Array

User:InProgress/TOC: Difference between revisions

(added)
(added)
Line 24: Line 24:
{{:Mormonism and science}}
{{:Mormonism and science}}
{{:Mormonism and education}}
{{:Mormonism and education}}
{{:Mormon responses to atheism}}
{{:Mormonism and culture}}
{{:Mormonism and culture}}
{{:Mormonism and persecution}}
{{:Mormonism and persecution}}

Revision as of 03:22, 26 February 2011

This is an experimental Table of Contents

InProgress/TOC

Latter-day Saint scripture is consistently under attack by critics. Click "Expand" below to view articles about Latter-day Saint scripture.

Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ
Nature of scripture
Interpretation of scripture


InProgress/TOC

Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God and an "inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven."[1]

To view articles about the Bible, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon


Video from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video
YouTube


Notes

InProgress/TOC

Latter-day Saints accept The Book of Mormon as holy scripture that testifies of Jesus Christ and His role as our Savior and Redeemer.

To view articles about the Book of Mormon, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other


Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video
YouTube

InProgress/TOC

"The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days."[2]

To view articles about the Doctrine and Covenants, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about the Doctrine and Covenants
The Doctrine and Covenants


Video by BYU Religious Education.

Load video
YouTube


Notes

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

The Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham has been the subject of considerable controversy since its publication. Click the links below to find faithful answers to all the controversies surrounding the Book of Abraham

Jesus Christ


Jump to Subtopic:


Plan of salvation


Jump to Subtopic:

The Mormon doctrine of "premortal existence"


Jump to Subtopic:

Non-Mormon belief in a pre-mortal existence


Jump to details:


Modern revelation regarding a pre-mortal existence


Jump to details:


Biblical support for a pre-mortal existence


Jump to details:


Mormon doctrine regarding our mortal existence


Jump to Subtopic:

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

If God intended the Fall of Adam and Eve, why did he forbid the fruit? Why did he not simply create them as mortals?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #269: Why Did Lehi Teach That The Fall Was Necessary? (Video)

Introduction

One of the great problems of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is that we want it to answer all sorts of questions, that it was never intended to answer. And because of this, everyone tends to read between the lines. After all, you might respond with the same sorts of questions. If God didn't ever want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit then why put it in the Garden? If he didn't want Adam and Eve to fall, then why allow the serpent in?

Purpose of mortality

In the Book of Mormon, Lehi has a long discussion about these issues in 2 Nephi 2. And without going into too much detail, what Lehi explains is that God's creation of man isn't finished in the Garden of Eden - that man wasn't perfect there - that God intended for man to develop agency (Lehi refers to this as the power to act as opposed to being acted upon). In framing it in this way, Lehi discusses many of the elements of the garden narrative from Genesis. We have the idea that to act, we have to have knowledge of good and evil (we have to understand purpose and consequences). We couldn't be forced or coerced to choose one over the other (this is why God tells Adam he has a choice with the Tree of Knowledge). So in 2 Nephi 2꞉15 -

"And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter."

First is the idea of God’s "eternal purposes". This is the reason for our creation. And Lehi suggests that this reason is found in the "end of man". This isn’t about man’s beginning, but man’s eternal destiny. So everything is created – but, it isn’t a perfect creation, and isn’t final (this is contrary to much of Christian thought who see Eden as a perfect creation). And if that "end of man" is free will or agency, then real free will created a necessity for opposition. This is Lehi’s way of understanding the "good and evil" from Genesis 3:. Two outcomes are presented. But for mankind to be able to act (and not be acted upon), compulsion had to be removed so, in the next verse:

To act or be acted upon

"Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other."

Now this is an interesting dialogue. Lehi starts by pointing out that mankind has to be able to act for himself (again, the expression of free will). And then Lehi goes on to say that there had to be some reason for man to choose to act in one way and not in another. Why this bit of information? Because it gets to the philosophical problem of why Satan is in the Garden. Why does God allow the devil to be there? Would Adam and Eve have fallen if the Devil had not been there? And if they wouldn’t have fallen, could God have prevented the fall by removing the Devil? And if God could have prevented the fall, and didn’t, doesn’t that imply that God wanted the fall to occur? (Well that last bit might be a stretch – or not – depending on your point of view.) But for Lehi, there has to be some kind of enticement to encourage man to act. And so Lehi goes into some detail as to what this means (in the context of the comments above):

The role of Satan

"And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil." (2 Nephi 2꞉17-18)

So the devil becomes the agent of enticement. So let’s summarize to this point –

  1. God wants to create mankind with free will (the power to act for themselves and not to be acted on).
  2. Created in the Garden, mankind could not gain this free will without having to understand the difference between Good and Evil.
  3. God allows man to choose, but in order to do so, God has to create an environment in which Evil can entice man just as much as Good can.
  4. The source of the enticement was a Devil, who seeks to ruin mankind. And the Devil understands that even if it means furthering God’s plan for the "end of man" only by encouraging the fall of man can he destroy man.

The Fall

So what happens next?

"And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth. And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents." (2 Nephi 2꞉19-21)

The fall leads to eviction from the Garden. And now the Book of Mormon sets up something that comes from these earlier ideas. Mortality isn’t just a place of acting (and being acted on), it is a probationary period. That is, we learn to know good from evil, and we are given a period of time in which to do so, and in which we can show God how we will act. As a side note, although Lehi doesn’t get into it here, in Mosiah, this is expanded on just a bit. We have this idea of opposition. And on one side we have the devil enticing men to do evil. What is on the other side? Benjamin tells us (Mosiah 3꞉19) "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord." What entices us to good? It is the Holy Spirit that prompts us and pushes us to do good. We will get a bit more on that later. Why was the eviction necessary? Lehi explains:

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." (2Nephi 2 22-23)

Here we come back to that problem of an incomplete creation. The garden was not a place of growth and development. Perhaps Lehi is drawing on the conclusion that Adam and Eve couldn’t have children precisely because they didn’t have children in the Garden. But the idea stems from the notion that if God wanted Adam to have free will (to be able to act instead of being acted upon) that it couldn’t happen in the Garden as it was. Without opposition, Adam could not be empowered to act for himself. If he was only given one choice, it couldn’t really be called a choice – it would simply be another situation in which Adam was being acted upon (if that makes sense). So the fall creates that ability to act. But at the same time, we have this idea of nothing changing. Perhaps the best way to explain this is that in the Garden, Adam and Eve were like children. In order to change (in order even to have children) they have to grow up. And Lehi tells us that without the ability to change, this couldn't happen.

Concluding thoughts

The idea is that this isn't simply a narrative about Adam and Eve - it's a narrative about all of us. Perhaps we see the Garden as something akin to the pre-existence, that we have to leave to "grow up" in an environment in which real choice becomes possible. Part of the purpose of the story is to explain the obvious, which has the same reason as it does in the Garden - why is Satan allowed to tempt us here? If God wants us just to be good, then why can't God simply take the devil and banish him so that he cannot influence us during our mortality? All of the questions that the story in Genesis is trying to answer are directly related to questions that we have about our lives in mortality today.

If "the wages of sin is death" as described in Romans 6:23, and the fall of Adam and Eve was a transgression rather than a sin, then why did it introduce death into the world?

The "death" that is the wages of sin is spiritual death—being outside the presence of God

"Transgression" is sometimes used in LDS discourse to distinguish a degree of moral culpability. In one context, a "transgression" violates God's law, but the guilty party is less fully responsible or aware of the moral implications: "In a general sense and in most instances the terms sin and transgression are synonymous, although the use of the term transgression lays emphasis on the violation of the law or rule involved whereas the term sin points up the willful nature of the disobedience" (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 804).

Adam and Eve and all humanity were redeemed from physical death by the atonement of Christ (2 Nephi 9꞉12). The "death" that is the wages of sin is spiritual death—being outside the presence of God (Alma 12꞉16-17).

Adam and Eve were told, however, that eating the fruit would cause them to die—the exact nature of their act is immaterial (see Genesis 2꞉17) and Adam and Eve understood this much (Genesis 3꞉2-3). Any disobedience of God's law puts us forever outside his presence—hence the absolute necessity of the atonement of Christ. Without the atonement, even those who are less responsible for their actions would have been lost (Mosiah 3꞉16). By the grace of Christ, however, they are saved.

How did the transgression of Adam and Eve introduce sin into the world?

It happened that way because God had told them it would

Adam and Eve's actions in the garden made them subject to death and put them out of the presence of God, as He had told them it would (Genesis 2꞉17). It happened that way because God had told them it would, as the Bible and other LDS scripture bears witness.

When out of the presence of God, the effects of a sinful world were possible for at least three reasons:

  • out of God's presence, it was possible that "sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good" (Moses 6꞉55).
  • all people "know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves," therefore we became subject to the consequences of others' evil choices (Moses 6꞉56).
  • Satan was present, and was able to tempt us to do evil (Moses 5꞉13).

If the transgression of Adam and Eve was actually a blessing for them, then why did they feel guilty and afraid when God approached them in the Garden of Eden after they committed their transgression?

Partaking of the fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil, and so their moral awareness made them feel guilty for doing wrong

  • Adam and Eve were guilty and afraid because they knew they had violated a commandment of God, and had been told the consequences of doing so. They had also not been taught the gospel or about the Plan of Salvation, and so did not know that the atonement of Christ could free them from the effects of their acts.
  • Furthermore, partaking of the fruit gave them knowledge of good and evil, and so their moral awareness made them feel guilty for doing wrong.
  • When Adam and Eve learned of the plan of salvation and repented, they did rejoice. Upon learning of Christ,
...the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. (Moses 5꞉9-11)

If the transgression of Adam and Eve resulted in physical and spiritual death, then why are we only subject to spiritual death for eternity if we do not repent?

We do not suffer eternal physical death for our sins and neither does Adam, for the same reason—the Atonement of Jesus Christ

We do not suffer eternal physical death for our sins and neither does Adam, for the same reason—the Atonement of Jesus Christ:

Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world. (Moses 6꞉53-54)


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Epistle Dedicatory to the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
  2. ↑ Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants.


Mormon perspectives regarding original sin

Summary: Why don't Latter-day Saints believe the doctrine of "original sin" like the rest of Christianity? Do Mormons believe that the Fall of Adam was a "fortunate event?" Is the Church wrong to teach that little children are free from the taint of original sin?


Jump to details:


Birth control

Summary: What is the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control? The General Handbook of Instructions states: "Husbands must be considerate of their wives, who have a great responsibility not only for bearing children but also for caring for them through childhood…. Married couples should seek inspiration from the Lord in meeting their marital challenges and rearing their children according to the teachings of the gospel."


Jump to details:


Mormon doctrine regarding our post-mortal existence


Jump to Subtopic:

The Mormon concept of three degrees of glory


Jump to details:


Mormon belief in the deification of Man


Jump to details:


The Mormon view of the resurrection


Jump to details:

Sons of Perdition


Mormonism and agency


Jump to Subtopic:

Free will

Summary: Science demonstrates that all interactions of matter--including all events in the human brain--are sufficiently caused by previous events. If we know enough about the laws that govern these interactions and the current state of the universe, we would be able to exactly predict any future event. Does this mean that the doctrine of "agency" or "free will" is false, since all human choices are predetermined by the laws of physics?


Jump to details:


Mormonism and the relationship between grace and works


Jump to details:



InProgress/TOC

Joseph Smith Jr. has been the greatest witness of Jesus Christ in our day. That witness came in 1820 when God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Throughout his life, Joseph saw Christ many times and frequently testified that Christ lives and is the Savior and Redeemer of every person.

In addition to his witness of Jesus Christ, Joseph was the man ordained of God to restore the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth.

To view articles about Joseph Smith, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Joseph Smith
Life and Character
Youth
Revelations and the Church
Prophetic Statements
Society
Plural marriage (polygamy)
Death

Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video
YouTube

<onlyinclude>

Source(s) of the criticism


Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage (Polygamy)

Summary: Plural marriage—or one man marrying multiple women—has been practiced since ancient times (see Genesis 16:1–3; Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–39). It was practiced among the Latter-day Saints as commanded by God (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:32–34, 40), until God directed that the Saints discontinue it (see Official Declaration 1).

Joseph Smith is frequently criticized for his introduction and practice of plural marriage (often called polygamy).

From a Christian perspective, these attacks usually focus on arguing that polygamy is unchristian or unbiblical, and that Joseph hid the truth from the world.

From a secular perspective, it is asserted that the practice of polygamy sprung from Joseph's carnal desires to marry young women. Of particular interest is the fact that Joseph was sealed to women who were already married to other men (polyandry).



To view articles about plural marriage, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Plural marriage
Doctrinal foundation of plural marriage
Introduction of plural marriage
Plural marriage in Utah
End of plural marriage

Video from FAIR Conference.

Load video
YouTube

Video from Church History Department.

Load video
YouTube

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Essays on various topics in Joseph Smith's plural marriages

When did plural marriage start?

Joseph Smith and plural marriage

John C. Bennett and plural marriage

InProgress/TOC

Joseph Smith's announcement that he saw the Father and the Son in 1820 has produced a broad response, from faithful to critical. This set of articles addresses the multiple accounts of the First Vision, the events leading to and occurring after the vision, and a review of the doctrinal developments from the vision.

To view articles about the First Vision, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Accounts
Historical context
Doctrinal impact

Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video
YouTube

Learn more about Joseph Smith's First Vision
Key sources
Wiki links
FAIR links
  • Don Bradley, "Joseph Smith's First Vision as Endowment and Epitome of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (or Why I Came Back to the Church)," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
  • Don Bradley, "The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative: 1820s or 1830s," Proceedings of the 2013 FAIR Conference (August 2013). link
  • Steven C. Harper, "Four Accounts and Three Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," Proceedings of the 2011 FAIR Conference (August 2011). link
  • Andrew Knaupp and Sal Velluto, "Pillar of Light: A Graphic Novel Adaptation of Joseph Smith’s First Vision," Proceedings of the 2020 FAIR Conference (August 2020). link
Online
  • Craig L. Foster, "Understanding the Year 1820," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 45/18 (11 June 2021). [369–370] link
  • Brian C. Hales, "Seeking a Global Context for the First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 45/17 (11 June 2021). [363–368] link
  • Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments Against Joseph Smith's First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/2 (12 October 2012). [17–34] link
  • Spencer Kraus, "Honoring Joseph's Theophany Two Centuries Later," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 50/4 (28 January 2022). [71–78] link
  • Neal Rappleye, "Rediscovering the First Vision," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/5 (17 April 2015). [29–32] link
Navigators
Sub categories

Angel Moroni's visit to Joseph Smith, Jr.


Jump to Subtopic:

The identity of the angel that visited Joseph Smith


Jump to Subtopic:

Some Church sources give the identity of the angel that visited Joseph Smith in 1823 as "Nephi" instead of "Moroni"


Jump to details:


Moroni's visit: spirit versus resurrected being

Summary: Critics are anxious to paint Joseph's early experiences as linked to "magick" or treasure seeking. They thus argue that Joseph Smith described his first angelic visitor as "a dream" in which "a spirit" visited him three times in one night.


Jump to details:


Theories that Moroni could have actually been something other than an angel sent by God

Summary: Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan. They base this charge on two passages in the New Testament: 2 Corinthians 11:13–15 and Galatians 1:8.


Jump to details:


The physical characteristics of Moroni's visit


Jump to Subtopic:

Why didn't Joseph Smith's siblings wake up during Moroni's visit?

Summary: It is claimed that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false. It is claimed that no Church artwork shows Joseph's siblings asleep. The claim is false.


Jump to details:


Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling?

Summary: In one of the more absurd or desperate attacks upon Joseph's story, some claim that Moroni could not have stood "above the floor" because the ceiling would have been too low and he would have hit his head. Photos easily disprove this absurd claim.


Jump to details:



InProgress/TOC

Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sacred places where Church members participate in sacred ceremonies (ordinances) that help them come closer to God and prepare to live forever in an eternal family.

To view articles about Latter-day Saint temples, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Latter-day Saint temples
Baptism for the dead
The temple endowment
Temple sealings
Other topics


Videos below from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Load video
YouTube


Load video
YouTube

Mormonism and Freemasonry

Summary: This summary page contains bibliographic references for various electronic and print items that discuss—or are related to—the 'Mormonism and Freemasonry' issue. The materials that are listed here represent a variety of opinions that are held by Latter-day Saints on this topic. They also represent differing levels of review and publication processes and divergent degrees of documentation.


Jump to Subtopic:


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Doctrine

What is official doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What are the procedures for establishing doctrine? What does a member do with concepts that were taught by former leaders of the Church but that are now repudiated officially? This page answers these questions.

What is official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Joseph Smith: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ . . . and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

Some people are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the Mormons have similar views. They therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any Latter-day Saint Church leader represents Mormon doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Mormons.

Joseph Smith defined our fundamental core doctrine:

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.
—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121.

Otherwise, Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (D&C 42: 12-13, 56-60; 104:58-59), after having been submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (D&C 26:2; 28:13).

What have other Church leaders said on the subject?

President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church. [1]

B.H. Roberts further explained that only those things within the Standard Works and those presented for a sustaining vote by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles is binding upon the Church and its members:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. [2]

Anything else, including books written by general authorities or general conference addresses, is valuable and may be of use for explanation, elucidation, exhortation, prophecy, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. [3]

Elsewhere, President Lee taught the same principle:

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. [4]

In Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:

The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works. [5]

In areas in which the standard works are not clear, only the President of the Church may establish doctrine definitively:

But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past they have spoken "out of turn," so to speak. Furthermore, at times even those not members of the General Authorities are said to have been heard to declare their own views on various matters concerning which no official view or declaration has been made by the mouthpiece of the Lord, sometimes with an assured certainty that might deceive the uninformed and unwary. [6]

How is new doctrine established in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Establishing new doctrine

Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (D&C 42: 12-13, 56-60; 105:58-59), after having been submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 28: 2-3; 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (D&C 26:2; 28:13). These scriptures are to be accepted as scripture only when the Spirit of the Lord rests on that prophet.[7] Latter-day Saints only need bow to a teaching when it is explicitly said to have come by revelation and been ratified by proper procedures.

Brigham Young taught:

In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice; the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true. Let the Elders get together, being faithful and true; and when they agree upon any point, you may know that it is true.[8]

Later, B.H. Roberts wrote:

It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, ‘But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,’ or ‘Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.’ But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . . As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.[9]

Leaders of the Church even spoke out against those who might try to think that some other standard applied for ‘official’ Church doctrine:

[The Seer, a magazine published by a Church leader] contain[s] doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it…It ought to have been known, years ago, by every person in the Church—for ample teachings have been given on the point—that no member of the Church has the right to publish any doctrines, as the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without first submitting them for examination and approval to the First Presidency and the Twelve. There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive commandments and revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church. And any man who so far forgets the order instituted by the Lord as to write and publish what may be termed new doctrines, without consulting with the First Presidency of the Church respecting them, places himself in a false position, and exposes himself to the power of darkness by violating his Priesthood. While upon this subject, we wish to warn all the Elders of the Church, and to have it clearly understood by the members, that, in the future, whoever publishes any new doctrines without first taking this course, will be liable to lose his Priesthood.[10]

Later leaders of the Church have continued to teach this principle. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.[11]

Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:

All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.[12]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, whose writings some critics attempt to elevate to "official status," despite the fact that he explicitly states that he writes only on his own behalf said:[13]

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he "visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.).

Since "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost.[14]

Is the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constantly changing?

Each prophet who has lived was called to teach and guide the people of their specific time

Apostles and prophets are human, fallible and subject to their own opinions and emotions just like the rest of humanity. This does not, however, diminish their capacity to speak in the name of the Lord on issues which affect our eternal salvation. We pay heed to the words of the living prophet who has been called to guide the church in our time, while relying upon the standard works to help us understand and confirm these teachings.

It is claimed by some that the Church frequently changes its doctrine. They point to teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young (often quoting from the Journal of Discourses) and criticize modern church leaders for not accepting or implementing every pronouncement recorded by these early leaders.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by a living prophet, who is authorized to speak on the Lord’s behalf to the Church to address the issues of our day. We value the words and teachings of prophets who have lived in the past. We are encouraged to study the scriptures in order to apply the lessons taught by these great individuals to our present lives. Each prophet who has lived was called to teach and guide the people of their specific time. The situations which we face in today’s society are unique to us, and dealing with them requires the ongoing guidance of a living prophet.

It is not reasonable to expect that everything taught by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young applies to us today

We are fortunate to have so many detailed teachings of the early prophets of the restoration. There is much wisdom to be gained by studying their counsel. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that everything taught by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young applies to us today. Many things that these men taught were relevant to the 19th century church. In order to help us determine how to apply the teachings of past prophets to our present lives, we have a living prophet.

In 1981, Ezra Taft Benson said:

The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.

Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.[15]

Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time

Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time. For example, Brigham Young expressed a number of opinions regarding science that one would consider very humorous or even outlandish today, such as the suggestion that the moon and the sun were inhabited.

Modern day prophets are no more immune to the current thinking of their day. On May 14, 1961, Apostle (and future Church president) Joseph Fielding Smith declared that “We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.” As much as critics would like to declare this a “failed prophecy,” would it be reasonable to expect the Church to teach such a thing in light of current knowledge?

The Apostle (and future leader of Christ’s church) Peter denied Christ three times. Applying the same standard to Peter’s statement that the Church’s critics apply to 19th century prophets, one would have to interpret this to mean that future church leaders would be forced to teach that Christ was not actually the Son of God! After all, Peter went on to become the head of Christ’s church, and was therefore a prophet.

Church members need to compare what church leaders teach to the standard works

Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies how members need to compare what church leaders teach to the standard works:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.[16]

Is everything published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considered doctrine?

We consider the inspired words of the prophets as scripture for our time. Not everything taught in the 19th century applies to the 21st century

It is sometimes claimed that anything that is, or ever was, officially published by the Church ought to represent doctrine. We consider the inspired words of the prophets as scripture for our time. Just as Brigham Young taught principles that applied to the 19th-century saints, modern prophets teach us what we need for our particular time. Not everything taught in the 19th century applies to the 21st century.

The Church states,

Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receive revelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern (Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being. [17]

The Church manual, Gospel Principles, clarifies what is accepted as scripture,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture. [18]

Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the scriptures should govern the Church (D&C 42:12-13, 56-60), after having been submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (D&C 26:2; 28:13).

Are some publications that involve the Church misrepresented as "official" publications of the Church?

Some tend to misrepresent whether or not a publication is officially sanctioned by the Church in order to suit their agenda.

  • It is claimed that some publications are official Church publications when in reality they are not.
    • D. Michael Quinn claimed that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism "was an official product of the LDS Church."
  • It is claimed that some publications are not official Church publications when in reality they are.
    • Richard Abanes states in Becoming Gods that the book "Gospel Principles" contains a 1978 copyright by the Church, but the author states that it contains a disclaimer that indicates that it is not an official publication of the Church, and that "the views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not represent the position of the Church."

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was not an official production of the LDS Church

The author of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View wants to make the Encyclopedia of Mormonism an 'official' work, when the book, its editor, its authors, and publisher all assert that it is not. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was not an official production of the LDS Church as the Church News noted:

The encyclopedia, according to its publisher and board of editors, is not an official publication of the Church. Daniel H. Ludlow, editor-in-chief, emphasized that the encyclopedia is not intended as a substitute for the scriptures, other official publications of the Church or doctrines as taught by the apostles and prophets.[19]

This is indicated in the introduction to the Encyclopedia:

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.[20]

Gospel Principles is an official publication of the LDS Church

From the title page of Gospel Principles:

GOSPEL PRINCIPLES

Published by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Salt Lake City, Utah 1979.

The next page:

Copyright (c) 1978 Corporation of the President
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
All Rights Reserved
Printed in the United States of America.

We cannot find the disclaimer mentioned by the author in Becoming Gods about Gospel Principles not being an official publication.

Regarding the LDS Bible Dictionary, the Church has been explicit that it is not to be taken as a statement of revealed Church doctrine

Regarding the LDS Bible Dictionary, the Church has been explicit that it is not to be taken as a statement of revealed Church doctrine. The introduction to the Bible Dictionary includes the following statement:

[The Bible Dictionary] is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.

Robert J. Matthews, who was part of the committee in the late 1970s to create the LDS editions of the scriptures, including the study aids, said:

The new Bible dictionary is not intended as a revealed treatment or official version of doctrinal, historical, cultural, chronological, and other matters found in the Bible.[21]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie had this to say regarding "the Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazetteer, and the maps":

None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.[22]

To summarize, entries in the Bible Dictionary are not part of the canon of scripture and are not binding upon anyone, save as they accurately reflect the contents of scripture or joint statements by the prophets, seers, and revelators.

Introductory material to the Book of Mormon is not regarded as scripture

The only part of the Book of Mormon regarded as scripture is the original text as published by Joseph Smith, Jr., with a few changes later made by him or his successors for reasons of clarity or grammar.

Main article: Book of Mormon textual changes

Thus, introductory material published in the modern Book of Mormon is not regarded as scripture, and has been modified from time to time. A representative from Church Public Affairs noted:

I have found that over that last 20 years a number of changes have been made in the introduction to the Book of Mormon - and that it is not consider[ed] scripture.[23]

When are the writings or sermons of Church leaders entitled to the claim of scripture?

J. Reuben Clark: "there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared"

In response to the question, "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" President J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency said:

But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past they have spoken "out of turn," so to speak. Furthermore, at times even those not members of the General Authorities are said to have been heard to declare their own views on various matters concerning which no official view or declaration has been made by the mouthpiece of the Lord, sometimes with an assured certainty that might deceive the uninformed and unwary.[24]

If a doctrine is repudiated, does that mean that it was false when it was being taught?

Some ideas that were once taught are now considered false

Several teachings that were once considered doctrinal in the 19th-century Church have been repudiated by the modern Church. Among these are polygamy, the "Adam-God theory," the priesthood ban on members of African descent, and "blood atonement."

In the case of the "Adam-God theory," there was disagreement within the Church leadership regarding whether or not the teaching was true. The teaching was specifically repudiated by the Church.

Some ideas that were taught are considered to be true, but no longer authorized

On the other hand, the practice of polygamy was institutionalized within the Church and was only stopped when it became necessary in order for the Church to progress. Although the Church repudiates the practice of polygamy today, it does not repudiate the practice of polygamy among early Church members in the 19th-century. In other words, it does not consider the doctrine of polygamy to be false for the time - it would only consider it to be "false," in a sense, for the present day among living members of the Church.

Does the repudiation of a doctrine that was once taught by a prophet mean that that prophet is now considered a "heretic"?

If a doctrine that was once taught by a past prophet is rejected by a later prophet, we do not consider the earlier prophet to be a "heretic": We simply consider him to be human

Certain doctrines that applied to 19th-Century and 20th-Century Latter-day Saints were indeed later repudiated. If a doctrine that was once taught by a past prophet is rejected by a later prophet, we do not consider the earlier prophet to be a "heretic": We simply consider him to be human. For example, Brigham Young taught Adam-God and "blood atonement," yet we do not today consider Brigham to be a heretic. We simply disregard those teachings which have been repudiated. Any Latter-day Saint who attends church will be fully aware that Brigham Young is not considered to be a heretic.

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ George Q. Cannon, "Comments," Millennial Star 42 no. 46 (15 November 1880), 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)
  2. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
  3. ↑ Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
  4. ↑ Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.
  5. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111. GL direct link
  6. ↑ J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80.
  7. ↑ As Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "When is a prophet a prophet? whenever he speaks under the inspiration and influence of the Holy Ghost… When prophets write and speak on the principles of the gospel, they should have the guidance of the Spirit. If they do, then all that they say will be in harmony with the revealed word. If they are in harmony then we know that they have not spoken presumptuously. Should a man speak or write, and what he says is in conflict with the standards which are accepted, with the revelations the Lord has given, then we may reject what he has said, no matter who he is." Doctrines of Salvation 1:187.
  8. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:91-92.
  9. ↑ B.H. Roberts, Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
  10. ↑ Proclamation of the First Presidency and Twelve, dated 21 October 1865, re: The Seer. Printed in Messages of the First Presidency, edited by James R. Clark, Vol. 2, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965), 238–39. GL direct link
  11. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56),203–204.
  12. ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445.
  13. ↑ See, for example, Elder McConkie's "Preface" from the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, where he writes "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." This comment is reprinted in the second edition.
  14. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 608. GL direct link
  15. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," Ensign (June 1981).
  16. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 203.
  17. ↑ LDS Newsroom, Approaching Mormon Doctrine (4 May 2007)
  18. ↑ Gospel Principles, "Chapter 10: Scriptures
  19. ↑ Gerry Avant, "Encyclopedia of Mormonism," LDS Church News (12 July 1991).
  20. ↑ Daniel H. Ludlow, "Preface," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:lxii.
  21. ↑ Robert J. Matthews, "Using the New Bible Dictionary in the LDS Edition," Ensign (June 1982): 48.
  22. ↑ Mark McConkie (editor), Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989), 290. ISBN 978-0884946441. GL direct link
  23. ↑ Mark Tuttle, personal e-mail to Tyler Livingston (1 March 2007).
  24. ↑ J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80.


God the Father


Jump to Subtopic:

Mormon beliefs regarding the characteristics of God


Jump to Subtopic:

Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism

Summary: It is claimed that Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai and other similar Old Testament Hebrew names for deity are simply different titles which emphasize different attributes of the "one true God." In support of this criticism, they cite Old Testament scriptures that speak of "the LORD [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim]" (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:2; 4:35; 6:4) as proof that these are different titles for the same God.


Jump to details:


God's knowledge

Summary: Most Latter-day Saints hold to unlimited foreknowledge. This has been the traditional view of most Christians since the post-New Testament period, and it is one doctrine that Joseph Smith didn't seem to question, as there are no revelations that address it. Indeed, it appears that most LDS leaders and scholars simply haven't questioned its veracity.


Jump to details:


Mormonism and biblical statements that "God is a Spirit"


Jump to details:


Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse on the nature of God


Jump to details:


Do Latter-day Saints actually believe in a practice called "Celestial sex"?

Summary: Mormonism and the nature of God/"Celestial sex"


Jump to details:


Criticisms regarding the character of God


Jump to details:


Mormonism and the belief in the corporeality of God

Summary: Some Christians object to the Mormon belief that God has a physical body and human form by quoting scripture which says that "God is not a man" (e.g. Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hosea 11:9). Some have also asked how God can be material and do things like float and move through walls.


Jump to details:


Early teachings about God in the Book of Mormon, from Joseph Smith, and among Church members


Jump to Subtopic:

Early Mormon beliefs regarding the nature of God

Summary: Some evangelical Christians attempt to show that the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical, unchristian and untrue. They seem to think that this doctrine is the main reason why the LDS reject the Psychological Trinity.


Jump to details:


Lecture of Faith 5 teaches the Father is "a personage of spirit"

Summary: Lectures on Faith, which used to be part of the Doctrine and Covenants, teach that God is a spirit. Joseph Smith's later teachings contradict this. More generally, critics argue that Joseph Smith taught an essentially "trinitarian" view of the Godhead until the mid 1830s, thus proving the Joseph was "making it up" as he went along.


Jump to details:


Articles about Brigham Young
Teachings
History
Race
Critics

What is the Adam-God Theory?

Brigham Young appeared to teach that Adam was God the Father

In roughly 20 of Brigham Young's many sermons, he appeared to teach that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet because of this. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in the Adam-God Theory, and critics accuse the church of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of their prophets.

The Adam-God Theory is not church doctrine

Brigham Young was the only president of the church to state such an idea, and it was never church doctrine. Subsequent prophets did not continue to preach this. Spencer W. Kimball made the rare public denouncement of this idea in General Conference in 1976.

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976): 77.off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

Possible Explanations

We do not know what Brigham Young actually believed concerning this. If Brigham actually believed Adam was God the Father, it had to have been an incorrect opinion, which prophets have sometimes, and not a revelation. There is also evidence that some sermons were transcribed incorrectly, and some theorize that Brigham Young used "Adam" as a title in referencing God the Father.


Load video
YouTube


What is the history of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory and why was it rejected by the Church?

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Over 500 of these can be read online. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In 20 of these sermons he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam.[1] He also brought up the subject in private meetings. Nine accounts record him bringing up issues related to Adam-God to different individuals.[2]

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.[3]

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, Brigham Young appeared to say:

  • Adam lived on another planet, died, and was resurrected. Adam united with Eve at some point.
  • Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
  • Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
  • Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
  • Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.[4]

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation. Though it is not understood entirely what Brigham meant by "revelation." Matthew Brown in his 2009 FairMormon Conference presentation presented evidence that complicates our picture of what Brigham meant:

We now turn to a pertinent apologetic issue. Critics enjoy pointing out that on several occasions Brigham Young claimed that his teachings on Adam came to him through revelation. Since this section of this paper is dealing with ‘perspectives’ it is only proper that President Young be allowed to provide an idea of what he thought about, and how he experienced, the revelatory process. First of all, the question will be posed: ‘How did Brother Brigham compare himself, as a revelator, with his predecessor?’ There are two quotations that are of interest here. The second President of the LDS Church said, "I wish to ask every member of this whole community if they ever heard [me] profess to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator as Joseph Smith was. [I] professed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ."[5] In the second quote Brigham Young says that he "did not receive [revelations] through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph [Smith] did."[6] Hence, it can be ascertained that, at least in one sense, Brigham Young did not receive communications from heaven in the same direct manner that Joseph Smith did. And it is relevant to mention here that Brigham Young did, in fact, own a seerstone that was once utilized by Joseph Smith.

Next, there is this lengthy quote from President Young which is well worth considering in its entirety. He rhetorically asked himself,

Well, Brother Brigham, . . . . have you had revelations?" Yes, I have them all the time. I live constantly by the principle of revelation. . . . I have never received one particle of intelligence [except] by revelation, no matter whether [my] father or mother revealed it, or my sister, or [my] neighbor. No person receives knowledge [except] upon the principle of revelation, that is, by having something revealed to them. "Do you [Brother Brigham] have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ?" I will leave that for others to judge. If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by the principle of revelation. Who reveals? Everybody around us; we learn [from] each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I have not. I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I believe that we are revelators to each other.[7]

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the ‘revelation’ claims for Adam–God ideology did not originate with Brigham Young, but rather with his close friend and associate Heber C. Kimball. There is one well-documented instance where Brother Kimball claimed that some of the concepts connected with the Adam–God Theory were revealed to him.[8] There are also two other statements that need to be taken into careful consideration. The first comes from Thomas Stenhouse’s book. It reads: "Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the source of Brigham’s revelation on the ‘Adam deity.’"[9]

Since Mr. Stenhouse was an apostate from Mormonism at the time he wrote this, some people might tend to discount his assertion. But the second statement seems to lend credence to it. This one comes from Elder Orson Pratt. He said that the notion of "Adam being our Father and our God . . .[was] advanced by Bro[ther] Kimball in the stand [or at the pulpit], and afterwards approved by

Bro[ther] Brigham."[10][11]

On at least three occasions, Brigham claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith.[12] While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.[13])

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God was eventually incorporated into the teaching of some 20th century polygamous break-off sects, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[14]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[15]

Stephen E. Robinson: "Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church"

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.[16]

Matthew Brown gave (2009): "Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries"

Matthew Brown gave perhaps one of the best reconcilations of Adam-God at the 2009 FairMormon Conference:

On the 9th of April 1852 President Brigham Young stepped up to the pulpit in the old tabernacle on Temple Square and informed a group of Elders, who had gathered there for General Conference, that he was going to straighten them out on an issue which they had been debating about. The topic of disagreement centered upon who was the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh—Elohim or the Holy Ghost. President Young surprised the people who were in attendance by announcing that it was neither one of them....Brigham Young repeated these ideas and expounded upon them during the next 25 years. His viewpoints have been variously classified as doctrine, theory, paradox, heresy, speculation, and some of the mysteries.[17]—(Click here to read more)

If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D&C 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel 7?

The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God

The real question should be how does one justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days in Daniel as only God. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27꞉11; D&C 29꞉26), archangel (D&C 88꞉112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138꞉38). [18]

Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:

"‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.' [19]

This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (attiq yômîn) as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, only God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. [20] Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.

D&C 27:11 and D&C 116 associate Adam with the ancient of days spoken of in Daniel, but this needs elaboration

Like many Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God in the Old Testament) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that D&C 27꞉11 associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.

This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.

As one non-LDS scholar noted of the passage in Daniel:

In the Septuagint version of Daniel 7:13 the translator has interpreted ‘he came to the Ancient of Days’ as ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’. Thus, according to this Septuagint interpretation, the Son of Man is in fact the embodiment of the person of the Ancient of Days. In other words the original scene in Daniel 7, where two figures exist alongside each other in heaven, is changed so that the vice-regent, the Son of Man, takes upon himself the form and character of God himself.[21]

It is thus not surprising that Joseph Smith could see Adam taking upon himself "the form and character of God himself" using a similar type of imagery. This type of expansion on scriptures is done literally hundreds of times by biblical prophets.

This is the best view to take in light of our understanding of Jesus Christ as Jehovah of the Old Testament (D&C 110:1-4).

{{Critical sources box:Mormonism and doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God theory/Ancient of Days/CriticalSources]]

What attempts have been made to reconcile the Adam-God Theory with the doctrines of the Church?

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought

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

Approach #1: Adam as the patriarch of the human family

The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: [quotes D&C 78:15–16].[22]

It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.

Approach #2: Scribal error

A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.

Approach #3: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."

LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.[23] Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.

Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.

Approach #4: Brigham was wrong

Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.[24] Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981:

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.[25]

Approach #5: We don't know the reason

A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.[26]

Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?

Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it

The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.

The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood, and the endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century

Two points need to be made prior to any discussion of this subject:

  1. The full meaning of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God is not well understood. What he taught appears to have been a failed attempt to establish a new doctrinal belief. He did not live to reconcile it with LDS scripture, and later prophets did not continue his teaching. (See the main article on Adam-God.)
  2. The endowment ceremony was not written down until the late nineteenth century. Before and since that time, it was and has been modified occasionally by Church leaders to clarify and refine the presentation. (See the main article on temple endowment changes.)

How the endowment came to be written, and how Adam-God become part of it

The following is probably the best description of how the temple endowment came to be written, and what part Adam-God played in it:

Shortly after the dedication of the lower portion of the temple, Young decided it was necessary to commit the endowment ceremony to written form. On 14 January 1877 he "requested Brigham jr & W Woodruff to write out the Ceremony of the Endowments from Beginning to End," assisted by John D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall. Daily drafts were submitted for Young's review and approval. The project took approximately two months to complete. On 21 March 1877 Woodruff recorded in his journal: "President Young has been laboring all winter to get up a perfect form of Endowments as far as possible. They having been perfected I read them to the Company today." [27]

The St. George endowment included a revised thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" first delivered by Young. This summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and contained references to Young's Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 L. John Nuttall, one of those who transcribed Young's lecture, recalled how it came about:

In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing materials, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.

A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation and etc.

On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim]. I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation. Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve. Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts." The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem, "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the ony true God and jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return." Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life—Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man—Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.)

Brigham Young died August 29, 1877, shortly after introducing this version of the veil lecture. The evidence is indeterminate as to whether the St. George lecture with its Adam-God teaching was included in all temples or that it continued to the turn of the twentieth century. Buerger writes:

It is not clear, in fact, what did become of the lecture. The apparent ignorance of the subject matter implied by Abraham Cannon's [1888] account—despite his having been a General Authority for six years—suggest it was not routinely presented in the temple. Similar ignorance among some missionaries [in 1897] and their president ... who also presumably had been through the temple prior to their missions supports this conclusion. Although exposes of the temple ceremonies published about this time do not include any reference to this lecture, "fundamentalist" authors have asserted without serious attempt at documentation that Brigham's lecture was an integral part of the temple ceremony until about 1902-1905. In support of this has been placed the testimony of one individual who in 1959 distinctly remembered hearing during his endowment in the temple in 1902 that "Adam was our God." On returning from his mission in 1904 he noted that these teachings had been removed. While one would expect more extensive evidence than this were it true that the lecture was regularly given for twenty-five years, it ... should also be recalled that other "discredited" notions were still being promulgated in some temples by a few individuals during the early years of the twentieth century—such as the continued legitimacy of plural marriage, also a cherished fundamentalist tradition. [28]

Learn more about Adam-God teachings
Key sources
  • Matthew Brown, "Brigham Young’s Teachings On Adam," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link
FAIR links
  • Matthew Roper, "Adam in Ancient Texts and the Restoration," Proceedings of the 2006 FAIR Conference (August 2006). link
Online
  • Arthur A. Bailey, "What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam," Ensign (January 1998): 20.off-site
  • David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 1 (Spring 1982), 14–58. off-site
  • Robert L. Millet, "The Man Adam," Ensign (January 1994): 8.off-site
  • Mark E. Petersen, "Adam, the Archangel," Ensign (November 1980): 16.off-site
  • "Adam-God theory," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Video
Load video
YouTube
Print
  • Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1976). ISBN 087747592X. GL direct link
Navigators

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Jonathan A. Stapley, "Brigham Young's Garden Cosmology," Journal of Mormon History 47, no. 1 (January 2021): 85.
  2. ↑ Ibid.
  3. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51. (Emphasis in the original.)
  4. ↑ David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 1 (Spring 1982), 45. off-site; Stapley, "Garden Cosmology," 77–82.
  5. ↑ 3. JD, 6:319, President Brigham Young, 7 April 1852, general conference address, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tabernacle.
  6. ↑ Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, 9 June 1873, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.
  7. ↑ JD, 3:209, President Brigham Young, 17 February 1856, discourse delivered in the Salt Lake City, Utah, Tabernacle.
  8. ↑ "The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth" (Memorandum, 30 April 1862, cited in Stanley B. Kimball, ed., On the Potter’s Wheel: The Diaries of Heber C. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 1987], 176, n. 3). There is a reported instance of Heber C. Kimball supposedly writing something similar in another manuscript but since this information was relayed by J. Golden Kimball (Heber’s son) to another person it is a third-hand account.
  9. ↑ Thomas B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (London: Ward, Lock, and Tyler, 1874), 561 n. 2. If Heber C. Kimball was indeed the person who introduced the Adam–God idea to President Brigham Young and (as evidenced in the previous endnote) claimed divine revelation for that knowledge then there was, at the very least, a violation of the order whereby revelation is ordained to be received for the Church. Institutional revelations are never vouchsafed to a counselor in the First Presidency when the President has the capacity to receive them. Only the President of the LDS Church receives revelation for the entire institution. As Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "There is but one [person] at a time who holds the keys and the right to receive revelation for the Church, and that man is the President of the Church. . . .[W]henever [the Lord] has a revelation or commandment to give to His people . . . it will come through the presiding officer of the Church" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999], 1:283–84).
  10. ↑ 5 April 1860, meeting of the Twelve at the Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, cited in Gary J. Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 194. There does not appear to be any rebuttal of this statement from Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or anyone else. On 23 September 1860 Orson Pratt stated with reference to ideas about godhood, "I do not believe as Brother Brigham and Brother Kimball do in some points of doctrine and they do not wish me to acknowledge to a thing that I do not believe" (Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5:507, Salt Lake City, Utah, Historian’s Office).
  11. ↑ Matthew B. Brown, "Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam" (presentation, FairMormon, Sandy, UT, August 2009).
  12. ↑ See, for example, Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308off-site: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."
  13. ↑ Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13 no. 2 (Summer 1980), 7–49.off-site
  14. ↑ Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Improvement Era (September 1902), 873. reprinted in Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Millennial Star 64 no. 50 (11 December 1902), 785–790. (this paragraph from p. 789).
  15. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976): 77.off-site
  16. ↑ Stephen E. Robinson, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation".
  17. ↑ Matthew B. Brown, "Brigham Young’s Teachings on Adam," 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009).
  18. ↑ Arthur A. Bailey, "Adam," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:15–16. direct off-site
  19. ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 167. off-site
  20. ↑ Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, "Ancient of Days," in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 62. ISBN 0802824005.
  21. ↑ N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 2 (Fortress Press, SPCK: London, 1996), kindle location 12747.
  22. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56),98–99.
  23. ↑ Elden Watson, "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God" off-site
  24. ↑ Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?," Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3 (n.p., 1982).off-site
  25. ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6.
  26. ↑ Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993),18–21. off-site FAIR link off-siteGL direct link
  27. ↑ David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness (Smith Research Associates, 1994), pp. 110–13.
  28. ↑ David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 1 (Spring 82), 14–58.


Mormon belief in the deification of Man


Jump to details:


Latter-day Saint views of the Trinity

Summary: A collection of articles that address the Latter-day Saint view of the concept of the Trinity.


Jump to Subtopic:

Early Mormon beliefs regarding the nature of God

Summary: Some evangelical Christians attempt to show that the LDS idea of deification is unbiblical, unchristian and untrue. They seem to think that this doctrine is the main reason why the LDS reject the Psychological Trinity.


Jump to details:


Mormons and the Nicene Creed


Jump to details:


Theodicy: The Problem of Evil

Summary: This page discusses the problem of evil—can one believe in a good, just, loving God when one considers all the suffering and evil in the world?


Jump to Subtopic:

Why would a loving God allow the death of innocents?


Jump to details:


How Latter-day Saints worship God


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormonism and the multiplicity of gods


Jump to Subtopic:

Mormonism and the concept of infinite regress of gods


Jump to details:


Mormons, polytheism and the Nicene Creed

Summary: Some non-LDS Christian claim that Latter-day Saints are polytheists because we don't believe the Nicene Creed. Others say Mormons are polytheists because they believe humans can become gods. Is this an accurate characterization of LDS belief?


Jump to details:


Man's interaction with God


Jump to Subtopic:

Mormonism and biblical statements that no man has seen God

Summary: It is claimed by some that the Bible teaches that God cannot be seen by mortals, and that therefore claims by Joseph Smith and others to have seen God the Father or Jesus Christ must be false. The most commonly used Biblical citation invoked by those who make this assertion is John 1:18, which reads “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”


Jump to details:


Heavenly Mother


Jump to details:


InProgress/TOC

History is "the study of people, actions, decisions, interactions and behaviours."[1] Latter-day Saint history focuses on the people and events related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As we study Latter-day Saint history, we see "what great things the Lord hath done" for those who lived in the past.[2]

To view articles about Latter-day Saint history, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Overview
Accuracy of Church History
Forgeries and folklore


Learn more about Church history
Key sources
FAIR links
  • Davis Bitton, "I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church," Proceedings of the 2004 FAIR Conference (August 2004). link
  • Jeffrey Bradshaw, "Stories of the Saints in the DR Congo," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
  • Elder Craig C. Christensen, "Foundations of Our Faith," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
  • Scott Hales, "'The Exodus and Beyond: A Preview of Saints, Volume 2: No Unhallowed Hand'," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
  • Steve Harper, "Making Saints: A Look into the Writing of the New Church History," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
  • Matthew McBride, "Answering Historical Questions with Church History Topics," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
Online
  • Craig L. Foster, "The Continuing Saga of Saints," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53/6 (23 September 2022). [91–94] link
Video
Primary sources
Navigators
Sub categories

Video by Church Newsroom.

Load video
YouTube
Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ "What Is History," History Today 70, no. 8 (August 2020).
  2. ↑ Title Page of the Book of Mormon.


Mormonism and Christianity


Jump to Subtopic:

<onlyinclude>

Are Latter-day Saints Christians?

Summary: Are Latter-day Saints Christians? Do they worship Jesus Christ? Critics use unnecessarily narrow definitions to deny that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worship and revere Jesus.


Jump to Subtopic:

Evangelical arguments regarding Mormonism and Christianity


Jump to details:


See also: "Mormons" worship a "different Jesus"?


Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ


Jump to details:

Latter-day Saints and the symbol of the cross

Mormon versus Evangelical beliefs regarding grace and works


Jump to details:

Mormonism and the relationship between grace and works


Jump to details:


The Mormon perspective on the relationship between baptism and grace


Jump to details:


Mormonism and the "unforgivable sin"

Summary: Why did LDS apostle Bruce McConkie write that a man may commit a sin so grievous that it will place him beyond the atoning blood of Christ (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 93) when the Bible says that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7)?


Jump to details:


Evangelicals use quotes from Mormon sources to try and paint a picture of an "impossible gospel"


Jump to details:


Criticisms of the Mormon view of Jesus Christ



The "Mormon" and the "Christian" Jesus

Summary: Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation, and that He died for our sins, yet some Evangelicals claim that Latter-day Saints believe in a "different" Jesus than "mainstream" Christians.

Jump to Subtopic:

The attitude of early Mormon leaders toward Christianity

Summary: Some Evangelicals claim that Latter-day Saints have "admitted" that they are not Christian, since LDS leaders spent decades denouncing mainstream Christianity.

Jump to Subtopic:

The Book of Mormon indicates that Christianity existed in the New World prior to the birth of Christ

Summary: The Book of Mormon refers to "Christians" in Alma 46꞉13-16 and Alma 48꞉10. These texts date to approximately 72 BC.

Jump to Subtopic:

Martyrdom in Christian history

Summary: Was Joseph Smith not a martyr because, while in jail, he fought back against those who attacked him?

Jump to Subtopic:

Completeness of the Bible

Summary: Some claim that the Bible contains all necessary or essential knowledge to assure salvation, and that things like modern prophets or additional scripture (such as the Book of Mormon) are unnecessary or even blasphemous.

Jump to Subtopic:


Question: How can a Latter-day Saint approach responding to criticism of the Church on biblical grounds?
Priesthood ban
Native Americans

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Race

Summary: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a complex history with race. Click below to find faithful answers to the questions that have arisen.

Blacks

Indigenous Americans

Sexuality and gender
Marriage and children

Social Issues Affecting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Summary: There are many cultural and social issues that affect members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The following pages answer the various questions that have been presented.



Mormonism and the determination of truth


Jump to Subtopic:


Latter-day Saint approaches to science


Jump to Subtopic:

  1. REDIRECTCreation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo)

Astronomy and the Book of Abraham

Summary: The Book of Abraham makes several references to astronomy which draw criticism. These articles address specific issues related to Book of Abraham astronomical concepts.


Jump to Subtopic:


Book of Mormon archaeology


Jump to Subtopic:


DNA and the Book of Mormon


Jump to details:


Latter-day Saint attitudes toward science


Jump to Subtopic:

Joseph Fielding Smith's statements that men would never walk on the moon


Jump to details:


Articles about Brigham Young
Teachings
History
Race
Critics

Did Brigham Young actually teach that the sun and the moon were inhabited?

Brigham Young speculated that the moon and sun were inhabited: he was clearly expressing an opinion

Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited,

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is clearly expressing an opinion, and there is no evidence that he is making a prophetic declaration concerning extraterrestrials. He even goes out of his way to indicate that this is what he "rather think[s]," and asks his congregation to consider what they think. He also says that he would want to know if an idea he has is false—even including his religion. These are not the sentiments of a man convinced he must be right by divine gift of prophetic omniscience.

It is particularly ironic that Brigham's remarks were focused on the fact that no one knows much about anything, and so humility is appropriate on most questions. Critics have taken this wise stance, and have tried to invert Brigham's intent—changing him from an advocate of humility before the unknown into a doctrinaire know-nothing who is certain of absurdities. The critics might do well do follow Brigham's example.

Brigham Young made the following statement in 1869:[1]

It has been observed here this morning that we are called fanatics. Bless me! That is nothing. Who has not been called a fanatic who has discovered anything new in philosophy or science? We have all read of Galileo the astronomer who, contrary to the system of astronomy that had been received for ages before his day, taught that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of our planetary system? For this the learned astronomer was called "fanatic," and subjected to persecution and imprisonment of the most rigorous character. So it has been with others who have discovered and explained new truths in science and philosophy which have been in opposition to long-established theories; and the opposition they have encountered has endured until the truth of their discoveries has been demonstrated by time...

I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us.

The context for Brigham's remarks, then, are that new ideas and truths are often mocked or rejected by those who cling to older ideas. And, were he to have such an idea, he would want to know.

He then says:

We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.

Brigham goes on to speak about inhabitants of the moon. In context, his point is clearly that no one;—even experts—knows very much about the universe. There are many things (such as whether the moon is inhabited) about which no one of his day could speak clearly.

It then becomes very clear that Brigham is expressing his personal views, not laying down divine truth from on high

So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.

Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is irrational. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.[2] One author wrote:

Herschel was not a raving amateur. A gifted astronomer, he discovered Uranus, and was the first to realize that sunlight included infrared light as well as visible light. His sister, Caroline, became famous in her own right for discovering comets, so he did not lack for intelligent conversation. He just had his own theories. Herschel believed that life existed on every celestial body in the universe. He was aware that the sun people saw was too hot to support life. He just assumed there was something underneath that burning atmosphere. When he observed sunspots, he believed that they were openings in the atmosphere, or perhaps mountains, and that if people could get a close look at the planet beneath, they would be able to spot signs of life. Herschel was not alone in his beliefs - as more information on the sun turned up, astronomers speculated on how it would affect life on the surface of the sun, and what kind of life might survive in those environments.[3]

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter

Church publications did not shy away from embracing later scientific findings on the matter:

1856

Desert News noted:

Proof that the Moon is not Inhabited.

"Dr. Scoresby, in an account that he has given of some recent observations made with the Earl of Rosse’s telescope, says: ‘With respect to the moon, every object on its surface of 100 feet was distinctly to be seen; and he had no doubt that, under very favorable circumstances, it would be so with objects 60 feet in height…. But no vestiges of architecture remain to show that the moon, is, or ever was, inhabited by a race of mortals similar to ourselves….. There was no water visible…."[4]

1880

"As there is no air nor water on the moon, but very few changes can take place upon its surface. There can be no vegetation and no animals, and although many astronomers have brought their imaginations to bear upon this subject, and have given us descriptions of the beautiful scenery upon its surface, and have even peopled it with inhabitants, we have every reason to believe that it is as barren and lifeless as an arid rock."[5]

Joseph Smith and Moon Quakers?

Summary: A late third-hand account attributes a similar idea to Joseph Smith.
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Did Brigham Young claim that too much education was damaging to children?

Brigham was giving instruction on the building of schools

Brigham said:

Concerning the Education of Children I will say that not withstanding the drivings of this people I do not believe that you can go into any City in the world & pick up 100 Children promiscusly and put them by the side of our Children that are as well educated as the same number of our Children gathered up promiscusly in the Territory of Utah. There are some people & Countries who force & whip their Children into an Education but we should never Croud & force the minds of our Children beyond what they are able to bear. If we do we ruin them for life. I would rather my children would spend their Early life sliding down Hill, skating, riding Horses till they were 20 years old & not go to school one day than to clog & force the mind while young with intricate studies. It strains & cripples the mind for life & ruins the man. You never see a child that is Confined while young to Close rooms & hard study & followed up to manhood that ever becomes a master spirit or qualifyed to transact difficult business in after life (emphasis added).

Brigham was highly in favor of education; he was not, however, in favor of "whipping," "forcing" or "confining" young minds and bodies "beyond what they are able to bear"

In this sense, he was well in line with what educational thinkers and reformers of the 19th century were saying:

...as the historian Kenneth Gold has pointed out, the early educational reformers were also tremendously concerned that children not get too much schooling. In 1871, for example, the US commissioner of education published a report by Edward Jarvis on the "Relation of Education to Insanity." Jarvis had studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that "over-study" was responsible for 205 of them. "Education lays the foundation of a large portion of the causes of mental disorder," Jarvis wrote. Similarly, the pioneer of public education in Massachusetts, Horace Mann, believed that working students too hard would create a "most pernicious influence upon character and habits....Not infrequently is health itself destroyed by over-stimulating the mind." In the education journals of the day, there were constant worries about overtaxing students or blunting their natural abilities through too much schoolwork.

The reformers, Gold writes:

strove for ways to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury. Hence the elimination of Saturday classes, the shortening of the school day, and the lengthening of vacation—all of which occurred over the course of the nineteenth century. Teachers were cautioned that 'when [students] are required to study, their bodies should not be exhausted by long confinement, nor their minds bewildered by prolonged application.' Rest also presented particular opportunities for strengthening cognitive and analytical skills. As one contributor to the Massachusetts Teacher suggested, 'it is when thus relieved from the state of tension belonging to actual study that boys and girls, as well as men and women, acquire the habit of thought and reflection, and of forming their own conclusions, independently of what they are taught and the authority of others."[6]

For an extensive analysis of Brigham's positive views on education, see Hugh W. Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (Vol. 13 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Don E. Norton, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994), chapter 15-16. ISBN 0875798187. direct off-site direct off-site

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Brigham Young, "The Gospel—The One-Man Power," (24 July 1870) Journal of Discourses 13:270.
  2. ↑ "...in 1795 [Herschel] published one of his most extraordinary papers, 'On the Nature and Construction of the sun', with the Royal Society, suggesting that the sun had a cool, solid interior and was inhabited by intelligent beings." [Richard Holmes, The Age of Wonder (London: Harper Press, 2008), 199.]
  3. ↑ Esther Inglis-Arkell, "Astronomers once thought there was life on the sun," io9. (20 December 2013)
  4. ↑ Deseret News 6 (1856): 134d.
  5. ↑ ‘Quebec,’ "The Moon", Contributor 1/9 (June 1880): 193-5, from page 195
  6. ↑ Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2008), 253–254.


Mormonism and education: Modern perspectives


Jump to details:


Utah statistical claims and charges

Summary: This page indexes attacks and criticism of the Church based upon statistical analysis.


Jump to Subtopic:


Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon

Does the Church teach that the flood was a global event?

File:The Deluge-Dirck Vellert-1544-Public Domain.jpg
"The Deluge," engraving by Dirck Vellert (1544), public domain image from Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Church leaders typically treat the flood as global

Church leaders typically treat the flood as global. The challenge comes when Genesis is read as a scientific account. This reading is then contrasted with modern scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the complete lack of evidence for a global flood in the geological or archaeological record.

The concept of a spherical earth did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century

The concept of a spherical earth "did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century." [1]:30 The word "earth," as used in the Bible, simply refers to solid ground or land, as opposed to water (see Genesis 1:10—"God called the dry land Earth; and...the waters called he Seas...."). It is, of course, possible that earlier prophets had a more advanced view of the nature of the earth—this perspective could, however, have been lost to later centuries and scribes.

Related article:How did ancient Israel picture the world and the universe?
Summary: A spherical earth with stars and planets was not how Israel understood the world. Instead, they saw it as a flat disc, with an underworld beneath, and a rigid dome over top for the heavens.

Some read these scriptures as describing the point of view of ancient prophets to whom the flood appeared global.

Genesis 7꞉19-23 reads:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

For those who approach the matter in this way, the primary reason for seeing the flood as global comes from the word "earth." When modern readers see the word "earth," they envision the entire planetary sphere. Dr. Duane E. Jeffery elaborates:

A critical issue in the Flood story in the King James Bible has to do with translations of the Hebrew words eretz and adamah as meaning the entire "earth." What do these terms actually mean? It is widely recognized that Hebrew is a wonderful language for poets, since virtually every word has multiple meanings. But that same characteristic makes it a horrible language for precision. As it turns out, eretz and adamah can indeed be a geographical reference akin to what we usually mean by "the earth." But it is not at all clear that the ancients had the concept of a spherical planet that you and I do. Many scholars argue that the Bible writers thought in terms of a flat earth that was covered by a bowl-shaped firmament into which the windows of heaven were literally cut[1]:31-32

Jeffrey goes on to note that ideas of a global flood may have resulted from a widespread local problem. A current hypothesis that has been gaining ground since 1998 is that a significant flooding event occurred in the area now occupied by the Black Sea. Evidence has been discovered which has led a number of researchers to believe that the Black Sea area was once occupied by a completely isolated freshwater lake at a much lower level than the ocean. The theory is that the sea level rose and eventually broke through the Bosporus shelf, resulting in a rapid flooding event which would have wiped out all life living along the shores of the lake (see p. 34). Whether this is the source for the Genesis flood remains conjecture.

Thus, with this reading the prophets said and meant "the enitre world" but they had a quite different view of what the whole world entailed than we would.

What is genre?

The difficulty with the above, however, is that it reads ancient scripture to address questions that the scripture was probably never meant to address.

Those who study biblical and other texts often talk about the genre of a piece of writing. Genre describes the type of writing that is being studied.

One genre is history; another genre is fiction; another genre is poetry. Readers usually know what genre they are reading, and they adjust their expectations and their way of reading accordingly.

For example, if someone thought that the Lord of the Rings was in the history genre, they might consider it a terribly deceptive work. It describes events and powers for which we have no other evidence. If, however, the reader understands that its genre is fantasy fiction, then the reader expects different things.

Walter Moberly said:

You cannot put good questions and expect fruitful answers from a text apart from a grasp of the kind of material it is in the first place; misjudge the genre, and you may skew many of the things you try to do with the text.[2]

(The 1999 movie Galaxy Quest plays on this idea of mistaken genre—a group of aliens mistake the genre of a Star Trek-like television show. They refer to the show as "historical documents," and believe that the actors really are spacefarers on a spaceship.[3] This is an error of genre, and much of the movie's humor and plot is driven by the contrasts between the expectations of adventure fiction versus historical reality.)

What is "concordism"?

Modern Church leaders and members have sometimes read the flood story in the genre of what we might call "scientific history"—that is, they read it as a technical description of physical realities in a scientific context. This assumption is called concordism: "assumption that scripture is speaking in scientific terms, and therefore to be true and inspired, it has to match what science says."[4]

This assumption could be true—but it is an assumption, not an obvious truth as some treat it. (And, we must ask—since science in any form didn't really exist until the 1600s, and our modern science didn't really get going until the 1800s, why did God speak to ancient peoples in a form completely foreign to them? "[T]hese things were not in the mind of the authors of Genesis. That was not the audience, or the genre, or the spiritual needs they were speaking to."[4])

As John Walton, an evangelical bible scholar put it:

When we approach a text, we must be able to set our presuppositions off to the side as much as possible so that we do not impose them onto the text. It is not wrong to have presuppositions, but it is important to have a realistic grasp of what our presuppositions are so that we can assess their impact on our interpretation. Some of the traditions we carry as baggage are blind presuppositions…. We don’t even realize that they are imported into the text, and we must evaluate their relevance and truth rather than assume them to be accurate.[5]

What is the genre of the flood story?

File:The Deluch-Valentin Bousch-1531.png
'The Deluge' {1531), a stained glass window from Benedictine priory church of Saint-Firmin in Flavigny-sur-Moselle, Lorraine, France.

So maybe we have the genre wrong. What if we are like the aliens who think Star Trek is science fact, not science fiction?

If ... you compare Genesis to other ancient Near Eastern creation and flood stories on the left side, Genesis looks very, very different. It makes a lot more sense and there’s much less conflict. This essentially establishes that comparing Genesis with science is comparing apples and oranges. It’s not a legitimate comparison to begin with, because it’s based on unjustified and anachronistic concordist assumptions.[4]

As it happens, "flood story" is a genre all of its own. The people who wrote and the people who heard the Old Testament had friends and neighbors with flood stories.

Every serious student of the Bible knows that there are other flood stories from the ancient Near East, particularly from ancient Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria.l What is disputed is not the existence and relevance of these ancient flood accounts but rather their significance and relationship to the biblical story. ...

The general contours of the flood story as we hear it in the Eridu Genesis, Atrahasis, and the Gilgamesh Epic are very similar. Due to displeasure with humans, the divine realm decides to bring a flood against them to destroy them. In each case, the divine realm chooses one individual (Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Uta-napishti, Noah) to save by warning them of the coming flood and instructing them to build an ark. While the shape of the arks in the various stories differs, remarkably the floor space of the arks is nearly identical.1 After building the ark, the flood hero and others (family and in some cases even more people) as well as animals enter the ark. The flood waters rise and finally ebb to the point that the ark comes to rest. ...

As we begin, the reader should not jump to the conclusion that the identification of similarities suggests that the biblical author has borrowed information directly from the Mesopotamian accounts. Everyone in the ancient world knows there was a flood (just like everyone today knows there was a Holocaust). It is in the cultural river. The question is, what was God up to? Why did he send it? On this point, different texts may offer vastly different interpretations.[6]:53, 61-62

How does the message of the biblical flood story differ from that of the pagan cultures that surrounded it?

Walton continues:

The gods in the [Ancient Near East] were motivated by what can be called the "Great Symbiosis." ... [that is,] the gods created people because they were tired of the work involved to meet their own needs. Gods needed food, housing, clothing, and so on, but they did not want to work for it. Once people were created to serve in this way, it becomes necessary for the gods to provide for people (if there is no rain, crops cannot grow and the gods cannot be fed) and protect them (if they are being harried by invaders who steal their food or burn their crops, the gods cannot be cared for). Throughout the literature of the ancient world, we learn it is the mandate to provide for the gods that stands as the principal feature of their religious practice. Performance equals piety. Offense is failure to meet the needs of the gods. The result is codependence.

Not surprisingly, the Mesopotamian interpretation of the flood is based on the premise of this Great Symbiosis. The gods have not created people for relationship (as Yahweh [Jehovah] had done). The gods live among the people (in temples) so that the people can meet their needs, but they don't really like people—they need people. Yahweh, in contrast, has no needs and actually desires relationship. ...

The Great Symbiosis is consistently refuted in the Old Testament and has no role in the interpretation of the flood. In the Mesopotamian flood account the Great Symbiosis explains the actions of the gods at every turn. For them, the operation of the Great Symbiosis is the basis for order in the world. In the interpretation offered in Genesis, disruption of order is the driving idea, but order from the biblical standpoint has nothing to do with the Great Symbiosis. ... [6]:65-66

Instead of being about meeting the gods' needs, in the bible the flood occurs because of human violence and wickedness. Human behavior is preventing the covenant relationship that Yahweh/Jehovah wants to have with them.

This demonstrates how culture and genre should influence how we read scriptural texts:

Another way to think about the similarities and differences is to acknowledge that the Israelites are embedded in an ancient Near Eastern culture and that God speaks to them there. God gives them revelation that transcends the culture, but he speaks to them within the culture. This is not a matter of imposing the ancient Near East on the Bible (the Bible is an ANE literary document); rather, it involves the acknowledgment that they are within the ancient Near East. It's our responsibility to understand the flood story within its original context ...[6]:87-88

This idea should be a comfortable one for Latter-day Saints, since modern revelation insists that God speaks in the language and thought forms of his people. In the introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants (a book of modern revelation) the Lord says:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time (D&C 1꞉24-28 (emphasis added)).

In a sense, we might say that God always has to "dumb things down" for us! He speaks in our own language and way so we can understand, just as he spoke to ancient Israelites or ancient Nephites in their culture and language so they would understand.

Our mistake comes when we try to read texts written for them through our culture and language, rather than theirs.

What else can ancient near eastern culture teach us about the flood story?

In the Ancient Near East the world was understood to have been organized by God (or the gods) out of chaos. And chaos was represented by great roiling waters:

This particular judgment [the Flood] is so devastating that it has even been described as an act of uncreation. Going back to the very opening of Genesis, we read: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty [tohu wabohu], darkness was over the surface of the deep" (1:1-2). Before God brought the earth into functional order, it was "formless and empty." It is likely, if not certain, the author intends for us to think of the earth as undifferentiated water. From this formless and empty watery mass God creates a functional and livable earth. The flood, then, is a reversion to the watery mass, a tohu wabohu state. The pattern we have identified also explains the abundance of intertextual allusions in Genesis 9꞉1 and Genesis 1–2 as well as Genesis 9꞉18-29. We observe, then, that one way of reading Genesis 1–9 is along the lines of creation—uncreation—re-creation.[6]:103

For an ancient Israelite, then, the Flood story describes the destruction of God's ordered, created world because of human sin. The world can no longer fulfill its purpose as things stand. ("This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man," [Moses 1꞉39].) A world everywhere full of sin, violence, and rebellion cannot fulfill God's purposes to exalt his children through a covenant relationship.

The Flood is a demonstration of God reestablishing the purpose and order of the world:

Genesis 1–11 is interested in tracking the issue of nonorder, order, and disorder. In this View, the flood account focuses more on how God is reestablishing a modicum of order in the world as he uses nonorder (the cosmic waters) to obliterate disorder (evil and violence). Of course, the flood does not totally obliterate disorder, as God acknowledges in Genesis 8꞉21. But it resets the ordering process, and God indicates that the established order will not again be reset by a flood (Genesis 8꞉21). This view focuses attention on God's continuing plan to establish order (present and future oriented) beyond the act of judging sin (past oriented), though both are legitimate perspectives. ...

When we interpret events like the flood, we should treat the event as we do with a character. What the narrator does with the flood is more important than what the flood does, and what God does through the flood is most important of all. If this is so, then we need to articulate persuasively what the narrator and God are doing through the flood.[6]:94-95

Does the New Testament tell us anything that can help?

Jesus uses the Flood account to give a similar sort of message. He is probably not particularly worried that his audience understand that the entire globe was submerged by water. That is not what they would have thought about. Instead, Jesus uses the Flood as an example of God's purposes for his children again being fulfilled—through him:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24꞉37-39)

The New Testament thus adopts the flood story as an illustration of the truth that our God is a God who judges sin. He does not tolerate disobedience, since he understands our propensity to promote ourselves above himself does not lead to our flourishing but to our detriment. In this it is used as an archetypal narrative for future eschatological judgment.[6]:98

Just as the Flood was God's way of reestablishing his purposes for the earth and his children, so Jesus' return in glory will likewise sweep away the things in the world that prevent the full blessing and exaltation of God's children.

What does the Flood story show us happening after the Flood?

If we agree that the Flood is about reestablishing God's purposes, then it is not surprising to see that the Flood is immediately followed by covenants:

The term covenant (berit) appears for the first time in connection with Noah. A covenant, as the English translation rightly implies, is a formal agreement between two parties. In this covenant, God commits himself to the continuance of the world and its inhabitants. Though the words are directed to Noah and his sons, that commitment is given not only to them but to all the creation and its creatures. They don't have to live in fear that God will periodically bring the creation to an end. ... Because this covenant is the first one explicitly mentioned in Scripture, the rainbow is the first sign of a covenant. Later we will see that circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17꞉9-14), the sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 31꞉12-18), and the Lord's Supper is the sign of the new covenant (Luke 22꞉20). These signs are like brands. They serve as a reminder to the covenant partners of the relationship established between them.[6]:104-105

Doesn't the Bible say that the continents were divided immediately after the Flood?

The Church does not take an official position on this issue

Statements about matters about which there is no official doctrine
J. Reuben Clark
This is one of many issues about which the Church has no official position. As President J. Reuben Clark taught under assignment from the First Presidency:
Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church....
When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.
Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.[7]
Harold B. Lee
Harold B. Lee was emphatic that only one person can speak for the Church:
All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."
I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.[8]
First Presidency
This was recently reiterated by the First Presidency (who now approves all statements published on the Church's official website):
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency...and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles...counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.[9]

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:

Question 14: Do you believe that the President of the Church, when speaking to the Church in his official capacity is infallible?
Answer: We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President of the Church has claimed infallibility.[10]
There is more material on official doctrine in the Church in this link.
References
Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Duane E. Jeffery, "Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions," Sunstone no. (Issue #134) (October 2004). off-site
  2. ↑ Walter Moberly, "How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis" in Reading Genesis after Darwin (Oxford Press, 2009), 5; cited by Ben Spackman, "'Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution'," Proceedings of the 2021 FAIR Conference (August 2021). link
  3. ↑ David Howard and Robert Gordon, Galaxy Quest (DreamWorks Pictures, 1999)
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Ben Spackman, "'Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution'," Proceedings of the 2021 FAIR Conference (August 2021). link
  5. ↑ John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, (Zondervan, 2001): 318; cited by Ben Spackman, "'Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis'," Proceedings of the 2017 FAIR Conference (August 2017). link
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (IVP Academic, 2018).
  7. ↑ J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures," [original title "When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?"] Immortality and Eternal Life: Reflections from the Writings and Messages of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Vol, 2, (1969-70): 221; address to Seminary and Institute Teachers, BYU (7 July 1954); reproduced in Church News (31 July 1954); also reprinted in Dialogue 12/2 (Summer 1979): 68–81.
  8. ↑ Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 445.
  9. ↑ LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007)
  10. ↑ Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912).


Some Latter-day Saint thinkers have understood the matter as referring to the sudden separation of the continents in a catastrophic event. Others have regarded this as a misunderstanding of the text

The Church has no official position, and it does not play much of a role in LDS thought or discourse.

Genesis 10꞉25 contains a passing reference to man called Peleg, who received his name because "in his days was the earth divided". The Hebrew verb פלג (palag) means "separate" or "divide." And, in Psalms 55꞉9 it refers specifically to a division of languages.

Some Latter-day Saints have interpreted this passage with extreme literalness

Some Latter-day Saints have interpreted this passage with extreme literalness, believing that the earth's tectonic plates, which were once a single land mass, all separated into the continents we know today during the life of a single mortal, instead of over hundreds of millions of years as scientists have theorized. Two of these were Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.

At least a few leaders of the Church have been of this view that the continents were divided during or after the Flood

Prominently, prior to becoming president of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that

in the beginning all of the land surface was in one place as it was in the days of Peleg, (Genesis 10:25.) that the earth was divided. Some Bible commentators have concluded that this division was one concerning the migrations of the inhabitants of the earth between them, but this is not the case. While this is but a very brief statement, yet it speaks of a most important event. The dividing of the earth was not an act of division by the inhabitants of the earth by tribes and peoples, but a breaking asunder of the continents, thus dividing the land surface and creating the Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere.[1]

John Taylor also expressed similar views, albeit more briefly.[2] It is perhaps important to note that then-Elder Smith wrote that "By looking at a wall map of the world, you will discover how the land surface along the northern and southern coast of the American Hemisphere and Europe and Africa has the appearance of having been together at one time." [3] Elder Smith was writing between 1953 and 1966; modern continental drift theory was only beginning to gain acceptance during this period (even by 1977, a geology textbook would note that "a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift," while also providing a substantial critique of the theory.[4]

Here again, however, we are at risk of mistaking genre. Elder Smith was reading with modern concerns and preoccupations.

What if we again tried to read as someone in the ancient near east might read?

Scriptures that refer to the earth being "divided" refer to groups of people being separated

A few scriptures, then, refer to the earth being divided:

Genesis 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.
D&C 133꞉24: And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

What do these extensive genealogies at this point in the story tell us?

In perhaps the most important study of Old Testament genealogies in the light of ANE analogues, Robert R. Wilson concluded that

genealogies are not normally created for historical purposes. They are not intended to be strictly historical records. Rather in the Bible, as well as in the ancient Near Eastern literature and in the anthropological material, genealogies seem to have been created for domestic, political- jural, and religious purposes, and historical information is preserved in the genealogies only incidentally.

They are designed to give people an understanding of their identity. ... [G]enealogies, while including lists of real people in a real past, are first and foremost making theological statements ... .

After the flood, humans continue to sin (Genesis 11꞉21-29). People unite to build a city and a tower that offends God ...

God thus initiates a new strategy of carrying out his plans and purposes beginning with this one man and his wife, Sarah; through their descendants he will reach the world in order to restore blessing on his human creatures.

Notice the dramatic change in the narrative at this point. Whereas the primeval narrative covers the whole world over what must be an incredibly long period of time, now the focus in the second part, the patriarchal narratives, focuses on one individual— Abraham, then Jacob, then Joseph—and devotes considerable narrative space to a relatively short period of time. We observe that such a shift signals a more intense interest in the details of the events associated with the patriarchs as founding figures of the people of God.[5]:104-105, 110

There is no serious biblical scholarship that reads these verses as implying a rapid drift of the continents

The verses in Genesis and 1 Chronicles are describing the descendants of Shem. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley viewed Genesis 10꞉25 (which says that in the days of Peleg "the earth was divided") as meaning "the earth was divided among the children of Noah."[6] There is no serious biblical scholarship that reads these verses as implying a rapid drift of the continents—partly because such an idea would have been utterly foreign to writers in that time period.

Additional problems

If we read outside of genre and try to turn this into a scientific account, we run into enormous absurdities. Some conclude that this means the bible must be false, but instead it means they are making a genre mistake.

In the December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, 1,000 miles of fault line slipped 50 feet, resulting in a 9.3-magnitude earthquake that created seismic sea waves up to 100 feet high. These tsunamis caused the deaths of nearly 230,000 people. The amount of force required to move the major continents thousands of miles apart in the lifetime of a single individual would cause much worse devastation, a global catastrophe on an unimaginable scale.

Thus, to accomplish this without a divine miracle which hid all trace of such an event would be extraordinarily unlikely. But, such a miracle cannot be proven or identified by science or observation.

Those who choose to believe that this is what happen can only rely on faith.

Conclusion—Peleg

If the division is instead one of language, then D&C 133꞉22–23 would refer to the return to a time when languages no longer divide humankind. This will take place during the 1,000 years of peace when the Savior reigns.

Such a return to unity might also symbolize the passing of all the temporary, petty, and earthly matters which alienate humans from each other.

This seems a far more important idea, and a far more likely issue to discuss with bronze age Israelites, than continental drift.

Learn more about evolution and creation
Key sources
Church—official stance
FAIR links
  • Trent Stephens, "Evolution and Latter-day Saint Theology: The Tree of Life and DNA," Proceedings of the 2003 FAIR Conference (August 2003). link
  • Ugo Perego, "What does the Church believe about evolution?," Proceedings of the 2017 FAIR Conference (August 2017). link
  • Ben Spackman, "'Through a Glass, Less Darkly: The 20th Century History of Genesis and Evolution'," Proceedings of the 2021 FAIR Conference (August 2021). link
  • Ben Spackman, "'Truth, Scripture, and Interpretation: Some Precursors to Reading Genesis'," Proceedings of the 2017 FAIR Conference (August 2017). link
  • Ben Spackman, "A Paradoxical Preservation of Faith: LDS Creation Accounts and the Composite Nature of Revelation," Proceedings of the 2019 FAIR Conference (August 2019). link
Online
  • A. Kent Christiansen, webpage with letter to and from David O. McKay on subject of Church's official position. off-site
  • Eyring-L FAQ: Evolution off-site
  • Robert R. Bennett, "'Science vs. Mormonism: The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading, Review of Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms with Mormonism and Science by Duwayne R. Anderson'," FARMS Review 18/2 (2006). [1–43] link
  • Clayton M. White and Mark D. Thomas, "On Balancing Faith in Mormonism with Traditional Biblical Stories: The Noachian Flood," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 40 no. 3 (Fall 2007), 85–110. PDF link
  • Duane E. Jeffery [Jeffrey in original], "Seers, Savants and Evolution: The Uncomfortable Interface," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 no. 3–4 (Autumn/Winter 1973), 41–69.off-site PDF link
  • Edward L. Kimball, "A Dialogue with Henry Eyring," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 no. 3–4 (Autumn/Winter 1973), 99–108.off-site
  • Jeffrey E. Keller, "Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 1 (Spring 1982), 79–98.off-site
  • Michael R. Ash, "The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35 no. 4 (Winter 2002), 19–38. PDF link
  • Richard E. Sherlock and Jeffrey E. Keller, "'We Can See No Advantage to a Continuation of the Discussion': The Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13 no. 3 (Fall 1980), 63–78.off-site
  • Richard F. Haglund, Jr., "Science and Religion: A Symbiosis," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8 no. 3–4 (Autumn/Winter 1973), 23–37.off-site
  • William Lee Stokes, "An Official Position," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 12 no. 3 (Winter 1979), 90–92.off-site
  • Morris S. Petersen, "Do we know how the earth’s history as indicated from fossils fits with the earth’s history as the scriptures present it?," Ensign (September 1987): 27.off-site
  • Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign 19 (January 1989): 27. off-site
  • James L. Farmer, "'The Clockmaker Returns, A Review of The Case for Divine Design: Cells, Complexity, and Creation by Frank Salisbury'," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008). [139–146] link
  • David M. Belnap, "The Theory of Evolution is Compatible with Both Belief and Unbelief in a Supreme Being," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16/12 (4 September 2015). [261–282] link
  • David H. Bailey and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "Science and Mormonism," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19/2 (4 March 2016). [17–38] link
  • Gregory L. Smith, "'Endless Forms Most Beautiful': The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 6/9 (23 August 2013). [105–164] link
  • Gregory L. Smith, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful”: The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship6(2013): 105-163.
  • Richard Sherlock, "A Turbulent Spectrum: Mormon Reactions to the Darwinist Legacy," Journal of Mormon History 5:1 (1978): 19–32.off-site
  • Frank B. Salisbury, "Creation by Evolution? Review of Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding by Trent D. Stephens," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006). [313–319] link
  • Frank B. Salisbury, "'The Church and Evolution: A Brief History of Official Statements, Review of Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements by William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery'," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006). [307–311] link
  • Richard Sherlock, "Mormonism and Intelligent Design," FARMS Review 18/2 (2006). [45–81] link
  • Michael F. Whiting, "'Lamarck, Giraffes, and the Sermon on the Mount (Review of Using the Book of Mormon to Combat Falsehoods in Organic Evolution by Clark A. Peterson)'," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993). [209–222] link
Video
Load video
YouTube

  • "The great flood," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Print
  • Steven Peck, Why the Lamanite-DNA Question is Irrelevant (and why this means you should believe in evolution) (Blog entry)
  • Boyd K. Packer, "The Law and the Light," in Jacob through Words of Mormon: to Learn with Joy: papers from the Fourth Annual Book of Mormon Symposium, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, distributed by Bookcraft, 1990), {{{pages}}} [1–31]. ISBN 0884947343. ISBN 978-0884947349. GL direct link
  • Trent D. Stephens, D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Forrest B. Peterson, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2001), 1. ISBN 1560851422.
  • William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffrey, Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements (Draper, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 1. ISBN 1589580931. off-site
  • Duane E. Jeffery, "Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions," Sunstone no. (Issue #134) (October 2004), 27–45. off-site
Navigators
Sub categories

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 5:73. ISBN 1573454400. GospeLink
  2. ↑ John Taylor, Government of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1852), 110.off-site
  3. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1957–1966), 5:73. ISBN 1573454400. GospeLink For essentially the same argument, see also 4:22; Church History and Modern Revelation (1947), 2:35; and Man: His Origin and Destiny (1954), 385, 421–422. Note that these sources are all even earlier, and likewise predate modern continental drift data and theory. President David O. McKay was clear on multiple occasions that the latter volume represented only President Smith's personal opinions, and were not Church doctrine (see here and here).
  4. ↑ Richard A. Davis, Principles of Oceanography, 2nd edition, (Addison-Wesley, 1977), ISBN 0201014645. For more on continental drift theory's history and development, see wikipedia.org off-site.
  5. ↑ Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (IVP Academic, 2018).
  6. ↑ [citation needed]




InProgress/TOC

Latter-day Saints believe that there are other worlds in the universe on which intelligent life exists. Further, this intelligent life looks like us. However, there are no teachings on whether or not this intelligent life has visited earth in spaceships.

The Lord told Moses, "Worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. . . . For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man. . . . And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words."[1]

From these verses we learn that God has created many worlds, some of which have "passed away" and some of which "now stand." These worlds are referred to as an earth with heavens, which is the exact phrasing God applies to Earth.[2] We learn from the prophet Enoch that these other worlds are like Earth: "Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations."[3] We learn from Joseph Smith that these other worlds have inhabitants[4] and that these inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God.[5] Joseph Smith also taught that some individuals who lived on Earth did not die; rather, their bodies were changed so they could be "ministring Angels Unto many planets."[6]

As summarized by President Joseph Fielding Smith, "We know that our Heavenly Father is a glorified, exalted personage who has all power, all might, and all dominion, and that he knows all things. We testify that he, through his Only Begotten Son, is the Creator of this earth and of worlds without number, all of which are peopled by his spirit children."[7] As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, "How many planets are there in the universe with people on them? We don’t know, but we are not alone in the universe! God is not the God of only one planet!"[8]

Astronomy research continues to advance in identifying habitable worlds. Scientist and Latter-day Saint Jani Radebaugh noted:

New details about [astronomical] bodies in the outer solar system . . . have helped open our minds to the possibilities of other worlds with life in our galaxy and in the universe. . . . Recently, the National Academy of Sciences came out with a report that suggested that there might be as many as nine billion habitable planets in our own galaxy alone. Another way of saying this is that there are more habitable planets in our galaxy than there are people on Earth. (Of course, this doesn't mean they're actually inhabited, only that they're habitable.) As Latter-day Saints, this should not surprise us too much. We should be able to look at these big numbers and say, "Well, we should have seen this coming because God already told us there were inhabited worlds without number" (see D&C 76:24; Moses 1:33).[9]

However, the extent of our knowledge about intelligent life on other worlds is that such life exists. Elder Neal A. Maxwell noted, "We do not know where or how many other inhabited planets there are, even though we appear to be alone in our own solar system. As to the Lord's continuing role amid His vast creations, so little has been revealed."[10]

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Moses 1:33, 35, 38.
  2. ↑ Moses 1:35–36.
  3. ↑ Moses 7:30.
  4. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 88:42–47, 61.
  5. ↑ Doctrine and Covenants 76:24.
  6. ↑ "Instruction on Priesthood, circa 5 October 1840," page 7, josephsmithpapers.org.
  7. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, "Out of the Darkness," April 1971 general conference.
  8. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, in "Special Witnesses of Christ," Ensign, April 2001.
  9. ↑ Jani Radebaugh, "The Outer Solar System: A Window to the Creative Breadth of Divinity," in Science and Mormonism 1: Cosmos, Earth, and Man, ed. David H. Bailey, et al. (The Interpreter Foundation and Eborn Books, 2016), 314.
  10. ↑ Neal A. Maxwell, "Our Creator's Cosmos," address given at the Church Educational System annual conference, 13 August 2002, in Sarah Jane Weaver, "‘Our Creator’s Cosmos’ — vast, personal," Church News, 17 August 2002.


Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Mormonism and education

Summary: Does the Church Educational System (CES) insist that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning? Does the level of activity in the Church decrease as educational level increases?


Jump to Subtopic:

Mormon responses to atheism

Summary: These articles give different responses to criticisms of Latter-day Saint theology from the standpoint of religious skepticism, agnosticism, and atheism.


Jump to Subtopic:

The Latter-day Saint Response to W.K. Clifford on Epistemic Responsibility

Summary: This article gives an overview of English mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford's contribution of epistemic responsibility within the philosophy of religion, ethics, and epistemology as well as the Latter-day Saint response to it.


Jump to details:


Advantages of Latter-day Saint Theology in Philosophy


Jump to details:

Subjective revelation

Summary: Critics complain that the LDS appeal to "revelation" or a "burning in the bosom" is subjective, emotion-based, and thus unreliable and susceptible to self-deception. Sectarian critics also belittle appeals to spiritual experiences, comparing them to "warm fuzzies," or merely something "felt by simply watching a Hollywood movie."

Jump to Subtopic:

Atheism


Mormonism and culture


Jump to Subtopic:

Reviews of presentations related to Mormonism and culture


Jump to details:


The attitude of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") toward others who are not of their faith


Jump to details:


Cultural priorities in Mormonism


Jump to details:


Cultural biases


Jump to details:


Mormonism and persecution


Jump to Subtopic:

The Danites

Summary: The Danites were a brotherhood of church members that formed in Far West, Missouri in mid-1838. By this point in time, the Saints had experienced serious persecution, having been driven out of Kirtland by apostates, and driven out of Jackson County by mobs. It is claimed that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon supported the formation of a vigilante band called the “Danites," and that the Danites were pledged to “plunder, lie, and even kill if deemed necessary."


Jump to details:


Mormonism and politics


Jump to Subtopic:

Mormonism and involvement in politics


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormon involvement in 19th Century politics


Jump to Subtopic:



Latter-day Saint (Mormon) ordinances


Jump to Subtopic:

Baptism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons")


Jump to Subtopic:


Overview of baptism for the dead


Jump to details:


Modern and ancient temple rituals

Summary: Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum.


Jump to details:


Mormonism and marriage


Jump to Subtopic:

The role of temple marriage and sealing in receiving exaltation


Jump to details:


Social issues related to marriage among Latter-day Saints


Jump to Subtopic:


Issues related to divorce in Mormonism


Jump to Subtopic:


The Mormon ordinance of the Sacrament


Jump to Subtopic:


Social issues related to marriage among Latter-day Saints


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormonism and priesthood


Jump to Subtopic:

Restoration of the priesthood


Jump to Subtopic:


Administration of priesthood authority


Jump to Subtopic:


Criticisms of the Mormon priesthood


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormonism and church integrity


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormonism and Church discipline


Jump to Subtopic:

<onlyinclude>

Purpose of Church discipline


Jump to Subtopic:


The "Strengthening Church Members Committee"

Summary: The Strengthening Church Members Committee has been described as a "clipping service" which kept track of public statements by Church members who openly criticized the Church in the media. Although a "clipping service" probably made sense back in 1985, in the internet-rich world of 2013 it seems somewhat anachronistic. Critics of the Church have accused the committee of spying on members in order to move forward with Church discipline.


Jump to Subtopic:


Church discipline of scholars


Jump to Subtopic:

Overview
Accuracy of Church History
Forgeries and folklore

Who are the "September Six"?

The "September Six" were six individuals who were disciplined by the Church in September 1993

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

  • Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
  • Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated—now back in full fellowship)
  • Maxine Hanks (excommunicated—now back in full fellowship as of 2012)
  • D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
  • Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
  • Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. Maxine Hanks returned to the Church as of 2012.

What are the criticisms related to the "September Six"?

  • It is sometimes claimed that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
  • It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
  • Some claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
  • The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.
  • It is claimed that the LDS Church penalizes members for "merely criticizing officialdom or for publishing truthful—if uncomfortable—information," and "shroud their procedures with secrecy."
  • The LDS Church prosecutes "many more of its members" than other religious groups.


Are the reasons for discipline ever made public?

Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public

Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. Thus, former members are able to claim whatever they like about excommunication without contradiction from the Church.

D. Michael Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history." [1]

Despite Quinn's belief that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing." [2]

<onlyinclude>

Statement by The Council of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve on Church Discipline

January 1994:

Statement by The Council of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
In light of extensive publicity given to six recent Church disciplinary councils in Utah, we believe it helpful to reaffirm the position of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We deeply regret the loss of Church membership on the part of anyone. The attendant consequences felt over time by the individuals and their families are very real.

In their leadership responsibilities, local Church officers may seek clarification and other guidance from General Authorities of the Church. General Authorities have an obligation to teach principles and policies and to provide information that may be helpful in counseling members for whom local leaders are responsible. In matters of Church discipline, the General Authorities do not direct the decisions of local disciplinary councils. Furthermore, the right of appeal is open to anyone who feels he or she has been unfairly treated by a disciplinary council.

It is difficult to explain Church disciplinary action to representatives of the media. Considerations of confidentiality restrain public comment by Church leaders in such private matters. We have the responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught an eternal principle when he explained: "That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy."[3]:156 Citations in this letter were within the text; FairMormon has moved them to endnotes to improve readability.</ref> In instructing His Twelve Disciples in the new world about those who would not repent, the Savior said, "But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people. . . ." (3 Nephi 18꞉31, see also Mosiah 26꞉36, and Alma 5꞉59.) The Prophet also remarked that "from apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions."[3]:67 This continues to be the case today.

The long standing policy of Church discipline is outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants: "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members . . . according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; . . . They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." (D&C 134꞉10.)

Faithful members of the Church can distinguish between mere differences of opinion and those activities formally defined as apostasy. Apostasy refers to Church members who " repeatedly act in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; or persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority."[4]

The general and local officers of the Church will continue to do their duty, and faithful Church members will understand.

As leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we reach out in love to all and constantly pray that the Lord, whose Church this is, will bless those who love and seek divine truth.

Signed:

The Council of the First Presidency and

The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles [5]

Learn more about Church discipline
Key sources
Wiki links
Online
  • Dallin H. Oaks, "Sin and Suffering," Ensign (July 1992): 70. off-site
  • James E. Faust, "Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood," Ensign (November 1993): 36. off-site
  • M. Russell Ballard, "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings," Ensign (September 1990): 12. off-site
Navigators


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters, edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
  2. ↑ Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976). off-site
  4. ↑ General Handbook of Instructions, 10-3.
  5. ↑ "News of the Church," Ensign (January 1994) 75.


Mormonism and Church discipline: Issues and Individuals


Jump to Subtopic:


Overview
Accuracy of Church History
Forgeries and folklore

Articles about Brigham Young
Teachings
History
Race
Critics

What was the "Mormon Reformation"?

The "Mormon Reformation" was a reform or spiritual rejuvenation movement that began among the Utah Saints in the mid-1850s

The "Mormon Reformation" was a reform or spiritual rejuvenation movement that began among the Utah Saints in the mid-1850s. Ironically, noted one historian, "[m]ore has been written about its excesses (real and imaginary) than about what actually happened. Stenhouse's anonymous chapter on the Reformation and Blood Atonement was typical. Even church historian B. H. Roberts devoted twice as much space in discussing blood atonement in connection with the reform movement than he did to the Reformation itself."[1]

What is the history of the "Mormon Reformation"?

Reasons for the Reformation

Wrote Thomas Alexander:

As life became more routine and economically stable by the mid-1850s, some of the General Authorities came to believe that many Church members and leaders had fallen spiritually asleep, becoming more enamored of materialism and the other trappings of Babylon than of building the kingdom. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Jedediah Grant attributed the crop failures and grasshopper plagues of 1855 and 1856, in part at least, to a decline in faithfulness....Members seemed less committed and enthusiastic. Not that prosperity itself was bad; but the Saints seemed unable to maintain spirituality in the face of increasing prosperity. [2]

First Phase

In an effort to stir the saints to improvement, Brigham Young began by sending apostles into individual communities, reversing a trend toward "congregational autonomy." [3]

Second phase: Failure of these first reform efforts

Alexander:

By early March 1856, Brigham Young's own observations together with reports from members of the Twelve led the Church President to believe that the structural changes had not prompted a spiritual rejuvenation among the Saints and that even more intense measures would be required. Being a pragmatic man, he decided to take measures certain to elicit a response. Charging the "people," presumably leaders and followers alike, with sleeping on the job and "working wickedness," Young called upon the elders "to put away their velvet lips & smooth things & preach sermons like pitch forks tines downwards that the people might wake up." Heber C. Kimball, Young's first counselor, followed the President's lead, but it was second counselor Jedediah M. Grant who really led the rally, sometimes attacking the Gentiles but usually raining pitchforks on the Latter-day Saints. The Reformation entered a second phase. [4]

It was during this phase that the leaders adopted a stern, "hellfire and damnation" preaching style, since their more moderate efforts in "phase one" had not succeeded. During this period Brigham Young and others began speaking about a doctrine later called "blood atonement".

Blood atonement was a rhetorical device, and required the theoretical voluntary sacrifice of one's own life to repent for especially grievous sins. As Davis Bitton noted, however, blood atonement soon became a handy club for anti-Mormon critics of the Church. It remained so for the rest of the nineteenth century:

Against the backdrop of this heated rhetoric, unsolved murders could easily be charged to the Mormons, and Hicks [a member who later became hostile to the Church] joins in the chorus: "Many were the victims that fell by the hand of the destroyer, but not one in Spanish Fork City. My wife and myself both saw the blood of the Parrishes at Springville two days after the murders. Those were truly peralous times such as only fanatics know how to bring on a country."53 In a more sweeping allegation, he writes, "With the single exception of Spanish Fork City, I do not know a city that had an existence in Utah that has not shed the blood of from one to many victims." It is surely not quibbling to imagine Hicks on the witness stand being asked the basis for his knowledge of all these cities and perhaps being asked whether he included legal executions in his calculations. Mormons have insisted that blood atonement, by necessity a voluntary action, was never carried out in practice. But from the late 1850s on, anti-Mormons developed a series of indictments used over and over again when denouncing Mormonism. The concept of blood atonement, imperfectly understood, was especially calculated to arouse horror and indignation. Critical of the preaching rhetoric of some church leaders during the 1850s, Hicks was drawn into another rhetorical network by 1878, that of the anti-Mormons. [5]

Alexander:

Though Young's references to blood atonement were probably hyperbole, they may have prompted some overzealous members to put the doctrine into practice. In March 1857, William Parrish and several of his family and friends decided to leave the Church and the community at Springville. They were murdered under suspicious circumstances, and although the perpetrators were never found, a number of commentators associated the deeds with the doctrine of blood atonement. [6]

To learn more: Blood atonement

As with any passionate, forceful campaign, some members risked getting 'swept up' and going to excess

As with any passionate, forceful campaign, some members risked getting 'swept up' and going to excess:

"President Young...said, 'there are some brethren who have confessed to sins they have not done. . . . I am happy to say there is not so much sin as I expected.' He said if the brethren repented and done these things no more they now started with a clean page, but if they did those things again their former sins would be accounted unto them." At this meeting, the same witness concluded, "I saw the power of the Priesthood and felt the same as I never saw or felt before."

In their eagerness to participate in the Reformation some members did, as President Young observed, confess to sins of which they were not guilty. Lorenzo Snow warned in a tabernacle address against the "popularity" of the Reformation. "Some join," he said, "and go through the external forms of religious zeal without the reform. They dare not admit they do not feel it." Also the penitents were warned not to be foolish and confess publicly. "Confess your faults to the individuals that you ought to confess them to and proclaim them not on the house tops." [7]

Plural marriage during the Reformation

Because entering into plural marriage was regarded as an especial sign of devotion, more members applied for plural marriages during this period than at any other point. [8] Average age of brides dropped to its lowest level during this period (between 16-17 years old for women in either monogamous or polygamous marriages). [9] This is a good example of some of the probable excesses during the Reformation; divorces following the Reformation were substantially higher than at other points. It is likely that under the social pressure to prove their loyalty and fidelity to their covenants, some members married too quickly or unwisely. "I was obedient but not wise," wrote a member later, "I married a girl but she did it more of fright than of love; for that reason it could not last long—only about 9 months [and] then she was divorced in 1858." [10]

On the other hand, more plural marriages created an artificial "shortage" of marriageable women. As Daynes notes, this helped integrate recent European immigrants into Utah. Women from overseas who would have probably remained unmarried under a "one-wife-per-man" policy were suddenly much better marriage prospects. This aided their integration, enhanced their economic standing, and also produced children by women who might would have otherwise remained childless. [11]

At the same time, however, Brigham encouraged those who were dissatisfied with plural marriage to either make their peace with it, or apply to him for a divorce. On October 6, 1856, he told unhappy wives that he would approve their divorces under "certain conditions and that is that you will appear forthwith at my office and give good and sufficient reasons, and then marry men that will not have but one wife." [12]

On the other hand, Brigham was far less lenient with men who requested divorces:

President Young said that when a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce. He had told the brethren that if they would break the law, they should pay for it; but he did not want them to come to him for a divorce as it was not right....[Young went on to say that]

It is not right for the brethren to divorce their wives the way they do. I am determined that if men don't stop divorcing their wives, I shall stop sealing. Men shall not abuse the gifts of God and the privileges the way they are doing. Nobody can say that I have any interest in the matter, [p.12] for I charge nothing for sealings, but I do charge for divorcing. I want the brethren to stop divorcing their wives for it is not right. [13]

A series of "worthiness" questions were prepared by the general authorities to be asked of the members

A series of questions were prepared by the general authorities to be asked of the members. Some critics have characterized these as excessive and invasive, but they are little different from the modern temple recommend interview questions. (For a list of the questions, see here).

Third phase

Alexander:

[On] 7 December, [Wilford] Woodruff [was] the concluding speaker in sacrament meeting. While still pressing the Reformation theme, Woodruff's speech nevertheless signalled a change in the tone of the Reformation--in effect opening a third phase characterized by love and concern. He called upon the ward leaders to repent by removing "the fog & darkness from your own minds & then you can see clearly to remove the darkness from the minds of the people." Woodruff also exhorted priesthood leaders to deal with the Saints in "the spirit of God." They did not, he said, need to "knock the people in the Head in order to wake them." Rather, he suggested, they ought to "get a Fatherly feeling & try to save" the Saints. The ultimate purpose of the Reformation, he said in an apocalyptic vein, was to prepare the people "for the great things of God which are Comeing upon the Earth & upon this people." Then he urged the "people to repent & do the works of righteousness" and live their religion. He spoke encouragingly to the members but left the ward leaders with no doubt that the Lord required strict obedience of them....Since the Reformation intended internal reform, it did not involve calling local nonmembers to repentance. [14]

The Reformation continued throughout the remainder of the winter but on a much less intense level. On 7 January 1857 in a letter to the Western Standard, Woodruff said that an atmosphere of change had settled on the community. "The Saints," he said, "are living their religion and the power of God is resting upon them." On 8 February 1857, Brigham Young pulled back somewhat from his harsh preaching of blood atonement by saying, "In the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life [15]

What was the effect of the Mormon Reformation?

"Like many other enthusiastic movements, the Reformation had created unanticipated disruption within the community as lay members scurried to prove their loyalty and faithfulness"

Alexander:

How do we assess the Reformation? Like many other enthusiastic movements, the Reformation had created unanticipated disruption within the community as lay members scurried to prove their loyalty and faithfulness. The harsh discipline and Brigham Young's exercise of power in demanding obedience during the second phase of the movement provoked excessive demonstrations of loyalty and consequent disruption. The destruction of the Polysophical Society temporarily stymied the development of the humanities and fine arts in the community. The sermons on repentance and blood atonement seem to have led members to confess to sins they had not committed and may also have incited a few fanatics more orthodox than the General Authorities to murder dissidents (Larson 1958, 54). The emphasis on the visible trappings of orthodoxy that fueled those new plural marriages led inevitably to divorce or unhappy homes among the unprepared. The effort to achieve status in the kingdom or to demonstrate loyalty and spirituality by seeking advancement to the Melchizedek Priesthood disrupted the normal functioning of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums. Moreover, the excesses of the second phase of the Reformation added fuel to the charges lodged in Washington against the Mormons that led to the Utah War.

On the other hand, in spite of the harsh beginnings and in spite of the excesses, the reformation produced some worthwhile reforms. One of these was the increased emphasis on kindness and love in the third phase. This emphasis on love and charity may have contributed to the revival of the Female Relief Society in early 1857. Joseph Smith had first organized the Relief Society in Nauvoo on 17 March 1842. Although some Church members had organized Relief Societies to provide charitable help for Indians as early as 1854 and some general purpose Relief Societies had been organized as early as January 1855, the larger association authorized by Joseph Smith had remained dormant since the exodus from Nauvoo (Jensen 1983, 105-25).

When the Reformation turned from raining pitchforks to urging love and charity, local leaders revived the organization to aid the poor in a number of wards in Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake Fourteenth Ward furnished some of the leadership of this movement. On 14 February 1857, Woodruff, Hoagland, Joseph Horn, and Robert L. Campbell attended the organizational meeting. Bishop Hoagland had called Phebe Woodruff as president, and Mary Isabella Horn and Mary Southworth as counselors. They and the other sisters in the ward spent their Relief Society meetings quilting, sewing, and making carpets for the poor. By June 1857, they had clothed all the poor of the ward and made a sizeable donation to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund (Woodruff 1983-85, 5:20, 59-60).

The home missionary system of the first phase inaugurated an effort at cooperative revival that promised much for the future and undoubtedly contributed to the development of a Godly community. Regular visits to the homes of members by such priesthood holders and Relief Society women as home teachers, home missionaries, and visiting teachers have provided a sense of concern and connection with the larger community of the Saints. [16]

Alexander:

In summary, the Reformation moved through three overlapping phases--a structural reform phase, a phase of intense demand for a demonstration of spiritual reform, and a phase of love and reconstruction. In the first phase, Church leaders tried to achieve reform through the home missionary effort. After Brigham Young and his counselors had become convinced that the missionaries had not achieved the desired result, they pressed the movement into the second phase. Missionaries continued to preach as the leadership rained pitchforks on member's heads and hearts. Generally loyal to their leaders, members scurried to prove their faithfulness by confessing sins and asking for rebaptism, entering plural marriages, and seeking advancement from the Aaronic to the Melchizedek priesthood. [17] Larson:

Certainly, one unfortunate result of the Reformation was to give color to anti-Mormon propaganda which circulated in the East and helped send the United States Army marching on Utah to put down an imaginary rebellion....[18]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 45–46.
  2. ↑ Thomas G. Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation of 1855-57," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 no. 3 (Summer 1992), 25-39.  (needs URL / links)
  3. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 26-27.
  4. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 27.
  5. ↑ Davis Bitton, "'I'd Rather Have Some Roasting Ears': The Peregrinations of George Armstrong Hicks," Utah Historical Quarterly 68/3 (Summer 2000): 209.
  6. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 27-28.
  7. ↑ Larson, "Mormon Reformation," 54.
  8. ↑ Stanley S. Ivins, "Notes on Mormon Polygamy," Western Humanities Review 10 (1956), 231. This article is conveniently reprinted in Utah Historical Quarterly 35/4 (Fall 1967): 309–321.
  9. ↑ Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 107. ISBN 0252026810.
  10. ↑ Paul H. Peterson, "The Mormon Reformation of 1856-1857: The Rhetoric and the Reality," Journal of Mormon History 15 (1989): 80.
  11. ↑ Kathryn M. Daynes, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840–1910 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 107–115. ISBN 0252026810.
  12. ↑ Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46/1 (Winter 1978): 10–11; citing Wilford Woodruff Journal, 6 October 1856.
  13. ↑ Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46/1 (Winter 1978): 10–11; citing Journal History, 15 and 18 December 1858, and Brigham Young's Office Journal," 5 October 1861.
  14. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 31.
  15. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 34.
  16. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 36.
  17. ↑ Alexander, "Wilford Woodruff and the Mormon Reformation," 36.
  18. ↑ Gustave O. Larson, "The Mormon Reformation," Utah Historical Quarterly 26/1 (January 1958): 47.


Analysis of websites critical of Mormonism


Jump to Subtopic:


Mormonism and Wikipedia



<onlyinclude>


FairMormon's approach to Wikipedia articles

FairMormon regularly receives queries about specific LDS-themed Wikipedia articles with requests that we somehow "fix" them. Although some individual members of FAIR may choose to edit Wikipedia articles, FairMormon as an organization does not. Controversial Wikipedia articles require constant maintenance and a significant amount of time. We prefer instead to respond to claims in the FAIR Wiki rather than fight the ongoing battle that LDS Wikipedia articles sometimes invite. From FAIR’s perspective, assertions made in LDS-themed Wikipedia articles are therefore treated just like any other critical (or, if one prefers, "anti-Mormon") work. As those articles are revised and updated, we will periodically update our reviews to match.

Who can edit Wikipedia articles?

Editors who wish to participate in editing LDS-themed Wikipedia articles can access the project page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. You are not required to be LDS in order to participate—there are a number of good non-LDS editors who have made valuable contributions to these articles.

Recommendations when editing Wikipedia articles

FAIR does not advocate removing any references from Wikipedia articles. The best approach to editing Wikipedia is to locate solid references to back up your position and add them rather than attempting to remove information. Individuals who intend to edit should be aware that posting information related to the real-world identities of Wikipedia editors will result in their being banned from editing Wikipedia. Attacking editors and attempting to "out" them on Wikipedia is considered very bad form. The best approach is to treat all Wikipedia editors, whether or not you agree or disagree with their approach, with respect and civility. An argumentative approach is not constructive to achieving a positive result, and will simply result in what is called an "edit war." Unfortunately, not all Wikipedia editors exhibit good faith toward other editors (see, for example, the comment above from "Duke53" or comments within these reviews made by John Foxe's sockpuppet "Hi540," both of whom repeatedly mocked LDS beliefs and LDS editors prior to their being banned.)

Do LDS editors control Wikipedia?

Although there exist editors on Wikipedia who openly declare their affiliation with the Church, they do not control Wikipedia. Ironically, some critics of the Church periodically falsely accuse Wikipedia editors of being LDS simply because they do not accept the critics' desired spin on a particular article.

Do "anti-Mormons" control Wikipedia?

Again, the answer is no. The truth is that Wikipedia is generally self-policing. Highly contentious articles do tend to draw the most passionate supporters and critics.

Why do certain LDS articles seem to be so negative?

Although some LDS-related Wikipedia articles may appear to have a negative tone, they are in reality quite a bit more balanced than certain critical works such as One Nation Under Gods. Although many critical editors often accuse LDS-related Wikipedia articles of being "faith promoting" or claim that they are just an extension of the Sunday School manual, this is rarely the case. Few, if any, Latter-day Saints would find Wikipedia articles to be "faith promoting." Generally, the believers think that the articles are too negative and the critics believe that the articles are too positive. LDS Wikipedia articles should be informative without being overtly faith promoting. However, most of the primary sources, including the words of Joseph Smith himself, are "faith promoting." This presents a dilemma for Wikipedia editors who want to remain neutral. The unfortunate consequence is that Joseph's words are rewritten and intermixed with contradictory sources, resulting in boring and confusing prose.

FairMormon's analysis of LDS-related Wikipedia articles

We examine selected Wikipedia articles and examine them on a "claim-by-claim" basis, with links to responses in the FairMormon Answers Wiki. Wikipedia articles are constantly evolving. As a result, the analysis of each article will be updated periodically in order to bring it more into line with the current version of the article. The latest revision date may be viewed at the top of each individual section. The process by which Wikipedia articles are reviewed is the following:

  1. Update each Wikipedia passage and its associated footnotes.
  2. Examine the use of sources and determine whether or not the passage accurately represents the source used.
  3. Provide links to response articles within the FairMormon Answers Wiki.
  4. If violation of Wikipedia rules is discovered, identify which Wikipedia editor (by pseudonym) made the edit, provide a description of the rule violated and a link to the Wikipedia "diff" showing the actual edit.
  5. If a violated rule is later corrected in a subsequent revision, the violation is removed and a notation is added that the passage is correct per cited sources. This doesn't mean that FAIR necessarily agrees with the passage—only that it is correct based upon the source used.

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Mormonism and Wikipedia: The Church History That “Anyone Can Edit”"

Roger Nicholson,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2012)

The ability to quickly and easily access literature critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been made significantly easier through the advent of the Internet. One of the primary sites that dominates search engine results is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that “anyone can edit.” Wikipedia contains a large number of articles related to Mormonism that are edited by believers, critics, and neutral parties. The reliability of information regarding the Church and its history is subject to the biases of the editors who choose to modify those articles. Even if a wiki article is thoroughly sourced, editors sometimes employ source material in a manner that supports their bias. This essay explores the dynamics behind the creation of Wikipedia articles about the Church, the role that believers and critics play in that process, and the reliability of the information produced in the resulting wiki articles.

Click here to view the complete article

Wikipedia and anti-Mormon literature
Key sources
  • Roger Nicholson, "Mormonism and Wikipedia: The Church History That 'Anyone Can Edit'," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1/8 (14 September 2012). [151–190] link
Wiki links
Online
Navigators

</noinclude>

Mormonism and popular media



Portrayals of Mormonism in video




Portrayals of Mormonism in books




Countercult ministries

Summary: These are ministries that are targeted primarily at opposing Mormonism.


Jump to Subtopic:

Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves

Summary: According to Contender Ministries, FAIR's responses are "deceptive and the original questions are still without adequate and truthful answers." The site owners also claim that "FAIR can pack a lot of deception into a paragraph or two." Apparently, this anti-Mormon ministry considers any interpretation of the Bible other than their own to be "deceptive." We invite our readers to thoroughly research and investigate our responses. If errors are discovered, we will be happy to correct them.


Jump to details:


Institute for Religious Research

Summary: According to the IRR website, "The LDS Church teaches a number of things that conflict with the Bible and are radically different from the beliefs of Christians down through the centuries. If Mormonism denies the core teachings of biblical Christianity, should it still be considered an authentic expression of true Christianity?"

Countercult ministries: Macgregor Ministries

Summary: The website claims that all articles on Mormonism contained therein are "all written from a Christian perspective and explain the differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity."


Jump to details:


Response to "Facts Mormons Won't Tell You When They Call at Your Door"

Summary: The alleged "facts" about Mormonism given by Macgregor Ministries contain so much hyperbole that they will greatly amuse most Latter-day Saints. Nevertheless, we respond to each of these "facts" here.


Jump to details:


Countercult ministries: Tower to Truth Ministries


Jump to details:


Watchman Fellowship

Summary: According to their website, "Watchman Fellowship is an independent, nondenominational Christian research and apologetics ministry focusing on new religious movements, cults, the occult and the New Age."

The Interactive Bible

Summary: The Interactive Bible website states that they are "the same as the church of the Bible."

Utah Lighthouse Ministry

Summary: According to their website, "The purpose of [Utah Lighthouse Ministry] is to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity."
    • Contradictions in LDS Scripture—
      Brief Summary: Many conservative Protestant critics have reproduced a table which purports to show how LDS scripture contradicts itself. FairMormon examines the supposed contradictions, presents the scriptures cited in context, and demonstrates that claims of contradiction rest on: 1) a misinterpretation of LDS scripture and 2)comparing two verses which are speaking about different things reading Protestant meanings into scriptural terminology (Click here for full article)
      ∗       ∗       ∗
    • Sandra Tanner: Bible and Book of Mormon Contradictions—
      Brief Summary: Sandra Tanner provides a feeble and long-answered short list of supposed "contradictions" between the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Click here for full article)
      ∗       ∗       ∗


Evangelical witnessing to Mormons


Jump to details:


Evangelical witnessing to Mormons


Jump to details:


Analysis of books critical of Mormonism


Jump to Subtopic:


Analysis of videos and films critical of Mormonism


Jump to Subtopic:



Brigham Young was the second president of the Church, and the successor to Joseph Smith. He supervised the Saints' exodus from Illinois, and their escape from the United States.

He led the settlement into the Salt Lake valley area of what is now Utah. As territorial governor for a time, and leader of the predominant faith during a period of relative isolation, few Church leaders have impacted its members as thoroughly in so many domains of life.

To view articles about Brigham Young, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Brigham Young
Teachings
History
Race
Critics

Learn more about Brigham Young
FAIR links
  • Michael Parker, "The Church's Portrayal of Brigham Young" FAIR link
Online
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, "'There's the Boy I Can Trust': Dennison Lott Harris' First-Person Account of the Conspiracy of Nauvoo and Events Surrounding Joseph Smith's 'Last Charge' to the Twelve Apostles," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/2 (15 July 2016). [23–118] link
  • Craig L. Foster, "New Light and Old Shadows: John G. Turner's Attempt to Understand Brigham Young," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 3/8 (8 February 2013). [197–222] link
  • Gregory L. Smith, "Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part One of Two)," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/6 (18 October 2013). [181–244] link
  • Gregory L. Smith, "Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part Two of Two)," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/7 (25 October 2013). [245–322] link
Video
  • "Native American extermination order," BH Roberts Foundation print-link.
Navigators

Lucy Mack Smith


Jump to Subtopic:

City of Nauvoo Utah Mormon urban legends or folklore Non-existent quotes Satan Primary sources

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=User:InProgress/TOC&oldid=83286"