do sacerdócio/A suspensão da proibição]]

Ending the Race Restrictions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-09T18:20:09Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | [[The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|The Race Restrictions]] | Ending
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Many critics believe that the historical race restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came about merely because of external pressures to the Church. There were many factors that led to the restrictions' end, but external pressure played a relatively minor role.
----


{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===How do Latter-day Saints expect for revelation to function in ending something like the race restrictions?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Revelation is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires"====

In other words, mortals must generally seek insight and full perspective ''before'' they receive inspiration. God will generally not provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked.

Furthermore, if we are unable to receive and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations.

God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit God's will word for word—he requires his prophets to inquire ''with some thought as to potential answers'' ({{s||D&C|9|7-9}}). After they seek confirmation, the Lord can gently correct or confirm.

A striking Biblical example of this principle comes from King David: He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee."

However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he later received a revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm. (See {{s|2|Samuel|7|2-17}}.) God corrected his prophet and enhanced his imperfect understanding of the divine will.

====Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner====

Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles: "...the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."<ref>{{NeitherWhiteNorBlack|start=209|end=210}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What circumstances preceded the 1978 revelation which ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====In 1954, after visiting the struggling South African mission, David O. McKay began to consider lifting the ban====

In a conversation with Sterling McMurrin, President McKay said, "It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."<ref>{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}</ref> This was a departure from a [[Statements about the priesthood ban#First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)|1949 First Presidency statement]] defending the ban as doctrinal, indicating a shift in his opinion. Leonard Arrington reported that President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal."<ref>{{Book:Arrington:Adventures of a Church Historian|pages=183}}</ref>

However, David O. McKay felt that only a revelation could end the ban. 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."<ref>Edward L. Kimball, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood]," ''BYU Studies'' 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 21-22; Gregory Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, ''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism'' (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 104; Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 120; W. Paul Reeve, ''Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 259: "In contrast, McKay, as president, believed divine intervention necessary regardless of the restriction's origins, something he reportedly sought but did not receive."</ref>

====As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown, attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision====

However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelatory basis for the policy.

President McKay reportedly told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."<ref>{{LYS-CD1|start=chapter 20 working draft, 13}}.</ref>

====Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban====

Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban <ref>{{LYS-CD1}}</ref>{{Rp|204-205}} though Church Historian Leonard Arrington

<blockquote>
...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22, footnote 105; citing for the affirmative Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' and Arrington to author, February 10 and June 15, 1998; for the negative, L. Brent Goates, interview by author, February 9, 1998.</ref>
</blockquote>

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks. ... It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."<ref>Kimball, ''Lengthen Your Stride'', working draft chapter 20, page 22; citing Goates, ''Harold B. Lee'', 506, quoting UPI interview published November 16, 1972.</ref>

====Lester Bush authored an important piece in ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought''====
As Latter-day Saint Historian Russell Stevenson wrote, the late 1960s brought "a groundswell of scholarly interest in the history of the priesthood ban ... and it won the attention of top-level Church leaders."<ref>Russell W. Stevenson, ''For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism 1830-2013'' (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2014), 136.</ref> In 1973, Dr. Lester Bush, an army physician stationed in Saigon, wrote the first scholarly analysis of the Church's racial restriction based on primary source documentation. As Stevenson has written concerning Bush:

<blockquote>Elijah Abels was not the exception, Bush argued; indeed, Ables had been the rule. Joseph Smith had not implemented the priesthood ban, contrary to accepted wisdom. That distinction belonged to Brigham Young. Perhaps the Church could start asking new questions, he hoped, about why it was following the course it was when Church leaders apparently did not fully understand why they were doing it.[48]

[Grant Shreeve's] fear-based wailing had fallen on deaf ears, but Bush's arguments received widespread attention at [Church headquarters in Salt Lake City].[49] Marion D. Hanks, then Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, later observed that Bush's article "had far more influence than the Bretheren would ever acknowledge and that it 'started to foment the pot.'" Edward Ashment, then employed by the Church Translation Department and a scholar of the Book of Abraham, observed Bruce R. McConkie reading the article. [Spencer W. Kimball] himself also highlighted several sections of the piece.[50]<ref>''Ibid.'', 137. Stevenson cites in order: 48 - Lester E. Bush, "[https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview]," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 8, no. 1 (Spring 1973): 11-68; "New LDS Office Building Nearly Finished," [Provo] Daily Herald, June 18, 1972, 32; 50 - Lester E. Bush, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287744?seq=1 'Writing Mormonism's Negro Doctrine': An Historical Overview (1973): Context and Reflections]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 266-67. Edward L. Kimball, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood]," ''BYU Studies'' 47, no. 2. (2008): 5–78.</ref></blockquote>

====The Church continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, such as Brazil====

As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, leaders continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, most notably Brazil. The prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Many witnesses described the 1978 revelation on the priesthood====

Wrote the past Church Historian:

<blockquote>
As a historian I sought to learn the particulars and record them in my private diary. The following account is based on dozens of interviews with persons who talked with church officials after the revelation was announced. Although members of the Twelve and the First Presidency with whom I sought interviews felt they should not elaborate on what happened, I learned details from family members and friends to whom they had made comments. . . .

Those in attendance said that as [President Kimball] began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball's prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord's. During that prayer some of the Twelve—at least two who have said so publicly—were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church (portraits of whom were hanging on the walls around them) smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. . . .

At the end of the heavenly manifestation Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the quorum members, many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God—an ineffable experience.

Two of the apostles present described the experience as a "day of Pentecost" similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest single event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.<ref>{{Book:Arrington:Adventures of a Church Historian|pages=176-177}} </ref>
</blockquote>

Elder David B. Haight said of the same experience:

<blockquote>
I would hope someday that our great-grandson Mark and others of our posterity would have similar spiritual experiences and that they would feel the spiritual power and influence of this gospel. I hope that Mark and others will have opportunities such as I had when I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood. I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve. I was there. I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards. We just left quietly to go back to the office. No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.

But just a few hours after the announcement was made to the press, I was assigned to attend a stake conference in Detroit, Michigan. When my plane landed in Chicago, I noticed an edition of the Chicago Tribune on the newsstand. The headline in the paper said, "Mormons Give Blacks Priesthood." And the subheading said, "President Kimball Claims to Have Received a Revelation." I bought a copy of the newspaper. I stared at one word in that subheading: claims. It stood out to me just like it was in red neon. As I walked along the hallway to make my plane connection, I thought, Here I am now in Chicago walking through this busy airport, yet I was a witness to this revelation. I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. Little did the editor of that newspaper realize the truth of that revelation when he wrote, "Claims to Have Received a Revelation." Little did he know, or the printer, or the man who put the ink on the press, or the one who delivered the newspaper—little did any of them know that it was truly a revelation from God. Little did they know what I knew because I was a witness to it.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=David B. Haight|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/this-work-is-true?lang=eng This Work Is True]|date=May 1996|start=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What testimonies were offered regarding the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
====Testimonies regarding the revelation====

{{Epigraph|The Spirit of God was there. ... Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. ... The voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very souls. ... We left that meeting subdued reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. —Gordon B. Hinckley<ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng Priesthood Restoration]|date=October 1988|pages=70}}</ref>}}

Bruce R. McConkie:

<blockquote>
We were all fasting and had just concluded a meeting of some three hours duration that was attended by nearly all the General Authorities. That meeting also was held in the room of the First Presidency and the Twelve in the holy temple. ...

After this meeting, which was one of great spiritual uplift and enlightenment, all of the brethren except those in the First Presidency and the Twelve were excused. When we were alone by ourselves in that sacred place where we meet weekly to wait upon the Lord, to seek guidance from his Spirit, and to transact the affairs of his earthly kingdom, President Kimball brought up the matter of the possible conferral of the priesthood upon those of all races. This was a subject that the group of us had discussed at length on numerous occasions in the preceding weeks and months.

The President restated the problem involved, reminded us of our discussions, and said he had spent many days in this upper room pleading with the Lord for an answer to our prayers. He said that if the answer was to continue our present course of denying the priesthood to the seed of Cain, as the Lord had therefore directed, he was prepared to defend that decision to the death. But, he said, if the long sought day had come in which the curse of the past was to be removed, he thought we might prevail upon the Lord so to indicate.

He expressed the hope that we might receive a clear answer one way or the other so the matter might be laid to rest. At this point President Kimball asked the brethren if any of them desired to express their feelings and views as to the matter in hand. We all did so, freely and fluently and at considerable length, each person stating his views and manifesting the feelings of his heart. ...

This session continued for somewhat more than two hours. Then President Kimball suggested that we united in formal prayer. ...

It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, speak to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fulness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. President Kimball’s prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice. All doubt and uncertainty fled. He knew the answer and we knew the answer. ...

In the days that followed the receipt of the new revelation, President Kimball and President Ezra Taft Benson—the senior and most spiritually experienced ones among us both said, expressing the feelings of us all, that neither of them had ever experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power as was poured out upon the Presidency and the Twelve that day in the upper room in the house of the Lord. And of it I say: It is true; I was there; I heard the voice; and the Lord be praised that it has come to pass in our day.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Priesthood|article=The New Revelation on Priesthood|pages=127-28}}</ref></blockquote>

Bruce R. McConkie:
<blockquote>
The Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present. ...

The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the Gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came.<ref>{{Speech:McConkie:All Are Alike Unto God|pages=4}}</ref></blockquote>

Bruce R. McConkie:

<blockquote>
All of us then present in the Holy Temple on that blessed occasion became living witnesses of the reality of the revealed word that then came to the one appointed to receive revelation for the Church and for the world. Each of us received a confirming witness in our souls—The Holy Spirit of God speaking to the spirits within us–so that we can and do testify to the world that the revelation came and that it is the mind and will and voice of the Lord.<ref>{{Book:McConkie:Millennial Messiah|pages=243}}</ref></blockquote>

{{Epigraph|The outpouring of the Spirit in that room [was] so strong that none of us could speak afterward. ... No one could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience. ... I was there. I witnessed it. I felt that heavenly influence. I was part of it. ... It was truly a revelation from God. ... I was a witness to it. — David B. Haight<ref>{{CR|author=David B. Haight|date=April 1996|pages=31}}</ref>}}

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren.

The Spirit of God was there. And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to that prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere regardless of lineage. Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.

It was a quiet sublime occasion. There was not the sound `as of a rushing mighty wind,’ there were not `cloven tongues like as of fire’ (Acts 2:2-3) as there had been on the Day of Pentecost. But there was a Pentecostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there.

No voice audible to our physical ears was heard. But the voice of the Spirit whispered with a certainty into our minds and our very soul. It was for us, at least for me personally, as I imagine it was with Enos, who said concerning his remarkable experience, `And while I was thus struggling in the spirit, behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind’ ({{s||Enos |1|10}}). So it was on that memorable June 1, 1978.

We left that meeting subdued and reverent and joyful. Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng Priesthood Restoration]|date=October 1988|pages=70}}</ref></blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
I was in that circle in that sacred room when President Spencer W. Kimball on a June day in 1978 pleaded with the Lord for direction on a matter fraught with tremendous consequences. It concerned the eligibility of all worthy men to receive the priesthood. I can testify now, as I have testified before, that the spirit of revelation was felt on that occasion, and that the fruits which have flowed from that revelation have been sweet and wonderful for great numbers of people across the world.<ref> {{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinkley|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/03/the-salt-lake-temple?lang=eng The Salt Lake Temple]]|vol=23|num=3|date=March 1993|pages=6}}</ref></blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Each Thursday, when we are at home, the First Presidency and the twelve meet in the temple, in those sacred hallowed precincts, and we pray together and discuss certain matters together, and the spirit of revelation comes upon those present. I know. I have seen it. I was there that June day in 1978 when President Kimball received revelation, surrounded by members of the Twelve of whom I was one at the time. This is the work of God. This is his almighty work. No man can stop or hinder it. It will go on and continue to grow and bless the lives of people across the earth.<ref>Gordon B. Hinkley, Ketchikan Alaska Fireside, 22 June 1995; in {{TGBH|pages=555}}</ref></blockquote>

{{Epigraph|"This revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it." —Spencer W. Kimball<ref>Gerry Avant, "Pres. Kimball says Revelation was Clear," ''Church News'' (6 January 1979): 15.</ref>}}

Ezra Taft Benson:

<blockquote>
* We experienced the sweetest spirit of unity and conviction that I have ever experienced. ... We took each other in our arms, we were so impressed with the sweet spirit that was in evidence. Our bosoms burned with the righteousness of the decision we had made. Thank God for the inspired leadership and the great and enduring principle of revelation.<ref>Sheri L. Dew, ''Ezra Taft Benson: A Biography'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 457.</ref></blockquote>

Howard W. Hunter:

<blockquote>
* Seldom, if ever, had there been greater unanimity in the council [He also referred to] the powerful witness of the Spirit last Thursday, and how this confirmed the divine origin of the revelation".<ref> Howard W. Hunter, cited in Eleanor Knowles, ''Howard W. Hunter'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 235-36.</ref></blockquote>

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Lifting the ban/CriticalSources}}
</wt>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[Category:The Changing World of Mormonism]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cómo funciona el proceso revelador en el caso de algo como el levantamiento de la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hubo testigos de la revelación que puso fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué circunstancias precedieron a la revelación de 1978 que puso fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Qué obstáculos sociales y culturales se interponían en el camino para poner fin a la prohibición del sacerdocio?]]
[[es:Temas del Evangelio: "Llevaron a reflexionar sobre las promesas que otros profetas como Brigham Young habían hecho diciendo que los miembros de raza negra iban a recibir un día las bendiciones del sacerdocio y del templo"]]
[[pt:Fonte:Tópicos do Evangelho:As Etnias e o Sacerdócio:Os líderes da Igreja ponderaram as promessas feitas pelos profetas, tais como Brigham Young de que os negros um dia receberiam as bênçãos do sacerdócio e do templo]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Como funciona o processo de revelação no caso de algo parecido com o levantamento da proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Houve testemunhas da revelação que terminou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: O que os testemunhos foram oferecidos sobre a revelação de que terminou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Quais os obstáculos sociais e culturais ficou no caminho de acabar com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Que circunstâncias que precedeu a revelação 1978 que acabou com a proibição do sacerdócio?]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y cuestiones raciales/Los negros y el sacerdocio/Levantando la prohibición]]
[[de:Schwarze und das Priestertum/Aufhebung des Verbots#Hinweise auf den offenbarenden Prozess]]
[[pt:Mormonismo e Assuntos Raciais/Negros e do sacerdócio/A suspensão da proibição]]