Array

User:InProgress/TOC: Difference between revisions

(mod)
mNo edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
{{:Doctrine and Covenants}}
{{:Doctrine and Covenants}}
{{:Book of Abraham}}
{{:Book of Abraham}}
{{:Book of Moses}}
{{:Jesus Christ}}
{{:Jesus Christ}}
{{:Plan of salvation}}
{{:Plan of salvation}}

Revision as of 04:32, 9 March 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

< Back to FAIR Answers Index

InProgress/TOC

The Book of Moses has not traditionally been a target of criticism among those who question Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint scripture. However, there are a few criticisms. Click the links below for faithful answers to criticisms of the Book of Moses.

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

Social Issues in the Church > Women in the Church of Jesus Christ

InProgress/TOC

Summary: This page answers questions and criticisms about the Church's relations with women.

Does the Church devalue those who are not married or who do not have children?

Some charge that the Church devalues those who are not married or who do not have children. This is not so.

A significant portion of adult Church members are single people. Their challenges and lifestyles are somewhat different than those of married members, but Church leaders make ongoing efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of single members. Living as a single person is challenging both inside and outside the Church. This is not a difficulty limited to the LDS context. Within the Church, the promise that no eternal blessings will be withheld from worthy members simply because of their marital status is repeated over and over again.[1] Church leaders have denounced mistreatments of single members and continue to call members of all marital statuses to positions of trust.

Ideals and realities

LDS teachings—like those of most every other belief system and culture throughout history—regard formal, conjugal marriage relationships as vital social ideals. Among Latter-day Saints, marriage is not only a social ideal but a spiritual one. According to the scriptures, marriage is a requirement for the greatest blessings to which we can aspire. D&C 131꞉2

It is of course not possible for every Latter-day Saint to find a suitable spouse. Due to death, divorce, or other causes it is not always possible or wise for members to stay married. This means that many have been, are, or will be single. In 2007, First Presidency member, James E. Faust, reported that one third of the adult membership of the Church was single.[2] This is a substantial proportion but it’s still a minority. The fact is single Latter-day Saints live in a faith community comprised of many married couples. Naturally, such an environment can be challenging.

Some may feel life as a single person is less than ideal. But an ideal is "a conception of something in its absolute perfection."[3] Married members of the Church don’t achieve perfection in their marriages during their lifetimes. Their lives are different from singles', but they too are also less than ideal. As the apostle Paul taught, all of us have "come short of the glory of God." Romans 3꞉23 None of us—no matter what our marital status—is living an ideal life. In this we are all alike.

The time will come when the Lord bless all of His Father’s children with every blessing He can, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single

Speaking to single members, Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

I…remind you that there are those who are married whose lives are extremely unhappy and that you who are single and experience much of deep and consuming worry are not alone in your feelings. [4]

Fortunately, the time will come when Christ shall "wipe away all the tears" Revelation 21꞉4 and bless all of his Father’s children with every blessing they desire, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single.

Feelings of social awkwardness and marginalization are not limited to single people living in the LDS context

In popular Western culture, there’s a fairly steady stream of books, articles, and all kinds of other media produced about the difficulties of single life. People of all beliefs, not just Latter-day Saints, struggle to find a comfortable place in the world as singles. It is a widespread problem—one that was not created by the Church and one that cannot be escaped by avoiding the Church.

Statements of Church leaders

The challenges of single members are not unknown and unaddressed by Church leaders. President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, speaking of singlehood and childlessness among Church members, said:

These are temporary states. In the eternal scheme of things—not always in mortality—righteous yearning and longing will be fulfilled.[5]

Living as a single Latter-day Saint is more common for women than it is among men. In recognition of this, much of the counsel and consolation extended by Church leaders to single people is addressed specifically to women. This counsel includes assurances that members should not settle for unworthy or inadequate marriage partners just to satisfy what may seem like little more than a formality. Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.[6]

Comments like these have become de rigueur when Church leaders teach about marriage and families. Efforts are constantly made to acknowledge and address the circumstances of adult members of the Church who are not married.

Among these circumstances is the reality that there is no monolithic Latter-day Saint single member. President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of his distaste for the generic label "single":

Though you are so diverse in your backgrounds, we have put a badge on you as if you were all alike. That badge reads S-I-N-G-L-E-S. I do not like that. I do not like to categorize people. We are all individuals living together, hopefully with respect for one another, notwithstanding some of our personal situations … when all is said and done, we should not be classified as married or single but as members of the Church, each worthy of the same attention, the same care, the same opportunities to be of service.[7]

In the same address, President Hinckley condemned the thoughtless mistreatment of single members within LDS congregations, calling it "a tragedy" and "a betrayal."

Single Saints serving in the gospel

The New Testament contains the story of Anna, a woman called a "prophetess" who served in the temple at the time Jesus was born. By the time Mary brought the infant Jesus to the temple, Anna had been a widow for almost all of her long adult life. She was a single woman who was blessed for her faith and service with the privilege of recognizing and greeting the Lord. She had much to offer her community even though she had lived without a husband for eighty-four years Luke 2꞉36-38.

In the modern Church, single women also play important roles as leaders, teachers, and exemplars. One of the most storied women of the early days of the restored Church is Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, who crossed the plains from Nauvoo to Utah as a single mother. Emmeline B. Wells, the fifth General President of the Relief Society, was abandoned by her first husband.[8] Clearly, her status as a divorcee did not prevent her from holding a prominent leadership position.

Counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency have included Barbara Thompson and Sheri L. Dew, neither of whom has ever been married. Upon being called, Sheri L. Dew introduced herself saying:

If there’s any message in the fact that a never-married woman has been called to the Relief Society general presidency it is that all women, regardless of their status or situation, are welcomed, loved, and valued…The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. We are all significant parts of the whole. I never think of myself as single; I think of myself as Sheri, a member of the Lord’s Church.[9]

Along with singleness there often comes childlessness

Along with singleness there often comes childlessness. Since many members of the Church have children, and see childbearing as a blessing and the ideal, single members may feel doubly marginalized. Married members may also struggle with the heartbreak of infertility.

Fortunately, motherhood is not merely a demographic or a reproductive state in Church doctrine. Instead, it is a spiritual gift in which all can participate.

In 2001, Sheri Dew, taught,

While we tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word mother has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living"—and they did so before she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began before we were born.[10]

Do Church teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on women?

Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading

Some claim that CHurch teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on LDS families, especially women.

Most women raising families, not just Latter-day Saint women, encounter "burdens" as they run their households. Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading. Recognizing the difficulties women face in family life, Church leaders have denounced male behaviors that add to these burdens. In speaking to women, Church leaders have reassured us that we are free to make choices—including choices about childbearing and service in our homes—that will better tailor our workloads to our individual strengths and abilities.

Childbearing in the Church

In 1995, the Church underlined its commitment to family life in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." The proclamation states: "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."[11]

In harmony with these beliefs, Latter-day Saint life is often family life. In general, Latter-day Saints in the United States marry earlier than their neighbors outside the Church, are more likely to stay married, and have more children during their lifespans.[12] As the larger society surrounding the Church has moved away from traditional family life, the LDS lifestyle— or, at least, the stereotype of it—has become more conspicuous. For some, this raises concerns with regard to the roles women play in LDS families. Critics have inflamed these concerns—arguing mostly by assertion than with data—that the childbearing aspect of the ideal LDS family system places an unfair and unhealthy burden upon women.

Women's workloads inside and outside the Church

No matter how many other people live in it, running any household can be difficult. This is not a difficulty experienced by LDS women alone. Arlie Hochschild’s landmark work "The Second Shift" studied domestic workloads to see if household divisions of labor had become more fair for women as they started to take on non-traditional roles. What she found was that even when women worked at full-time jobs outside their homes, they still wound up doing most of the household chores themselves.[13] The assertion that women outside the Church are somehow immune from the burdens of running a household is simply wrong. Every woman—regardless of whether she’s involved in paid work, or how many children she has, or where she goes to church—is at risk of winding up doing far more than her fair share of household tasks. Inequalities like these are not limited to any particular religion or family structure.

The Church's position on domestic workloads

Despite the strong social pull of unequal household divisions of labor, leaders of the Church have counseled church members to alleviate the strains family life can have on women. Men overburdening women within families was denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. Speaking of young mothers he said:

I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: 'Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?' [14]

While his approach to husbands was firm and corrective, President Hinckley took a different tone when speaking to wives in the same address:

You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.[14]

Reassuring language like this has become a fixture in addresses made to the women of the Church. Another common theme is the assurance that there is no monolithic ideal of how to run a "proper" LDS household. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Marvin J. Ashton said in 1987:

Sisters, do not allow yourselves to be made to feel inadequate or frustrated because you cannot do everything others seem to be accomplishing. Rather, each should assess her own situation, her own energy, and her own talents, and then choose the best way to mold her family into a team, a unit that works together and supports each other. Only you and your Father in Heaven know your needs, strengths, and desires. Around this knowledge your personal course must be charted and your choices made.[15]

What seems most important isn’t how LDS women shoulder their burdens but why they do it at all. In 1980, Melvin Wilkinson and William Tanner made a study of large family life in the LDS setting. The prevailing sociological wisdom was that large families yield less affection for children. However, the researchers found that the negative effect of large family life "is not so strong that it cannot be neutralized or even reversed."[16] Furthermore, they found that the key to reversing the bad effects of a large family wasn’t an increase of the amount of time parents spent with their children (or in other words, not an increase of the size of the "burden" placed on the parents) but an increase in the level of the mother’s commitment to the Church. Temple attendance was used as a measure of the mother’s religiosity. From there, the researchers went on to find that the higher a mother’s religiosity, the more affection the children in the family reported feeling.

Apparently, gospel living can actually provide relief from burdens—even those that seem universal and inevitable for all women running their households. As the Lord himself taught, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" Matthew 11꞉28-30.

Are Latter-day Saint women taught to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought"?

These claims are nonsense. President Spencer W. Kimball urged:

When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.[17]

In an unpublished paper "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), women in the Church are said to be taught to be "subservient" to men and are considered "eternally unalterable second-class." Among some of its more colorful—if unfounded—statements are the claims that women are expected to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought."[18]

Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

  • An overarching sexism and condescension, both overt and benevolent;
  • A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women;
  • The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials;
  • Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms;
  • Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women.

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not a useful analysis of gender politics within the Church. Instead, it is insulting, misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

Statements

Summary: Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.

Problems with Ponder—a feminist response to Kent Ponder’s work

The focus of this paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants.

Problems with underlying general sexism: "Thank the Lord I’m Not Female."[18]

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:

"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..."[18]

This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once "needed and natural" is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we "tend to be more alert to social relations than men." The author writes at length about our abilities to "intuit." He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, "Women tell me they intuitively sense…"[18] In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that "The women notice too."[18]

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class by Ponder. In a section meant to show "The Larger Perspective," a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of Latter-day Saint feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots, such as an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

Benevolent sexism

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word "innocent" is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like "torment," "horrendous," and "anguish." To describe grown women as "innocent" is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the "needed and natural" male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women "innocent," they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an "LDS girl."[18] Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders—another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women. Depressed LDS women are called "unhappy campers"[18]-–a term often used to describe fussy infants—in another sexist diminution.

The author takes a simplistic view of women and presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women—those inside and outside his interview group—are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what "nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy."[18] Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. "Near-infants" cannot report on their internal states, unless he considers that infancy to be extended by many years. That could explain his constant infantilization of adult women.

Sexism toward devout Latter-day Saint women in particular

An effective tool used by oppressive, small "p" patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations in which we will fight amongst ourselves. Such blatant tactics are obvious in the paper when the "best and brightest"[18] of LDS women—that is, the disaffected and depressed—are pitted against the rest of us.

One part of this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. One extreme of this kind of rhetoric, is the comparison of the religious convictions of devout LDS women to "people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up."[18] The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are "unable to comprehend"[18] the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of "intellectually curious"[18] yet devout LDS women. It even warns, "Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know."[18]

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of "the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness"[18]. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her." [18]

Again, this claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and bigotry, nothing more. Ponder reveals himself to be far more sexist than the supposedly-evil system he is railing against.

Problems with misrepresentation of doctrine

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve.

He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 date of his article. This is not a writer who has intimate—or even cursory—knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

The fact that he does not realize this, and does not bother to inform himself, is further evidence of his condescension and ill-informed arrogance toward those he presumes to swoop in an 'help'.

Ensign, "Women of the Church"

Gordon B. Hinckley,  Ensign, (November 1996)

First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan."

...

No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance."

Click here to view the complete article

Similar gaffes come to light in his description of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims "Any Mormon…will recognize"[18] as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items—such as tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings,—apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of CHurch doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women might lead the reader to wonder what the Church actually teaches girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The contemporary lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contained a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that "each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life."[19]

Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." [19]

When addressing a worldwide gathering of Latter-day Saint young women in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. [20]

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it undermines his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman "learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband."[18] However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. D&C 131꞉2-3

He also contends that we require "permission from men"[18] in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim—not even any anecdotal evidence from his "nearly three hundred" interviews, or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. D&C 121꞉41-42

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, "they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion" ( Moses 5꞉53 ).

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or more malign reasons.

Problems with methods

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done "extensive research"[18] through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified, though he claims to have corresponded with "nearly three hundred women."[18] Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like "church-active believers"[18] are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

He also fails to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like "very large" and "far more."[18]

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like "cognitive-dissonance headaches"[18] Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like "One Size Fits All"[18] in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

Problems with personal confounding factors

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but "deeply offend[ed]."[18] We were to indulge in the kind of quasi-scientific pop psychology that Ponder uses, we might say that this represents the projection of his own neuroses onto others.

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo.[18]

While this may tell us a great deal about Ponder's behavior and personality, it doesn't tell us much about the Church.

He goes on to claim that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, "some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women."[18]

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem—one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. [21]

For further discussions, see above.

Ponder admits feeling "ashamed" for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings—one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extinguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been—including Ponder and other critics—are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.

Is there some rule that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer?

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings"

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings."[22]

There was a time in which by tradition men would typically stay opening prayers. There was never a doctrinal explanation or reason for this. It has not been the case for many decades.

Are Latter-day Saint women placed under covenant in temples to subordinate themselves to their husbands?

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. In a previous version of the temple endowment, the covenant for women was phrased slightly differently than the men. We will not describe the details or wording, but offer the following thoughts:

  1. The covenant is conditioned upon the faithfulness and obedience of the husband. If the husband does not follow God's counsel, the woman is not obligated to honor his counsel.
  2. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states explicitly that men and women should work together as equal partners in their familial obligations. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."[23] One objection to this may be that the The Proclamation states that men should "preside" over their families. However, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything other than "use priesthood to bless their families".
  3. How can men and women be "equal partners" yet one "preside"? Latter-day Saint feminist Valerie Hudson gave a perspective on this that is consistent with the covenant as currently revealed and may be beneficial to those wanting help with this. This talk, given at the 2010 FairMormon Conference, describes the covenant as the balancing of two trees—Eve being the first to bring us past the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam to bring us to the Tree of Life:

I think it’s important to think about the fact that we have two trees and we have two people. Two trees, and a man and a woman. What I would like to address first is kind of an interesting interpretation of the fact that we have two trees and two people. Let’s address that by asking, Why was Eve created second? Now, I’m a convert to the Church, so I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

[. . .]

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves what partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means in a spiritual sense. And I think you know what it means. It means to enter into mortality with a mortal body, to enter into full agency, and to have awakened within us the light of Christ that will serve us so well as we pass the veil. Think—two people, two trees—whose stewardship does this sound like? It is through women that souls journey to mortality and gain their agency, and in general it is through the nurturing of women, their nurturing love of their children, that the light of Christ is awakened within each soul. And I would include in that list of souls Jesus the Christ. Even Christ our Lord was escorted to mortality and veiled in flesh through the gift of a woman, fed at his mother’s breast, awakened to all that is good and sweet in the world. Women escort every soul through the veil to mortal life and full agency. I believe that when we think about it—two people, two trees—that what we’re really thinking about is two stewardships. And that the fruit of the First Tree symbolizes the gift that women give to every soul that chose the plan of Christ. It symbolizes the role and power of women in the Great Plan of Happiness. It was not, in this view, right or proper for Adam to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree. It was not his role to give the gift of the fruit of the First Tree to others. It is interesting to think that even Adam, who was created before Eve, entered into full mortality and full agency by accepting the gift of the First Tree from the hand of a woman. In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.[24]

We strongly encourage readers to see the full talk here.

In any case the endowment's separate wording was altered as of 2023—likely to prevent and preclude any such misunderstandings.

What is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ on elective abortion?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently opposed abortion for all but a few rare situations.[25]

Except in certain rare circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin

LDS Newsroom, "Abortion"

LDS Newsroom,  LDS Newsroom

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.


The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

  • Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
  • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
  • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.


The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Click here to view the complete article

Except in rare certain circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin. However, the Church does not equate abortion with murder. Further, the Church acknowledges that women and men who have been involved in abortions can be forgiven and become members in good standing. The exceptions to the commandment prohibiting abortion highlight the Church’s commitment to women’s rights and to our intrinsic value apart from our biological roles as mothers.

Are there exceptions where abortion may be appropriate? Yes.

The Church has not adopted a simple, all-or-nothing approach to abortion. While the Church stands firmly by the commandment "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" D&C 59꞉6 and Church members are cautioned that participating in abortion will usually bring their membership under scrutiny, allowances are made for situations where abortion may be necessary.

The Church recognizes there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. When a woman’s health would be severely threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, the Church offers counsel and support while mothers themselves decide how to proceed. The same approach is taken even when the mother's life is not at risk but a pregnancy is medically deemed to have no chance of being viable. In such cases, the Church leaves the final choice of whether an abortion will be performed to the parents. There is no universal formula for how the exceptions to the Church's usual stance on abortion must be applied.

The list of situations where abortion may be appropriate demonstrates the Church’s commitment to women’s right to make choices. In cases of rape or incest (crimes sometimes known by other names but likely meant to describe any non-consensual sexual intercourse brought on by force or by the abuse of a position of power), the Church does not require victims to continue pregnancies arising from someone else’s abusive choices. If a woman does not consent to sexual contact, the Church does not consider her morally obliged to accept the consequences of it.

At a gathering of university students, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks quoted the following:

The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.[26]

The fact that an impending threat to the mother’s health is accepted by the Church as a valid reason for opting for abortion suggests that the Church prefers the life of the adult woman to the life of the unborn fetus—especially if there is no chance the fetus would be able to live if the pregnancy took its natural course. This preference is controversial to many in the mainstream Pro-Life movement. Clearly, however, women are not valued solely for their reproductive abilities. They are free to protect and preserve their own lives even if doing so directly compromises reproduction.

Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder

In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the ancient Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" Exodus 20꞉13 was expanded to read "Thou shalt not…kill nor do anything like unto it." D&C 59꞉6 Abortion has been interpreted to fall within the category of "anything like unto it." Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder per se. It is a less serious sin and one for which men and women can be forgiven.

While a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church President Russell M. Nelson said:

So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And "as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion." Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.[27]

The Church does not persecute or demonize people involved in abortion. Instead, it reaches out to them with compassion and the promise of a possible redemption.

The Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion

As explained in the Church’s official statement on abortion, the Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion. However, Church members are free to express their own opinions and to be involved as individuals in political causes including abortion legislation.

The Church has come under criticism from conservative groups for not taking a more absolutist stance against abortion. At the same time, the Church is criticized by "pro-choice" groups for its extremely limited tolerance for abortion. Both sides of the argument accuse the Church of trying too hard to please the opposite side. Clearly, the Church’s stance on abortion cannot be the result of political pandering. If it's meant as a compromise, it would be a poor one that leaves both sides of the abortion argument angry and unsatisfied. In an argument as polarized as the abortion debate, no compromise would ever be acceptable. Rather than crafting a position that pleases either side of the debate, the Church position is a tempered one—one based on the application of revelation and true principles to a real, complicated world where difficult situations must be reckoned with on careful, individual bases.

Despite its lack of direct engagement in abortion politics, some Church leaders have warned members against aligning with movements that would promote the use of abortion beyond the circumstances of rape, incest, and catastrophic health outcomes accepted by the Church.

Dallin H. Oaks said:

Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. …In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.[26]

Adoption is encouraged as an alternative to abortion

Wrote the First Presidency in 1999:

Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption ....

Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. Generally, unwed parents are not able to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby’s well-being.

When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned.[28]

What is the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?

The use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church

Though the Church places a high value on families and regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to "multiply, and replenish the earth" Genesis 1꞉28 as still being in force,[29] the use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church. Married LDS couples are not expected to limit their sexual contact to attempts to conceive. Sexual behavior between married partners is seen as wholesome and sanctifying even when there is little or no chance of conception. Birth control is meant to be used carefully and prayerfully but it is not forbidden.

Church leaders' statements on birth control

A recent statement explains the Church's stance on contraception:

Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children within loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The scriptures declare, "Children are an heritage of the Lord." Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.[30]

In 1993, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, spoke in the Church’s General Conference saying:

How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families…In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.[31]

Elder Oaks quoted the then President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressing similar sentiments:

I like to think of the positive side of the equation, of the meaning and sanctity of life, of the purpose of this estate in our eternal journey, of the need for the experiences of mortal life under the great plan of God our Father, of the joy that is to be found only where there are children in the home, of the blessings that come of good posterity. When I think of these values and see them taught and observed, then I am willing to leave the question of numbers to the man and the woman and the Lord.[31]

This moderate approach has a long history. In 1916, Church leaders, such as David O. MacKay, endorsed of the wisdom in using moderation and sensitivity when it comes to childbearing. MacKay said,

In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.[32]

The language and tone may be old-fashioned but the message of mothers’ needs as the priority was a progressive one for its day.

Sexual behavior and emotional health

The Church has long taught that sexual relations are not only for the creation of children, but have other important roles within marriage. Late President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, taught:

In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.[31]

Cautions and qualifications

Church leaders have also issued frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.[33]

Even this statement contains the qualification that mothers enjoy "good health." Childbearing is never meant to be carried out with dogmatic recklessness. In all things, the LDS decision making process is a deliberate, thoughtful one where individuals "study it out in [their] mind[s]" D&C 9꞉8 and receipt spiritual confirmation before acting.

President Benson knew this and added, "I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity." [34]

What do the scriptures say about the issue of abortion?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently been against abortion.[25]

Latter-day Saints regard the guidance of the living prophets as the most important factor in determing the Lord's will for modern quesitons and practice.

Wilford Woodruff recalled an experience during the Church's early years in Kirtland:

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. ... [A] leading man in the Church got up ... and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.”

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.”[35]

Prophetic guidance often draws from—and is consistent with—canonized scripture. We here examine scriptural passages that have relevance to the abortion debate—though we must remember that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ derives fundamentally from modern prophetic guidance, and not an interpretation of past scripture. We can use the prophets' current stance, however, to explore scripture to see what we might learn.

Exodus 21꞉22-25

One of the most commonly cited and discussed scriptures relevant to abortion is Exodus 21꞉22-25:

¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, nd yet no mischief followhe shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This is a type of casuistic law— that is, it stipulates what kind of punishments should be inflicted on a person if they engage in certain kinds of acts. This is a case where two or more people are fighting and accidentally hurt a woman and her fetus. This would be an accidental miscarriage or accidental premature birth of a woman while two people are fighting.

The scripture stipulates that if the men make the woman miscarry/have this premature birth, they must first be confronted by the husband of the woman. The husband along with judges will jointly determine what kind of fine to impose on those who fought. The same procedure was followed if the husband himself was one of the combatants in the altercation.

The passage further stipulates that if the woman herself is injured or dies (exactly which is not clear), then the people who engaged in the fight are liable for death and other punishments lex talionis. It’s important to note that lex talionis "is a principle of fair treatment of assailants and not necessarily a literal prescription for retaliatory treatment in all cases."[36]

Some have argued that this passage and, consequently, Israelite law treats the value of the mother as greater than the value of the fetus. But this argument depends on the correct translation of ויצאו (wytsaw. Translated as "depart from her" in the KJV above), how one translates the term אָסוֹן (ʾason) translated as "mischief", what that ason included, and who that ason is applied to. None of these questions can be answered with certainty.

Wytsaw is typically translated as "give birth prematurely" in modern, popular, English biblical translations, though other important translations say "miscarriage". "Premature birth" is may be preferred because of 'ason which is typically translated as harm or injury. Some say that it should be translated as "serious injury". Some take it to refer to death.

Who the injury, serious injury, harm, or death is inflicted on is also important. If it is only the woman, then the woman is being more valued than the fetus. If the harm is assumed to either the woman or her fetus, then both are being valued equally. If the harm is only to the fetus, then the fetus is being valued more than the woman. It's uncertain, but the first two options are more likely than the last. Injury to either a woman or a child would be negative.

Even if we translate and interpret the passage such that the fetus is miscarried and no other harm is brought on the woman, the passage still stipulates that a fine be paid. This indicates that the fetus still had at least some value in the eyes of the Israelite law. This scripture under no circumstances allows a kind of ethic that sees the fetus as entirely expendable no matter the stage of development.

The very least that we can conclude from these passages is that this was an accidental situation (not a deliberate one as in the case of elective abortion), that both the mother and fetus were seen as valuable at least in some way, and that damages needed to be paid or punishments received commensurate with the harm inflicted on mother and fetus.

We now consider some other relevant scriptures.

Numbers 5

Numbers 5꞉11-31 outlines what is known today as the Ordeal of the Bitter Water.

The major talking point is concerning verse 27 and what happens as a priest makes a woman partake of the water.

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

The word "thigh" is a translation of the Hebrew yarek (יָרֵך) which does mean thigh but euphemistically refers to the genitals and other reproductive organs of a human being.

The passage says that a woman’s belly will swell up and that her uterus and perhaps vagina will either shrivel up or fall out (or maybe both).

Some have interpreted this passage to refer to miscarriage. The NIV translates this verse to say that "your womb [will] miscarry and your abdomen swell". But the passage doesn’t apply to just pregnant women. It applies to all those that have been caught in adultery, whether pregnant or not. The curses that 5꞉27 is establishing refer to infertility. Thus, it’s not that a woman loses her baby because of the trial, but loses her ability to conceive entirely.

Thou shalt not murder

Texts that may be relevant to the abortion debate include those that condemn murder. There are many such texts in the scriptures tha; they are well-known enough that we will not cite them here. The question is "does abortion really constitute murder"?

Certain leaders of the Church have analogized abortion to murder in the past.[25]

The current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that abortion does not necessarily constitute murder. The Church most frequently cites a text contained in the Latter-day Saint canon: Doctrine and Covenants 59꞉6. It tells the Saints "Thou shalt not…kill, nor do anything like unto it." Abortion has typically been seen in the "nor do anything like unto it" clause.

The first mention of "kill" clearly refers to murder. But there are obviously other categories of sinful killing that are not murder. (Some killing, such as in self-defense, could be considered not sinful at all.)

This is where abortion is situated by the Church: not necessarily murder, but still an act of unjustified killing like murder.

Impeding obedience to other commandments

Scriptures that apply to abortion and it's ethical implications are not only those which discuss murder. Other commandments and other moral considerations might be broken or encouraged if we endorse abortion.

One of these would be the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" given by God in the creation accounts contained in both the scriptures and the temple ( Genesis 1꞉28; Moses 2꞉28; Abraham 4꞉28 ).

Marriage is another command that applies. Elective abortion is often treated as a safety net for individuals that want to have unprotected sex without the consequence of an unwanted child. Abortion can thus disincentivies marriage. Scriptures forbidding extramarital sexual acts are many, and not cited here.

Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a treasured thing—crucial to our learning. Doctrine & Covenants 93꞉33-34 tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected by resurrection. It is clear in scripture that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ( Matthew 8꞉28-32; Doctrine & Covenants 45꞉17; 138:14-15,18,50 ).

It is clear, as Dallin H. Oaks as observed, that "[f]rom the perspective of the plan of salvation, one of the most serious abuses of children is to deny them birth" and especially to deny them birth within the environment most-aptly suited for their progression through mortality: marriage.Ensign 42/11 (November 2012): 43. off-site</ref>

Some abortion debates focus on when the soul enters the body—presuming that killing an ensouled fetus or child would be murder, while an unesouled one might be aborted without concern.

The scriptures provide no guidance as to when ensoulment happens

Some believe that the question is resolved by Genesis where God grants Adam his "first breath" so that he becomes a living soul. By these lights, one can know that the soul has entered the body when a person breathes. The Latter-day Saint temple appears to teach that God first places Adam’s spirit in his body and then afterwards grants him his first breath. Furthermore, if first breath is truly when personhood is thought to begin, exactly which "breath" should we be treating as someone's first? Fetal breathing (though not strictly breathing for oxygen exchange) can begin as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy and about as late right before birth.[37] A "first breath" standard for when personhood begins might prohibit a large number of abortions.

Others believe that blood is what grants personhood and indicates ensoulment. Oftentimes it is thought that blood in connection with breath grants full-personhood in Israelite law. This has at least some merit when considering the thought world of the authors of the Bible. Here again, though, the answers are not as clear-cut as we might like: "By the end of the fifth week [of gestation], the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body."[38] So does a fetus' working circulatory system at the fifth week of gestation grant them personhood?

Some believe that the answer as to when a fetus receives its human spirit/gains personhood is when a fetus is "quickened" or when it first begins to move inside of a woman’s womb. There are some scriptures/statements from leaders of the Church that may be used to justify this view.

  • Luke 1꞉44, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This scriptures discusses John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. The New Testament mentions that Elizabeth hid herself for five months. Thus we might deduce that a soul was in John’s body after five months when Mary visited Elizabeth.
  • President Brigham Young once said that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" (Journal of Discourses, 17:143).

(We now know that fetal movement begins much sooner than the mother can feel it—the sensation is only when fetus is large enough and its movements strong enough to be felt by the mother.)

President Young’s view stands in mild contrast with an official statement from the First Presidency in 1909 which is less certain about when life enters the body:

The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.

Thus there is no definitive answer about when the soul enters the body from the scriptures nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some believe that full-personhood for fetuses is asserted by what they perceive as the continuity of personal identity displayed in biblical passages such as Job 3꞉3, Psalm 139꞉14-16, and Jeremiah 1꞉5.

  • Job 3꞉3 – "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived." This verse does not assume personal continuity of identity as some have claimed. It merely asserts that Job wishes he weren't conceived nor born.
  • Psalm 139꞉14-16: "For thou hast possessed me reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee ; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." This may indicate a kind of continuity, but it's not certain. The Lord at the very least here sees a kind of form that he intricately weaves the psalmist's bones and other members according to. It is certain that the Lord, according to the psalmist, takes a special concern for/interest in and performs a special creative act on the unborn.
  • Jeremiah 1꞉5 – "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This is perhaps the strongest scripture in favor of continuity of personhood (though still not entirely certain). The Lord ordained unborn Jeremiah, like the prophet servant of the Lord in Isaiah ( Isaiah 42꞉1; 49꞉6 ), to be a prophet unto the nations.

As before, these scriptures are suggestive, but not definitive.

Biology as it may relate to personhood

Biologically, asking "when life begins" is absurd—the egg is alive from the moment it is fertilized. In a fallen world, cells that are dead do not come back to life. And, if the egg is not "human" life, then what kind of life is it? The cells involved come from humans, are only produced by humans, and develop into a human.

Thus wholly 95% of biologists agree that a new, distinct human life begins at conception: when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm.[39]

One can only wonder about the other 5% of biologists—presumably they understood that the question was poorly posed, or didn't like the ideological implications.

The fertilized egg is certainly alive—it metabolizes, replicates DNA, divides, differentiates, etc. There is never a point at which the egg is "dead" and then becomes alive again. Nor is there a point at which the embryo or fetus is not alive.

"When does human life begin?" is thus a sloppy way to ask the real question: When does a fertilized human egg acquire any rights or moral standing? At what point does killing it have moral implications?

We kill things that are alive all the time—we kill billions of bacteria without a thought. The key question is, Is killing a human embryo like killing a bacteria? Or is it like killing a toddler? Or something in between?

Our laws do tend to treat human bodies as persons regardless of their current brain function, heart function, lung function, sentience, etc. And, there is never debate about whether these people are alive. Of course they are.

What to do in the face of uncertainty?

Some have argued that there are moral duties even when we are not certain of all the facts. There are, with abortion, at least three possibilities:

  1. Abortion is the equivalent of murder, killing a fully-human (in the sense of having full human rights, not in the biological sense).
  2. Abortion is still a serious moral act, even if it does not rise to the level of murder.
  3. Abortion is of no moral consequence regarding the fetus.

In the face of uncertainty, we could choose to

  • support or participate in an abortion; or
  • oppose or participate in an abortion.

If it turns out that abortion is murder or a serious moral wrong (option #1 or #2) then it is far better to have chosen to oppose abortion. Standing by would be like doing nothing to stop slavery, or not attempting to stop the slaughter of prisoners of war.

If abortion turns out to have no or few moral consequences (#3), we have at least not committed a murder or murder-like crime. We would have opposed the right of women to do something that they wanted to do—and that would be a moral wrong. But it is surely not as grave a moral wrong as the mass killing of the innocent and defenseless.

Which risk should we run if we are not certain?{

Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ [citation needed]
  2. ↑ James E. Faust, "Welcoming Every Single One," Ensign (Aug 2007).
  3. ↑ Dictionary.com', s.v. "ideal" (accessed 17 July 2012).
  4. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "A Conversation With Single Adults," Ensign (November 1997). off-site
  5. ↑ Boyd K. Packer, "And a Little Child Shall Lead Them]," Ensign (May 2012). off-site
  6. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Elijah the Prophet and His Mission (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1957), 51.
  7. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "A Conversation With Single Adults," Ensign (Nov 1997). off-site
  8. ↑ Julie Wardell, "Heroes and Heroines: Emmeline B. Wells." Friend, Feb 1985.
  9. ↑ News of the Church, Ensign (May 1997).
  10. ↑ Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?," Ensign (Nov. 2001): 96 (emphasis in original). off-site
  11. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Family: A Proclamation to the World (First read by Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held 23 September 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.)
  12. ↑ Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift (New York: Penguin), 2003.
  13. ↑ Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift (New York: Penguin), 2003. [citation needed]
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Gordon B. Hinckley, "To the Women of the Church," Ensign (Nov. 2003). off-site
  15. ↑ Marvin J. Ashton, Be of Good Cheer (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 25–26.
  16. ↑ Melvin L. Wilkinson and William C. Tanner III, "The Influence of Family Size, Interaction, and Religiosity on Family Affection in a Mormon Sample," in Religion, Mental Health, and the Latter-day Saints, 93-106.
  17. ↑ Spencer W. Kimball, "Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters," Ensign (Nov. 1978): 106, (italics in original)..
  18. ↑ 18.00 18.01 18.02 18.03 18.04 18.05 18.06 18.07 18.08 18.09 18.10 18.11 18.12 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16 18.17 18.18 18.19 18.20 18.21 18.22 18.23 18.24 18.25 18.26 Kent Ponder, "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," unpublished, 2003, online version accessed 30 May 2012, (emphasis in original).
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Young Women Manual 1, 2002.
  20. ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?," Ensign (April 2001). off-site
  21. ↑ Arlie Hochschild, The Second Shift (New York: Penguin), 2003.
  22. ↑ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Handbook 2: Administering the Church—2010 (Intellectual Reserve, 2010) , 146. Meetings in the Church 18.5 direct off-site
  23. ↑ The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 October 2018)
  24. ↑ Valerie Hudson "The Two Trees" FairMormon Conference 2010 <https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees> (accessed 4 October 2018)
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," Public Square Magazine, 7 June 2022, off-site Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ortner" defined multiple times with different content
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. off-site
  27. ↑ Russell M. Nelson, "Reverence for Life," Ensign (May 1985): 11. See also Russell M. Nelson, "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless," Ensign (Oct 2008): 32-37. off-site
  28. ↑ Cited in "Policies and Announcements," Ensign (April 1999): 80, (emphasis added).
  29. ↑ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.
  30. ↑ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Birth control," Gospel Topics [{{{1}}} off-site] (accessed 4 June 2024)
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Dallin H. Oaks, "The Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign (November 1993). off-site
  32. ↑ David O. McKay, Relief Society Magazine (July 1916) 3:7.
  33. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.
  34. ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 539–543. ISBN 0884946398. GospeLink
  35. ↑ Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report (October 1897), 18–19. See also Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," BYU Devotional (26 February 1980), off-site
  36. ↑ Carol Myers, "Exodus," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press), 114. Importantly, Myers further states on the same page: "Note that compensation is sometimes acceptable (vv. 22, 26, 27) and that the rabbinic understanding of talion calls for paying damages."
  37. ↑ Coleen de Bellefonds, "How Babies Breathe in the Womb," What to Expect, July 19, 2021, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-health/how-babies-breathe-womb.
  38. ↑ "Medical Animation: Prenatal Heart Circulation," St. Louis Children's Hospital, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-resources/pulse/medical-animation-prenatal-heart-circulation.
  39. ↑ Steven Andrew Jacobs "Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’," SSRN, August 6, 2018; "Life Begins at Fertilization," Princeton, accessed May 7, 2022, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html; Steven Andrew Jacobs, "Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate," (Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2019); Steve Jacobs, "I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular," Quilette, October 16, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/.

Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction Mormonism and science

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 Mormonism and persecution Mormonism and politics Mormon ordinances Mormonism and priesthood Mormonism and church integrity Mormonism and Church discipline Mormon Reformation Website reviews Mormonism and Wikipedia Mormonism and popular media Countercult ministries Evangelical witnessing to Mormons Criticism of Mormonism/Books Criticism of Mormonism/Video Brigham Young Lucy Mack Smith 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=83590"