During my mission, people asked me about the priesthood restriction. I would tell them I didn’t know why the restriction was in place, but it was a commandment from God. Then the Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church was released on February 29, 2012. It states:

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. (mormonnewsroom.org)

I had been taught that we didn't really know why the restriction existed, but I assumed we knew how and when it came about. The idea that we don't even know if it should have existed came to mind. I then discovered more things from official or Church-friendly sources that concerned me and it was painful. I determined to learn all I could in order to get through the pain as quickly as possible, prevent further disillusionment, and gain the ability to help others avoid a faith crisis or work through one. However, I only found more concerns.

Quotes and Sources

-I have not used any sources that could be considered anti-Mormon.

-I do not intend to misrepresent any teachings and most of the citations have links to make it easy to get more context.

-Some sections contain redundant quotes to show a pattern of teaching a doctrine.

-Unless otherwise noted, Bible verses are from the New International Version at biblehub.com because it’s easier to understand (also, President Uchtdorf sometimes uses it – see the references for a talk at lds.org).

The source for many of the quotes I have used is the Journal of Discourses. Here’s what the Church says about this today:

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine. (lds.org)

Despite that position, the Journal was originally approved by the First Presidency and paid for by the Church as an official publication. A “Letter from the First Presidency” was printed in the first volume to voice their approval. It reads:

Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter. You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt. (byu.edu)

And the preface to the eighth volume states:

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of “the light that shines from Zion’s Hill.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, Preface, byu.edu)

Many, if not most, of the quotes in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (lds.org) are taken from Discourses of Brigham Young, which was compiled by Elder John A. Widtsoe and published in 1941 (it is abbreviated as DBY in the Brigham Young manual). The preface of this book states:

This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses, As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved.

Considering these things, it seems that the Journal of Discourses is a legitimate source.

Race Issues

Institution of the Priesthood Restriction

The Church’s Race and the Priesthood essay, released in 2013, says “There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime” (lds.org). However, Joseph is responsible for the scriptures that say “the seed of Cain were black” (Moses 7:22) and “from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land” (Abraham 1:24).

Edward L. Kimball, the son of President Spencer W. Kimball, wrote about the beginning of the priesthood restriction:

The first known direct statement by a Church President that blacks were denied the priesthood came from Brigham Young in February 1849 when he said of “the Africans”: “The curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel.... The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal responsibility for articulating the restriction: “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” (Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, p. 15, byu.edu)

In 1996, President Gordon B. Hinckley had an opportunity to specify why the ban was instituted when Mike Wallace asked him about it. Here is that part of the interview:

Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct.

Mike Wallace: Why?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.

(youtube.com)

He did not even hint that God provided a revelation on the issue. The essay also doesn’t allude to a revelation. It states:

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. (lds.org)

•It is apparent that the prophets were some of those people who were influenced by the racism of the time. These were men who were not supposed to be of the world and were to speak the mind of God.

•Was the restriction inspired by God?

If President Young didn't receive a specific commandment from God to implement the restriction, it seems that he needed only to consider this to be convinced that all gospel blessings should to be available to everyone:

...he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)

Theories

The essay states:

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood.... Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church....

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. (Em. added)

•It was the prophets who advanced the doctrines and members generally accepted what was taught.

•The prophets were among those who “echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority.” What good are prophets if they just echo the societal views of their time?

•The prophets promulgated the “one view” about Cain, so the members “accepted this view.”

Laws banning interracial marriage are also mentioned in the essay. Elder Mark E. Petersen stated:

Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro” (Race Problems – As They Affect the Church, address delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954, p. 19, archive.org).

During a Sunday sermon made in the Tabernacle, Brigham Young said:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Journal of Discourses vol. 10, p. 110, fairmormon.org)

The essay explains, "Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings." Again, it doesn’t specify who taught this explanation, but a 1949 First Presidency letter stated:

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.... Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. (Em. added, fairmormon.org)

And Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate. (fairmormon.org)

Doctrine

The essay repeatedly refers to the ban as a policy, but it was previously taught to be doctrine and a commandment that existed since the Church was organized. Edward L. Kimball explained that LDS sociologist Lowry Nelson wrote to the First Presidency expressing dismay at the ban:

The Presidency responded, “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” Its explanation, they said, was to be found in the premortal existence. (Em. added, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, p. 17, byu.edu)

The 1949 First Presidency letter previously referenced states:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. (Em. added, fairmormon.org)

Ending the Restriction

Regarding the end of the priesthood restriction, the essay states:

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. (Em. added)

The day had come even though Brigham Young said:

How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. (Journal of Discourses vol. 7, pp. 290-291, fairmormon.org)

Repudiation

Finally, the essay states:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

•Was the restriction really a commandment received by revelation from God?

•If it wasn’t a commandment from God, did Brigham Young and others “teach for doctrines the commandments of men”?

•Is there anything we are taught today that will be disavowed and/or condemned in the future?

Other Race Issues

Prophets and apostles have said many negative things about black people. Here are just two examples:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. (Em. added, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses vol. 7, pp. 290-291, fairmormon.org)

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth. (Em. added, John Taylor, Journal of Discourses vol. 22, p. 304, fairmormon.org)

•How can I believe prophets are inspired today when considering the racist remarks made by prophets in the past?

Prophets

The Law of Common Consent

The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual explains the law of common consent:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals...."

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2). (lds.org)

President Joseph F. Smith explained this under oath during the Reed Smoot senate hearings in 1904.

Mr. TAYLER. You have already touched upon the subject of revelation, and if you have anything further to say about it I think this would be as good a time as any, as to the method in which a revelation is received and its binding or authoritative force upon the people.

Mr. SMITH. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by being presented to the church?

Mr. SMITH. Presented in conference.

(Em. added, Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate, p. 96, archive.org)

•Have any policies or other things that affect our lives - such as the Word of Wisdom, tithing, and gospel ordinances - been implemented, changed, or rescinded without being presented and accepted according to this law?

Prophecies, Revelations, and Commandments

This is what the Bible says regarding prophets speaking things that are not fulfilled:

“I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.” (Deuteronomy 18:19-22)

Zion and the Temple

Joseph Smith received a revelation in 1832 regarding the city of New Jerusalem and the temple:

Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. (Em. added, D&C 84:3-5)

A revelation received in 1833 said the Lord would not appoint another place for the gathering of the saints until there was no room left in Jackson County:

And, behold, there is none other place appointed than that which I have appointed; neither shall there be any other place appointed than that which I have appointed, for the work of the gathering of my saints—Until the day cometh when there is found no more room for them; and then I have other places which I will appoint unto them, and they shall be called stakes, for the curtains or the strength of Zion. (Em. added, D&C 101:20-21)

God either prophesied or commanded that the temple would be completed in Jackson County before that generation passed away. If it was not a prophecy and was a commandment only, it still should have been done because “the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them” (1 Nephi 3:7) and He stated:

The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men.... (Em. added, D&C 3:1-3)

However, the saints had to flee to Nauvoo, where a revelation was given in 1841 saying God will excuse his people from fulfilling a commandment if their enemies hinder them:

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

However, they did not give up on building a city in Jackson County. In 1845, Brigham Young stated:

And when we get into Jackson county to walk in the courts of that house, we can say we built this temple: for as the Lord lives we will build up Jackson county in this generation, (cries of amen,) and we will be far better off with regard to temporal things, when we have done, than ever we were before. (Em. added, Times and Seasons, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 956, byu.edu)

•Why didn’t God provide a way for the temple to be built in Jackson County?

•Why did God appoint other gathering places when Jackson County still had plenty of room for the saints?

Civil War

On December 25, 1832, Joseph Smith revealed:

Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. (D&C 87:1-3)

It should be noted that Joseph was aware of the conflict that already existed between the United States and South Carolina and referred to a convention that occurred the month before the revelation was received. He wrote:

The people of South Carolina, in convention assembled (in November), passed ordinances, declaring their state a free and independent nation; and appointed Thursday, the 31st day of January, 1833, as a day of humiliation and prayer, to implore Almighty God to vouchsafe His blessings, and restore liberty and happiness within their borders. President Jackson issued his proclamation against this rebellion, called out a force sufficient to quell it, and implored the blessings of God to assist the nation to extricate itself from the horrors of the approaching and solemn crisis. (History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 301, byu.edu)

Though the South did call on Great Britain for help and received some supplies from them, Great Britain did not have to "call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations." Also, war was not "poured out upon all nations" as a result of the Civil War.

During the time of the war, President Brigham Young stated:

Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands. Many of the blacks are treated worse than we treat our dumb brutes; and men will be called to judgment for the way they have treated the negro, and they will receive the condemnation of a guilty conscience, by the just Judge whose attributes are justice and truth.

Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses vol. 10, p. 250, fairmormon.org)

I credit him for advocating for the kind treatment of slaves, but he clearly stated that the Civil War could not and would not free them.

Second Coming of Christ

This is from a record regarding a special meeting held in Kirtland on February 14, 1835:

President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion—our trials, sufferings, &c., &c.; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and those who went Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene. (Em. added, Millennial Star, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 205, byu.edu)

The twelve apostles were chosen and some of them received a blessing that day. Heber C. Kimball was blessed “that he may stand unto the coming of our Lord, and receive a crown in the Kingdom of our Lord; that he be made acquainted with the day when Christ shall come” (Ibid, p. 206).

The following day, blessings were given to some other apostles. The blessing for Orson Hyde stated that “he shall stand on the earth and bring souls till Christ comes” (Ibid, p. 206). William E. McLellin was blessed that “his days may be prolonged until the coming of the Son of Man,” John F. Boynton was told “thou shalt see the face of thy Redeemer in the flesh,” and William Smith was blessed to “remain on the earth, until Christ shall come to take vengeance on the wicked” (Ibid, p. 207).

This prophecy from Elder Woodruff is printed in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual:

Elder Wilford Woodruff addressed a conference in Logan, Utah, on 22 August 1863. Speaking directly to the youth in attendance, he declared: “Now, my young friends, I wish you to remember these scenes you are witnessing during the visit of President Young and his brethren.... You are to become men and women, fathers and mothers; yea, the day will come, after your fathers, and these prophets and apostles are dead, you will have the privilege of going into the towers of a glorious Temple built unto the name of the Most High (pointing in the direction of the bench), east of us upon the Logan bench; and while you stand in the towers of the Temple and your eyes survey this glorious valley filled with cities and villages, occupied by tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints, you will then call to mind this visitation of President Young and his company. You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughan presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake; it was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea, at that time you will remember the scenes of this day. Treasure them up and forget them not.” President Young followed and said: “What Brother Woodruff has said is revelation and will be fulfilled.” (Em. added, lds.org)

The young people present that day were never able to discuss the destruction of New York, Boston, and Albany because the prophecy was not fulfilled.

Other Revelations

Joseph Smith travelled to Salem, Massachusetts in 1836 because he heard a large amount of money was available there. This is part of the revelation he received at that time:

And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours. (D&C 111:4)

•Joseph did not gain power over the city or obtain gold and silver there.

Joseph Smith stated in 1843:

I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished.... (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 394, byu.edu)

An article addressing this prophecy (fairmormon.org) quotes an author arguing that the United States redressed the wrongs by “inviting the Saints to volunteer five hundred men to help in the 1846 war with Mexico” and promising “safety as they travelled through Indian lands to the west.” Those actions did nothing to punish the crimes committed by Missouri’s officers, so the conditions stated in the prophecy were not met. It is also argued that the Civil War sufficiently punished Missouri, but neither the United States nor the Missouri governments were “utterly overthrown and wasted.”

Pharisaism

Teachings of Jesus

The Pharisees created many rules that changed the focus from the heart to outward appearances. Jesus condemned them for taking pride in sitting in seats of honor and receiving public praise. They took care to pay tithing on any increase from their gardens, but they neglected more important things (Matthew 23: 5-7,23-26). They would even teach the people to withhold financial assistance from their parents by saying their money was devoted to God (Mark 7:10-13). They were concerned about washing their hands and having clean dishes, while their hearts were impure (Luke 11:37-41).

The Church

Boyd K. Packer gave a talk in 1996 explaining that what he was about to teach is not in the scriptures, handbooks, or manuals. He said:

I will be speaking about what I call the “unwritten order of things.” My lesson might be entitled “The Ordinary Things about the Church Which Every Member Should Know.” Although they are very ordinary things, they are, nevertheless, very important! (byu.edu)

He explained that “the first counselor always sits on the right of the president; the second counselor on the left.” He also talked about “wearing Sunday best” and complained that “we see ever more informal, even slouchy, clothing in our meetings, even in sacrament meeting, that leads to informal and slouchy conduct.”

Here is a list of some other written and unwritten Church rules taught now or in the past:

-No gambling

-No tea

-No coffee

-No alcohol

-No tobacco

-Attend 3 hours of church meetings

-Males should wear white shirts and ties

-Beards are discouraged

-No tattoos

-No body piercings

-Only one pair of earrings for girls and none for boys

-Young women should not wear short shorts or short skirts

-Young women should not show their shoulders

-Young women should cover their stomachs

-No dating until age 16

-No shopping, athletic events, hunting, fishing, swimming, picnics, joy rides, going to canyons, or visiting friends socially on Sundays

-No passionate kissing before marriage

-Don’t play with face cards

-When referring to General Authorities, use their title and full name

-No birth control

-No oral sex

-Don't wear masks

-No back rubs during Sacrament Meeting

-No flip flops at church

-Sacrament prayers must be said exactly right

-Take the sacrament with right hand

-Use 17^th century familiar pronouns when praying

-No loud laughter

-Eat meat sparingly

Also, this was printed in The Friend magazine:

When you get dressed to go to school, church, or just be with your friends, look over this checklist to make sure your appearance reflects what you believe. Ask yourself, “If I were with Jesus Christ, would I feel comfortable with my appearance?”

• My shoulders are covered.

• My shirt covers my stomach.

• My shorts or skirt go to my knees.

• My shirt is not low-cut.

• My clothes are not tight.

• I don’t look sloppy.

• My hair is combed.

• My clothes are not saggy, torn, or holey to fit in with a style.

• Labels or words on my clothes are respectful, not rude or offensive.

(lds.org)

And Church Handbook 2 states:

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. (lds.org)

•The Book of Mormon was written for our day, but all it says about clothing is to avoid costly or fine apparel.

•Is there too much focus on outward appearance?

•Does the Church have too many rules that distract us from more important things?

Praise of Man

The following hymns are found in our Hymn Book:

-“Praise to the Lord, the Almighty”

-“Praise the Lord with Heart and Voice”

-“Praise Ye the Lord”

-“Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow”

-“Praise to the Man”

That last one is the only one that is not about praising the Lord. In everyday life, “praise” just means saying good things about someone. In the setting of a church service, however, it means to glorify a god or saint. When considering the context of some of the words, it becomes more troubling. It seems to include language referring to the Oath of Vengeance that was a part of the endowment until 1927. Brett D. Dowdle wrote this in a BYU Religious Studies Center paper:

Pained by the tragedy at Carthage, W. W. Phelps penned a well-known tribute to Joseph Smith now entitled “Praise to the Man.” In its original language, the poem read, in part,

Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr;

Honor’d and blest be his ever great name;

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,

Stain Illinois, while the earth lauds his fame....

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;

Earth must atone for the blood of that man!

Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.

Millions shall know “brother Joseph” again....

In February 1861, with the secession crisis in full sway and the nation on the brink of war, Brigham stated that he “knew the reason why this Government was in trouble.” He attributed the national problems to the fact that “they had killed Joseph Smith” and noted that the country would “have to pay for it as the Jews did in killing Jesus.” (Em. added, “What Means This Carnage?”: The Civil War in Mormon Thought, byu.edu)

President Brigham Young said this regarding Joseph and other martyrs:

The souls of all such, since the days of Jesus, are “under the altar,” and are crying to God, day and night, for vengeance. And shall they cry in vain? God forbid! He has promised He will hear them in His own due time, and recompense a righteous reward. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 32, fairmormon.org)

Elder Abraham H. Cannon wrote of his father, Elder George Q. Cannon:

...he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs. ("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," December 6, 1889, quoted in The Odyssey of a Latter-day Prophet: Wilford Woodruff and the Manifesto of 1890, byu.edu)

And the same journal entry states:

Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, "Just as I have always looked upon it—that it was a d—d cold-blooded murder." The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart. (fairmormon.org)

•Should we sing a hymn associated with such violence?

Perhaps the sentiment of praising Joseph Smith began with John Taylor writing “the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the best blood of the nineteenth century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world...” (D&C 135:6).

Following are some quotes about Joseph Smith by some of his successors that are found in Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals:

If Jesus lives, and is the Savior of the world, Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, and lives in the bosom of his father Abraham. Though they have killed his body, yet he lives and beholds the face of his Father in Heaven; and his garments are pure as the angels that surround the throne of God; and no man on the earth can say that Jesus lives, and deny, at the same time, my assertion about the Prophet Joseph. This is my testimony, and it is strong. (Em. added, Brigham Young, lds.org)

...I testify before God, angels, and men, that he was a good, honorable, virtuous man—that his doctrines were good, scriptural, and wholesome—that his precepts were such as became a man of God—that his private and public character was unimpeachable—and that he lived and died as a man of God and a gentleman. This is my testimony.... When I reflected that our noble chieftain, the Prophet of the living God, had fallen, and that I had seen his brother in the cold embrace of death.... I thought, why must God’s nobility, the salt of the earth, the most exalted of the human family, and the most perfect types of all excellence, fall victims to the cruel, fiendish hate of incarnate devils? (Em. added, John Taylor, lds.org)

There never was a man that possessed a higher degree of integrity and more devotedness to the interest of mankind than the Prophet Joseph Smith.... I knew him to be a man of God, full of the spirit of his calling—a man whose integrity could not be disputed, and who was honest in all his endeavors. No one that was as intimately acquainted with him as I was could find any fault with him, so far as his moral character was concerned.... One day he called the brethren of the Twelve Apostles together and other prominent Elders of the Church to appoint them to their several labors and missions. Each sat and waited with much anxiety to hear the word of the Prophet concerning his future duties. They felt that they were in the presence of a superior being. (Em. added, Lorenzo Snow, lds.org)

To me it is very strange indeed that there should be so much extreme ill feeling manifested by the world against Joseph Smith. He wronged no man. I am a witness of that, for I know his life. I have seen him in the flesh, and I have read of his sayings. I have read the revelations that the Lord gave to him. I am familiar with his work, and I know that he never wronged a living soul. He did not injure his fellowmen, but he did much to exalt them. (Em. added, Joseph F. Smith, lds.org)

Thus did the Prophet Joseph Smith climax his earth life and fulfill the mortal part of his divinely appointed mission. This mortal mission, he made clear, was not to end until fully completed. Like the mission of the Savior, “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” Joseph was truly foreordained to his great mission.... I testify to you that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, one of the truly great prophets of all time, a man of destiny, a man of character, a man of courage, a man of deep spirituality, a God-like prophet of the Lord, a truly noble and great one of all time. (Em. added, Ezra Taft Benson, lds.org)

We are taught that no one can have a testimony of Christ without having a testimony of Joseph Smith, so Catholics and Protestants can’t have such a testimony. We are taught that his character was unimpeachable, he was the most exalted of people and the most perfect types of all excellence, he had more integrity than anyone, his moral character was without fault, he never wronged anyone, he was God-like, and some people considered him to be a superior being. What concerns me the most is how he was likened to the Savior. The phrase “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world” refers to Jesus Christ only.

•Should such teachings be in our official lesson manuals?

President Brigham Young also said:

Well, now, examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work—the man whom God called and to whom he gave the keys of Priesthood, and through whom he has established his Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as that of any man's mentioned in the Bible. We can find no person who presents a better character to the world when the facts are known than Joseph Smith, jun. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 203, fairmormon.org)

And Elder John Taylor wrote a poem titled “The Seer” that used to be in the Hymnal and Primary Children’s Song Book. Here is part of it:

Of noble seed—of heavenly birth,

He came to bless the sons of earth....

O'er the world that was wrapt in sable night,

Like the sun he spread his golden light....

The saints;—the saints; his only pride,

For them he liv'd, for them he died!...

Unchanged in death, with a Saviors love

He pleads their cause, in the courts above....

His home's in the sky;—he dwells with the Gods,

Far from the furious rage of mobs.

He died; he died—for those he lov'd,

He reigns;—he reigns in realms above....

(Em. added, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, no. 24, p. 767, byu.edu)

It’s implied that Joseph Smith’s birth was divine and it says he spread his light, died for the saints, possesses a Savior’s love, pleads our cause, dwells with the Gods, and reigns above. The birth of Christ was divine, He is “the light of the world” (John 8:12), He died for us as the only one with a Savior’s love, He pleads our cause (1 John 2:1), dwells with God the Father, and reigns in heaven.

A popular song called “Blessed Be His Name” glorifies Christ. A concert held at BYU was titled “Joseph Smith: Blessed Be His Name” (deseretnews.com). There was also a display in the Abraham Smoot Building that appears to be a nativity scene, but a doll representing Joseph Smith was in a cradle. His picture was shown with the following quote:

We are the beneficiaries of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, a work which had its earthly commencement with the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the hills of Vermont on a December day in 1805. As we commemorate the birth of the babe in Bethlehem, the Savior of the world, may we also remember his emissary, Joseph Smith, and consciously rejoice in his life and sacrifice, as well. (lds.org)

•Is it any wonder that we are accused of worshiping Joseph Smith?

Today I hear people praising President Thomas S. Monson, saying they are thrilled to be in his presence or something similar. I don’t hear the General Authorities saying anything to curtail the excessive praise that sometimes seems to reach the level of idolatry. I have heard that people are honoring the office and not the man, but can the man really be separated from the office?

•Does the praise of prophets in the Church detract from worshiping God?

Follow the Prophet

At the October 2010 General Conference, Elder Kevin R. Duncan said:

The prophet and President of the Church today, Thomas S. Monson, receives God’s word for the entire membership of the Church and for the world.... Trusting in and following the prophets is more than a blessing and a privilege. President Ezra Taft Benson declared that “our [very] salvation hangs on” following the prophet. (Em. added, lds.org)

For the June 1981 First Presidency Message, President Ezra Taft Benson taught the “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” (lds.org). From the first and fifth rules we learn that “The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything” and he can be the authority on any subject. The second and third rules give allowance for the prophet to contradict and override the scriptures and past prophets.

The fourth rule states “The prophet will never lead the church astray.” We are to trust what he says even if it’s wrong or doesn’t feel right. President Benson quoted a story told by President Marion G. Romney in 1960:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home ... Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Em. added)

According to the sixth rule, he doesn’t have to say “Thus Saith the Lord” to give God’s word, so he can be speaking for God at any time. However, it’s also been said that “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine” (mormonnewsroom.org).

Rule seven is “The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.” According to the eighth rule, the prophet speaks the truth even if it just doesn’t make sense.

The eleventh and twelfth rules imply that those who do not follow the prophet are probably prideful, worldly sinners. The last rule says that those who reject the prophets will suffer.

•Despite failed prophecies and past teachings that have been disavowed or condemned, we are taught to follow the prophet no matter what.

•Are we supposed to be unclear about when the prophet is speaking for God so that his words can be either sanctioned or discounted in the future?

•Do some members allow the prophet to be God’s voice to the extent that they rely less on the Holy Ghost?

•To what extent should we follow the brethren?

Testimonies

Elder Boyd K. Packer taught how one might gain a testimony:

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. (lds.org)

•Should someone stand up and say “I know this is true” before actually knowing?

Elder Neil L. Andersen provided some ways to gain a testimony of Joseph Smith:

Here are two ideas: First, find scriptures in the Book of Mormon that you feel and know are absolutely true. Then share them with family and friends in family home evening, seminary, and your Young Men and Young Women classes, acknowledging that Joseph was an instrument in God’s hands. Next, read the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price or in this pamphlet, now in 158 languages. You can find it online at LDS or with the missionaries. This is Joseph’s own testimony of what actually occurred. Read it often. Consider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly, and sharing it with friends. Listening to the Prophet’s testimony in your own voice will help bring the witness you seek. (Em. added, lds.org)

This sounds like he’s encouraging the youth to gain a conviction by repeating something over and over again. We are taught to have faith, study, and pray for confirmation that it is true rather than asking if it's true. If people don’t get a testimony, they are told to have more faith, study more, and pray more until they do, and they are made to feel something is wrong with them if the testimony still doesn’t come.

•It seems like that method could be used to convince people that just about anything is true.

Another issue is that it’s difficult to discern whether a message comes from God, our own emotions, or Satan. Elder Boyd K. Packer stated:

The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary. (Em. added, lds.org)

•Can we know for certain the source of promptings?

•Since it’s difficult to determine the source of such messages, should they really be the ultimate measurement of truth claims?

Scriptures and Translations

The Book of Abraham

A man named Michael Chandler visited Kirtland in 1835 to exhibit some mummies and papyrus scrolls. Joseph Smith stated:

There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation....

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. (Em. added, History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235-236, byu.edu)

Following is the current introduction to The Book of Abraham:

Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (Abraham 1)

The Church’s Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay explains:

The papyri were divided up and sold to various parties; historians believe that most were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Ten papyrus fragments once in Joseph Smith’s possession ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. In 1967, the museum transferred these fragments to the Church, which subsequently published them in the Church’s magazine, the Improvement Era. (lds.org)

The essay confirms that the papyri actually have nothing to do with Abraham:

The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived. (Em. added)

A possible explanation is provided:

Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

•The translation of fascimile 1 is totally incorrect, so why would anyone believe Joseph correctly translated other sections of the papyri?

The essay provides another possible explanation, saying the papyri may have led to a revelation:

According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

That theory simply doesn’t fit the story. The records show that Joseph attempted a literal translation. In addition to what has already been cited, he wrote this in July of 1835:

The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients. (Joseph Smith History, 1838–1856, vol. B-1, p. 597, josephsmithpapers.org)

There are some other translation issues. KJV Abraham 2:18 and KJV Genesis 12:6 refer to “the plains of Moreh.” However, more modern translations of the bible render it correctly as “the great tree of Moreh” or “the oak of Moreh” (see biblehub.com). It is clear that there is a mistranslation in the King James Bible that is included in Abraham, and there are other similar instances.

•Why would Joseph copy mistranslated words from the King James Bible if he were translating the actual words of Abraham?

•Why are Joseph's explanations of the vignettes completely unrelated to the actual meanings?

•Did he deceive people by claiming he translated Abraham’s writing?

Kinderhook Plates

In 1843, Joseph Smith came across the Kinderhook Plates and the following was recorded:

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 372, byu.edu)

(lds.org)

The plates turned out to be a hoax. There is an argument that Joseph compared one deconstructed symbol from of the Kinderhook Plates to a boat-like symbol on his “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” to come up with the information about the skeleton (fairmormon.org), but it seems like quite a stretch.

It is likely that Joseph would have completed the translation if he had not been murdered. John Taylor stated that “the contents of the plates ... will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed” (lds.org).

The Book of Mormon

Seer Stone

For many years, the Church has depicted Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with the gold plates sitting on a table. The 2016 Outline for Sharing Time (lds.org) includes this image:

This image is in the Church History in the Fulness of Times Student Manual (2003, ch. 5, lds.org):

This is from an article in the June 2008 Friend magazine (lds.org):

And this is part of the LDS Media Library (lds.org) with the caption “Joseph Smith Translating (Joseph Smith Translating the Gold Plates)”:

In the 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote about another method of translation:

While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. (Em. added, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 225)

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones or crystal balls. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 565-566)

An Ensign article in 1979 states that a man named Abner Cole “sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of ‘peep stones’ to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits” (lds.org).

On occasion, it was also explained that Joseph used a brown rock during the translation process. An article in 1974 in the Friend magazine mentioned that “Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone” (lds.org). In 1993, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing.” (lds.org)

On August 4, 2015, the Church History Department released “never-before-seen photographs of a seer stone Joseph Smith likely used in the translation of the Book of Mormon” (mormonnewsroom.org). It’s a stone Joseph “discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates” (lds.org). An accompanying article titled “Joseph the Seer” was published in the October 2015 issue of the Ensign (lds.org). The article includes this image:

The caption reads:

The stone pictured here has long been associated with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon translation. The stone Joseph Smith used in the Book of Mormon translation effort was often referred to as a chocolate-colored stone with an oval shape. This stone passed from Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery and then to the Church through Brigham Young and others.

The following two images depict Joseph translating with the stone in a hat (fairmormon.org):

Many members of the Church had not known about the seer stone and were surprised. An introduction to an article published in the BYU Religious Education Review in 2016 states:

Joseph Smith translated much of the Book of Mormon by placing a seer stone in a hat then reading the book’s text to a scribe. Once thought by many Latter-day Saints to be an anti-Mormon fairy tale, recent Latter-day Saint scholars have affirmed this story, one that some historians had long known. (Em. added, byu.edu)

When asked about the Church releasing information about the seer stone, Richard L. Bushman said:

Well, I wasn’t surprised by it because I’ve written two books about Joseph Smith and in both of them I referred to the seer stone. It’s just been part of the historical record for so long that it really was nothing new. But the fact is it had not been part of Church instruction, it didn’t come up in Seminary and Institute classes, it wasn’t in manuals, and was only referred to in sort of scholarly historical publications. So, for... a lot of people it came as a shock to think that this, rather than the Urim and Thummim, was the instrument for translating the Book of Mormon. (Em. addded, 2015, youtube.com, beginning at 2:30)

However, not all LDS scholars were aware of the seer stone in the past. In 2000, Joseph Fielding McConkie (Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU) and Craig J. Ostler (Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU) wrote about David Whitmer’s account of the Book of Mormon translation and concluded that his explanation is “simply fiction.” Their argument explains why Joseph’s use of the seer stone can be so troubling:

Finally, the testimony of David Whitmer simply does not accord with the divine pattern. If Joseph Smith translated everything that is now in the Book of Mormon without using the gold plates, we are left to wonder why the plates were necessary in the first place. It will be remembered that possession of the plates placed the Smith family in considerable danger, causing them a host of difficulties. If the plates were not part of the translation process, this would not have been the case. It also leaves us wondering why the Lord directed the writers of the Book of Mormon to make a duplicate record of the plates of Lehi. This provision which compensated for the loss of the 116 pages would have served no purpose either. Further, we would be left to wonder why it was necessary for Moroni to instruct Joseph each year for four years before he was entrusted with the plates. We would also wonder why it was so important for Moroni to show the plates to the three witnesses, including David Whitmer. And why did the Lord have the Prophet show the plates to the eight witnesses? Why all this flap and fuss if the Prophet didn't really have the plates and if they were not used in the process of translation? What David Whitmer is asking us to believe is that the Lord had Moroni seal up the plates and the means by which they were to be translated hundreds of years before they would come into Joseph Smith's possession and then decided to have the Prophet use a seer stone found while digging a well so that none of these things would be necessary after all. Is this, we would ask, really a credible explanation of the way the heavens operate? (Em. added, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, pp. 89-98, byui.edu)

•Why would ancient prophets go through the trouble of engraving on metal plates and carefully preserving them along with the Urim and Thummim if Joseph Smith didn't really need the plates and could provide the text using a stone he found in the ground?

Treasure Hunting

The Church’s Book of Mormon Translation essay indicates that Joseph Smith used the seer stone for treasure hunting:

As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture. (lds.org)

Regarding the translation process, the essay goes on to say:

Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.

A man named Josiah Stowell Sr. believed he had discovered the location of an old Spanish mine in Pennsylvania. Regarding this, Richard L. Bushman wrote:

For a time Joseph used a stone to help people find lost property and other hidden things, and his reputation reached Stowell....

In 1825, when the family needed money, Joseph Jr. agreed to help Stowell find the Spanish gold, but with misgivings. Lucy said of Stowell’s operation that “Joseph endeavored to divert him from his vain pursuit.” Alva Hale, a son in the household where the Smiths stayed in Harmony while digging for Stowell, said Joseph Jr. told him that the “gift in seeing with a stone” was “a gift from God” but that “ ‘peeping’ was all d—d nonsense”; he had been deceived in his treasure-seeking, but he did not intend to deceive anyone else. (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 2, “Treasure”)

The following year, Stowell’s nephew Peter Bridgeman submitted a complaint against Joseph. Bushman wrote:

New York law specified that anyone pretending to have skill in discovering lost goods should be judged a disorderly person. Joseph had continued working for Stowell after the abortive mining operation in November 1825, and during that time, besides working on the farm and going to school, Joseph may have helped look for lost mines again. Presumably, Bridgeman believed that Joseph was trying to cheat the old man by claiming magical powers....

Under examination, the twenty-year-old Joseph said that he had looked for “hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth” and had helped Stowell several times. For the past three years at Palmyra (going back to the time he found the seerstone in 1822), “he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was.” But he was not happy with this work.... “He did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.” He had been under pressure from neighbors, from the enthusiastic and well-off Stowell, and from his own father. They kept after him even though the hunts invariably failed. (Ibid)

Bushman also wrote:

Money-digging was epidemic in upstate New York. Stories of spirits guarding buried treasure were deeply enmeshed in the region’s rural culture.... The so-called credulity of the money-diggers can be read as evidence of their general faith in invisible forces. Christian belief in angels and devils blended with belief in guardian spirits and magical powers.... The visit of the angel and the discovery of the gold plates would have confirmed the belief in supernatural powers. For people in a magical frame of mind, Moroni sounded like one of the spirits who stood guard over treasure in the tales of treasure-seeking. (Ibid)

•Since Joseph “had been deceived in his treasure-seeking” and “the hunts invariably failed,” why would the stone work to translate ancient writings?

•Did his belief in “spirits guarding buried treasure” lead Joseph to invent the story of Moroni and the gold plates?

Errors

Joseph Smith included in the Book of Mormon some words of Isaiah from the King James Bible that were not translated correctly. Some errors in the Old Testament were fixed with the Joseph Smith Translation, but the errors remained in the Book of Mormon (fairmormon.org). The Book of Mormon Translation essay acknowledges that the original manuscript “includes errors that suggest the scribe heard words incorrectly rather than misread words copied from another manuscript” (lds.org). This does not seem to agree with what Russell M. Nelson related when he quoted David Whitmer:

One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. (lds.org)

One example of an error is in 2 Nephi 19:1. It contains the phrase, “did more grievously afflict by the way of the Red Sea.” The King James Version of Isaiah 9:1 renders it “did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea.” The phrase “more grievously afflict” should actually be a phrase about honor or glory (see biblehub.com), so the KJV and Book of Mormon contain an error that gives a very different meaning. It was also found that the path referred to as “the way of the sea” is not near the Red Sea.

Despite these issues, a heavenly voice declared the translation is correct:

...we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear." (Em. added, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 54, byu.edu)

•Why did Joseph copy text from the King James Bible - a book that contains many errors - after ancient prophets took the time to engrave the words of Isaiah on metal plates and carefully preserve them?

•Why didn’t God inspire him to translate the words of Isaiah directly from the plates in order to produce a correct translation?

•Why is there a record of a heavenly being declaring the translation to be correct when it contained errors?

Fulness of the Gospel

The Book of Mormon “contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel” (Book of Mormon Introduction) and was written for our day. In his talk The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion, President Ezra Taft Benson stated:

The second great reason why we must make the Book of Mormon a center focus of study is that it was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. Mormon wrote near the end of the Nephite civilization. Under the inspiration of God, who sees all things from the beginning, he abridged centuries of records, choosing the stories, speeches, and events that would be most helpful to us. (lds.org)

However, it does not mention the endowment, work for the dead, eternal marriage, tithing, the Word of Wisdom, plurality of gods, the three degrees of glory, homosexuality, or transgender issues.

•How could the Book of Mormon contain the fulness of the gospel when it doesn’t mention important gospel principles?

•How could the Book of Mormon be written for our day when it doesn’t mention significant issues that need to be addressed?

Possible Influences

There are a few books that could have influenced the Book of Mormon and I will discuss two of them. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote a collection of essays called Studies of the Book of Mormon, which shows parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (the full book is at byu.edu). It is likely that Joseph Smith was familiar with the general premise of the book even if he didn’t read it. View of the Hebrews contains the following:

-A buried book taken from the earth (It speaks of “four folded leaves of old parchment. These leaves were of a dark yellow, and contained some kind of writing.... They were written in Hebrew with a pen, in plain and intelligible writing” [p. 168])

-The Egyptian language (An Egyptian influence is present in hieroglyphic paintings made by Native Americans)

-The Urim and Thummim (It says, “His breast-plate is made of a white conch shell, through which two straps of otter skin pass in two perforations; while white buttons of buck's horn are superadded, as though in imitation of the precious stones on the ancient breast-plate” [p. 89])

-The destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel

-Hebrews leaving the Old World for the New World

-The Americas being an uninhabited land

-Colonists spreading out to fill the entire land

-Condemnation of the prideful rich

-Condemnation of polygamy

-Extensive military fortifications and "watch towers"

-The Gospel being preached in the Americas

-Civil and ecclesiastical power being united in the same person

-A government change from a monarchy to a republic

-The people splitting up into savage and civilized classes and the former eventually annihilates the latter:

The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving in this continent with some knowledge of the acts of civilized life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the best game, inviting them to chase; most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted from each other, lost each other, and formed separate tribes. Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts; and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted relics of civilization discovered in the west and south were furnished. But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more civilized brethren. And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all were left in an “outcast” savage state. This accounts for their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of navigation, and of the use of iron. (p. 130)

While B.H. Roberts may not have lost his faith in the Book of Mormon, he concluded that Joseph Smith had the resources and imagination to write it without divine assistance:

One other subject remains to be considered in this division of the "study" here conducted, viz.-was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters-from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question. (Studies of the Book of Mormon, ch. 14, p. 243)

Second, The Late War (archive.org) could have been an influence. This book is “an educational text written by Gilbert J. Hunt and published in New York in 1816” and gives “an account of the War of 1812 written in the style of the King James Bible” (wikipedia.org). Folllowing is a comparison of some text with The Late War on the left and the Book of Mormon on the right:

Ch. 14

And the small band of Columbia fought desperately, and the slaughter was dreadful; and the pure snow of heaven was sprinkled and stained with the blood of men!

Ch. 35

Immediately Jackson took two thousand hardy men, who were called volunteers, because they fought freely for their country and led them against the savages.

Now the men of war that followed after him were mostly from the state of Tennessee, and men of dauntless courage.

Alma 57:19-20

But behold, my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them.

And as the remainder of our army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted.

Alma 53:18,20

Now behold, there were two thousand of those young men, who entered into this covenant and took their weapons of war to defend their country....

And they were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage....

Ch. 14

For the savages put the burning brand to the houses, from which they could not flee, and burnt them alive therein.

And the flames and the smoke arose! and their cries and their groans reached the high chancery of heaven,

Where they will stand recorded, until the coming of that Day for which all other days were made.

Alma 14:10-11

And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene?...

...and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

Ch. 20

Now the land of Columbia is a most plentiful land, yielding gold and silver, and brass and iron abundantly.

Likewise, all manner of creatures which are used for food, and herbs and fruits of the earth...

From the small insect, that cheateth the microscopic eye, to the huge mammoth that once moved on the borders of the river Hudson....

It is more wonderful than the elephant...

Ether 9:16-19

And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and the house of Emer did prosper exceedingly...

Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things;

And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.

...and there were elephants and cureloms.... (Orson Pratt indicated that “cureloms” were mammoths, Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 340, fairmormon.org)

Ch. 27

Howsoever, they cut down the tall trees of the forest, and hewed them,

and built many more strong vessels; although they had no gophar-wood amongst them in these days.

And they made stories to them, even to the third story, and they put windows in them, and they pitched them within and without with pitch; after the fashion of the ark.

Ether 2:17,22-23

...and the length thereof was the length of a tree...

...I have prepared the vessels for my people....

And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows....

Ether 6:7

...they were tight like unto the ark of Noah....

Ch. 29

But the men of Croghan were prepared for them; and they let loose their weapons of war upon them, and set their destroying engine to work, and smote the men of Britain, hip and thigh, with great slaughter.

And the deep ditch that surrounded the fort was strewed with their slain and their wounded.

So the host of Britain were dismayed and overthrown, and fled in confusion from the fort into the forest....

Now the loss of the men of Britain was about an hundred two score and ten; and of the men of Columbia there was one slain and seven wounded.

Alma 49:21-23,25

...and began to contend with the Nephites, to get into their place of security; but behold, they were driven back from time to time, insomuch that they were slain with an immense slaughter.

...and instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down the banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead and wounded bodies.

...yea, and more than a thousand of the Lamanites were slain; while, on the other hand, there was not a single soul of the Nephites which was slain.

And it came to pass, that when the Lamanites saw that their chief captains were all slain they fled into the wilderness.

Ch. 38

Now David was a valiant man....

...with the wisdom of a brave man....

Inasmuch as he put the wise men of the king men of the king to their wits end; for they were unable to out-sail him and take him captive....

...then shall ye receive the thunders of the freemen of Columbia abundantly....

Alma 48:11

And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding...

Alma 51:5-6

...those who were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgment-seat were called king-men....

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen....

Ch. 50

...the people said, Lo! the man is beside himself and they laughed at him; nevertheless, he exceeded their expectations.

...he was enabled to construct certain curious vessels, called in the vernacular tongue, steam-boats.

Now these steam-boats were cunningly contrived, and had abundance of curious workmanship therein, such as surpassed the comprehension of all the wise men of the east, from the beginning to this day;

1 Nephi 17:17

...they began to murmur against me, saying: Our brother is a fool, for he thinketh that he can build a ship; yea, and he also thinketh that he can cross these great waters.

1 Nephi 18:1,4

...and we did work timbers of curious workmanship....

And it came to pass that after I had finished the ship, according to the word of the Lord, my brethren beheld that it was good, and that the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine...

Ch. 50

Now these wonderful torpedoes were made partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball.

1 Nephi 16:10

...he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass. And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness.

•Considering all of these concerns, can I trust the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

The Doctrine and Covenants

Changing Revelations

A revelation regarding the gold plates was published in 1833 as part of the Book of Commandments and it is now in the Doctrine and Covenants. Here are the passages with some changes highlighted:

...and he has a gift to translate the book, and

I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

And verily I say unto you, that wo shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth, if they will not hearken unto my words, for,

behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe my servant Joseph.... But this generation shall have my words,

yea and the testimony of three of my servants

shall go forth with my words unto this generation; yea, three shall know of a surety that these things are true, for I will give them power, that they may behold and view these things as they are, and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation.

And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth and my word, and behold, whoso ever believeth in my word, them will I visit with the manifestation of my Spirit, and they shall be born of me, and their testimony shall also go forth.

(Book of Commandments 4:2-4,

josephsmithpapers.org)

And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

Verily, I say unto you, that woe shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth if they will not hearken unto my words; For hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and deliver my words unto the children of men.

Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph.... But this generation shall have my word through you; And in addition to your testimony, the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you.

And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation, in this the beginning of the rising up and the coming forth of my church out of the wilderness—clear as the moon, and fair as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.

And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth of my word. And behold, whosoever believeth on my words, them will I visit with the manifestation of my Spirit; and they shall be born of me, even of water and of the Spirit—And you must wait yet a little while, for ye are not yet ordained—

(D&C 5:4-11,14-17)

(josephsmithpapers.org)

Also consider these passages:

Behold this is wisdom in me, wherefore marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth,

and with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world....

(Book of Commandments 28:6,

josephsmithpapers.org)

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel... And also John the son of Zacharias... to ordain you unto the first priesthood... And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them; Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom... And also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world. (D&C 27:5-14).

•Is it okay to record a revelation from God and then make a significant change to it?

•Why would Joseph want to change the revelation to indicate he would have other gifts, that he and others would be ordained, and that this generation will receive God’s word through him?

•Why would accounts of receiving the priesthood and being ordained apostles need to be added?

Discrepancies

The Doctrine and Covenants doesn't seem to agree with the Book of Mormon on some issues:

•Is there one God or are there many gods?

And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

And he answered, No.

(Alma 11:27-29)

According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was....

(D&C 121:32)

•Is there only heaven and hell or are there three degrees of glory? Is there endless punishment or not?

And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken.

(Em. added, 1 Nephi 15:35)

Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other—

(Em. added, Alma 41:4)

Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

(Em. added, Alma 42:16)

Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. (Em. added, D&C 19:5-7)

And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one. And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the glory of the moon is one. And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world....

(D&C 76:96-98)

•Does one need to endure to the end?

And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be. (Em. added, 1 Nephi 13:37)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. (Em. added, D&C 132:26)

•Can murder be forgiven?

...repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders...and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins....

(Em. added, 3 Nephi 30:2)

And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

(Em. added, D&C 42:18)

Temples

See the “Salvation” section for information on how temples relate to salvation.

Temple ordinances used to be performed outside of temples. Joseph Smith used the upper room of his red brick store (lds.org) and ordinances were performed in the Endowment House from 1855 to 1889 (inexplicably, some ordinances were not done there – see Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 186, fairmormon.org). It is also believed that Peter, James, and John received their endowment on the Mount of Transfiguration (lds.org).

(Endowment House, wikipedia.org)

•Why do we spend billions of dollars building temples when ordinances can be done without them? Does God really care about having fancy buildings?

Masonry and Unchangeable Ordinances

During the 19th century, it was believed that Freemasonry originated with Solomon's Temple. A FairMormon article states:

The Saints of Joseph Smith's era accepted the then-common belief that Masonry ultimately sprang from Solomon's temple. Thus, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball understood Masonry to be a corrupted form of a pristine ancient temple rite....

Joseph Fielding wrote during the Nauvoo period:

Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.... I have evidence enough that Joseph is not fallen. I have seen him after giving, as I before said, the origin of Masonry.

Heber C. Kimball wrote of the endowment:

We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the Priesthood which would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written so you must come and get them for yourself... There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect. (fairmormon.org)

Also, Joseph Smith (or someone writing for him) recorded the following in 1842:

Tuesday, 15.—I officiated as grand chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo Lodge of Free Masons, at the Grove near the Temple. Grand Master Jonas, of Columbus, being present, a large number of people assembled on the occasion. The day was exceedingly fine; all things were done in order, and universal satisfaction was manifested. In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office....

Wednesday, March 16.—I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree. (History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 550,552, byu.edu)

About two months later, he instituted the temple endowment and included Masonic signs and tokens. Contrary to his beliefs and teachings, Freemasonry was developed long after the time of Solomon’s Temple:

There is no clear mechanism by which these local trade organisations became today's Masonic Lodges, but the earliest rituals and passwords known, from operative lodges around the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, show continuity with the rituals developed in the later 18th century by accepted or speculative Masons, as those members who did not practice the physical craft came to be known. The minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No. 1 in Scotland show a continuity from an operative lodge in 1598 to a modern speculative Lodge. It is reputed to be the oldest Masonic Lodge in the world. (Wikipedia)

It is taught that we need to know the signs and tokens received in the temple. President Brigham Young said:

Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell. (Em. added, lds.org)

•The Masonic signs and tokens have nothing to do with ancient temple worship, so why do we use those signs and tokens in temples today?

Joseph Smith taught that God “set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever” (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 208, byu.edu) In 2000, Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander stated:

The sacred ordinances of the gospel as requirements for salvation and exaltation were “instituted from before the foundation of the world.” They have always been an immutable part of the gospel. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.”

If this were not the case, salvation would indeed be an arbitrary matter and would be restricted to those few who may have been fortunate enough to have heard of, and believed in, Jesus Christ. It is this principle of consistent and unalterable requirements that gives true meaning to the performance of vicarious ordinances in the temple. (Em. added, lds.org)

It is well known that the initiatory and the endowment have changed significantly over the years. The sealing ordinance has also changed (see “The Law of Adoption” below).

•If temple ordinances were “instituted from before the foundation of the world” and can never change, how can all the changes that have been implemented be explained?

•How much was inspiration involved when implementing and changing temple ordinances?

Sealings

I love the idea of being with my family in heaven forever. I have found that people with various religious beliefs share this feeling. The Alan Jackson song "Blue Side of Heaven" says:

Don't be sad, darlin' I love you

And I'll take you with my soul's memory

I'm just going ahead to tell them about you

So they will all know you the way that I do...

I'll teach them all the songs that we love, dear

And I'll tell them of our babies at home

I'll hug and kiss all of our loved ones

Who came before so I'm not alone...

So let me go and tell me you love me

I'm not afraid as darlin' I know

That someday soon you'll be there with me

We'll be together as long as time goes

And I'll meet you dear on the blue side of heaven

Where angels sing and days never end

And I'll dance with you on the blue side of heaven

Where God will bless our love once again

(youtube.com)

The Church claims exclusive authority to seal families together forever. For a sealing to be effective, people have to go to the temple to have ordinances performed and make covenants that must be kept. In order to go to the temple, they must have certain beliefs, pay tithing, and obey other rules.

•What if God doesn’t require temple ordinances and covenants in order for families to be together forever?

•Is the temple used as a tool, by making implied threats of eternal separation, to gain the compliance of members?

This is in the June 1971 New Era:

There is not a young man in our community who would not be willing to travel from here to England to be married right, if he understood things as they are; there is not a young woman in our community, who loves the Gospel and wishes its blessings, that would be married in any other way; they would live unmarried until they could be married as they should be, if they lived until they were as old as Sarah before she had Isaac born to her. (Em. added, President Brigham Young, lds.org)

The same article quotes President Heber J. Grant saying, “I believe that no worthy young Latter-day Saint man or woman should spare any reasonable effort to come to a house of the Lord to begin life together....”

And the following story told by President Spencer W. Kimball is currently in Young Women Manual 2:

A few years ago a young couple who lived in northern Utah came to Salt Lake City for their marriage. They did not want to bother with a temple marriage, or perhaps they did not feel worthy. At any rate, they had a civil marriage. After the marriage they got into their automobile and drove north to their home for a wedding reception. On their way home they had an accident, and when the wreckage was cleared, there was a dead man and a dead young woman. They had been married only an hour or two. Their marriage was ended. They thought they loved each other. They wanted to live together forever, but they did not live the commandments that would make that possible. So death came in and closed that career. They may have been good young people; I don’t know. But they will be angels in heaven if they are. They will not be gods and goddesses and priests and priestesses because they did not fulfill the commandments and do the things that were required at their hands. (Em. added, lds.org)

The youth of the Church are taught that it’s very important to be married in the temple and there could be dire consequences if they don’t. If a couple chooses to have a civil marriage in the United States and some other countries, they must wait a year after the wedding to be sealed in the temple. Because of these things, many couples are married in the temple while family and friends wait outside. There is no commandment or revelation regarding the one-year waiting period. It is a policy that could be changed at any time, but it remains in place despite many people being hurt by it.

The Law of Adoption

Until 1894, many members were sealed to prominent Church leaders instead of their own parents. At the April General Conference that year, President Wilford Woodruff stated:

Now, what are the feelings of Israel? They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. President Young was not satisfied in his mind with regard to the extent of this matter; President Taylor was not. When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, “Have you not a father, who begot you?” “Yes, I have.” “Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?” ‘Yes,” says I, “that is right.”...

What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared he would send Elijah the prophet in the last days. (Millennial Star, vol. 56, no. 22, p.338, byu.edu)

It could be said that the manner of sealing the human family together was revealed “line upon line” by correctly implementing portions of it over a period of time, but it really seems that it was implemented incorrectly and then changed.

•Why were sealings done so differently until 1894 and then changed?

Baptisms for the Dead

Speaking of His second coming, Jesus said "then shall the heathen nations be redeemed, and they that knew no law shall have part in the first resurrection" (D&C 45:54). Also, King Benjamin taught:

For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned. But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. (Em. added, Mosiah 3:11-12)

And the prophet Jacob explained:

Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him. (2 Nephi 9:25)

Also, Mormon explained that little children do not need repentance or baptism and wrote:

For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works. (Em. added, Moroni 8:22-23)

•It seems that everyone will either have a chance to learn the Gospel and be baptized or die in ignorance and be saved without baptism, so why do we perform baptisms for the dead?

Garments

Before leaving for Carthage, Joseph Smith and others removed their garments. FairMormon states:

The commonly believed reason for the removal of the garments was that they were removed in order to keep them from falling into the hands of their enemies. Heber C. Kimball reported in his journal that Joseph instructed those of the Quorum who were going to accompany him to Carthage to remove their temple garments prior to leaving....

It appears, therefore, that garments may indeed have been removed in order to prevent them from being mocked. Critics, however, assumed that the garments were removed because Joseph and the others were somehow afraid of wearing them in the presence of their enemies. John Taylor, who was one of the four present in the jail at the time of the Joseph and Hyrum's death, responded to this by clarifying that the garments were sometimes removed simply because of the hot Illinois weather.

Elder John Taylor confirmed the saying that Joseph and Hyrum and himself were without their robes in the jail at Carthage, while Doctor Richards had his on, but corrected the idea that some had, that they had taken them off through fear. W. W. Phelps said Joseph told him one day about that time, that he had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather. (fairmormon.org)

Because some members were altering their garments, the First Presidency stated the following in 1906:

The garments worn by those who receive endowments must be white and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles and around the neck. Admission to the temple will be refused to those who do not comply to these requirements. The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them. (Em. added, Messages of the First Presidency 5:110, 28 June 1906)

After Heber J. Grant became the president, significant changes were made to the pattern and the following was stated as part of a First Presidency letter:

It may be observed that no fixed pattern of Temple garment has ever been given, and that the present style of garment differs very materially from that in use in the early history of the Church, at which time a garment without collar and with buttons was frequently used. (Em. added, Heber J. Grant Letter Books, pp. 436-437, 14 June 1923)

•Since Joseph Smith removed his garments due to hot weather and the First Presidency was mistaken in their statement that God revealed the pattern for garments, do we really know that garments were inspired and required by God?

Sacrifices to be Reinstated

An article composed by Joseph Smith was read during the October 1840 General Conference. He wrote:

It is a very prevalent opinion that the sacrifices which were offered were entirely consumed. This was not the case; if you read Leviticus, second chap., second and third verses, you will observe that the priests took a part as a memorial and offered it up before the Lord, while the remainder was kept for the maintenance of the priests; so that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consumed upon the altar—but the blood is sprinkled, and the fat and certain other portions are consumed.

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchisedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? (Em. added, History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 211, byu.edu)

(lds.org)

This is what the Book of Mormon says about sacrifice:

For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. (Em. added, Alma 34:10)

And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. (Em. added, 3 Nephi 9:19-20)

And this is from The Guide to the Scriptures:

After Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord gave them the law of sacrifice. This law included offering the firstborn of their flocks. This sacrifice symbolized the sacrifice that would be made by the Only Begotten Son of God. This practice continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended animal sacrifice as a gospel ordinance. (Em. added, lds.org)

•Jesus was the great and last sacrifice, so why did Joseph teach that the practice of animal sacrifice will be restored?

God does not Live in Houses made by Man

Matthew wrote, “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Em. added, Matthew 27:50-51). What is the significance of that event?

The writer of the book of Hebrews explained there was a “first covenant” that was replaced by a new, “better covenant.” He wrote:

Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place.... (Hebrews 9:1-3)

Only the High Priest was allowed beyond the curtain (or veil) once a year to make a blood offering. Then Jesus fulfilled His mission and “entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). He “offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” and we can “enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body” (Hebrews 10:12,19-20).

Having fulfilled His mission, “Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22) and He “serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being” (Hebrews 8:2). This is why Stephen said, “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands” (Acts 7:48) and Paul stated, “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands” (Acts 17:24).

•It seems that Jesus Himself is the veil into heaven and the temple veil was rent because the better covenant does not require a worldly sanctuary.

Salvation

Temples

This information is in addition to what was written in the “Temples” section.

The Salvation page on the Church’s website says, “In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the terms ‘saved’ and ‘salvation’ have various meanings.” Here are two of those meanings:

Salvation from Sin. To be cleansed from sin through the Savior's Atonement, an individual must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost....

Eternal Life, or Exaltation. In the scriptures, the words saved and salvation often refer to eternal life, or exaltation (see Abraham 2:11). Eternal life is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever—to inherit a place in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (see John 17:3; D&C 131:1-4; 132:21-24). This exaltation requires that men receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that all Church members make and keep sacred covenants in the temple, including the covenant of eternal marriage. (lds.org)

There is a lot of support in the scriptures and elsewhere for the first meaning, but there is less support for the second. King Benjamin taught:

...I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God....

...but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent....

...if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God, and his matchless power, and his wisdom, and his patience, and his long-suffering towards the children of men; and also, the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life... —I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement.... And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you. (Mosiah 2:41, 3:18, 4:6-8)

He said there is really only one salvation, which is to be “received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God” and it is possible only “in and through the atoning blood of Christ.” However, Joseph Smith introduced the concept of "exaltation," which requires temple ordinances. President Brigham Young said:

I am concerned about Paul's warning about those who might “preach any other gospel” (KJV Galatians 1:8).

•I have a difficult time seeing why God would require key words, signs, and tokens for salvation.

•Can exaltation through temple ordinances be considered another Gospel?

Baptism

Jesus taught the Nephites His doctrine regarding salvation:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost...for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things....

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.... (Em. added, 3 Nephi 11:35-37, 39 -40)

Addtionally, Alma (Mosiah 18:8-10) and others in the scriptures taught the requirements for baptism. Nowhere does it say that one must profess a belief in anyone but Jesus. Today we are taught that the authority to baptize is only with the Church. When potential converts are interviewed to determine if they can be baptized, they are asked:

Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you? (lds.org)

•Is it right to claim sole authority to baptize people and then require that they profess a belief in a prophet?

Grace

President Harold B. Lee taught:

The Savior’s blood, His atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments. All of the principles of the gospel are principles of promise by which the plans of the Almighty are unfolded to us.

Each must do all he can to save himself from sin; then he may lay claim to the blessings of redemption by the Holy One of Israel, that all mankind may be saved by obedience to the law and ordinances of the gospel. (Em. added, lds.org)

President Ezra Taft Benson said:

Grace consists of God’s gift to his children wherein he gave his Only Begotten Son that whosoever would believe in him and comply with his laws and ordinances would have everlasting life.... By his grace, and by our faith in his atonement and repentance of our sins, we receive the strength to do the works necessary that we otherwise could not do by our own power....

“After all we can do” includes extending our best effort. It includes living his commandments. (Em. added, lds.org)

And Elder David A. Bednar stated:

In the Bible Dictionary we learn that the word grace frequently is used in the scriptures to connote enabling power:...

“...This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.” (Em. added, lds.org)

This verse is also a concern:

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. (Moroni 10:32)

•No one does all they can do, so is salvation even possible?

•It seems like I would already be perfect if I were to deny myself of all ungodliness, but I can’t do that on my own, but it’s required for the grace of Christ to be sufficient for me.

Polygamy

The “Polygamy” part of the “Church Transparency” section shows how a lot of information about polygamy is still not available through official Church sources.

The Standard Form of Marriage

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay (lds.org) says “the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage” (Em. added). It could be argued that this has been God’s only acceptable form of marriage for many centuries.

It is said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Moses 3:24). If Adam and Eve were one flesh and cleaved to each other (meaning they were closely and loyally attached), then how could it be possible for an additional wife to enter the relationship? These verses from the Doctrine and Covenants provide further support:

Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. (Em. added, D&C 42:22)

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation.... (Em. added, D&C 49:15-16)

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

Fanny Alger

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents. Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. (Em. added, lds.org)

Why is only a little known about this marriage? We are taught, “In the dispensation of the fulness of times, the Lord commanded the Prophet Joseph Smith to keep a regular history of the Church” (Em. added, lds.org).

•If it was so important that God sent an angel to institute polygamy, why didn't Joseph keep good records regarding it?

•Why did decades pass before it was claimed that they were married?

Brian C. Hales provided some information that is available. He wrote:

In an 1872 letter from William McLellin to Joseph Smith, III, McLellin recalled details of an 1847 conversation with Emma Smith where Emma acknowledged that in the spring of 1836 “she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” What Emma witnessed is not specified. Whether it was the plural marriage ceremony, an exchange of affection, or even sexual relations we are not told.

Regardless, it is obvious Emma did not believe the ceremony was valid and concluded the relationship was adulterous. Ironically, Oliver Cowdery, who Joseph summoned to diffuse the situation, sided with Emma, discounting the validity of the polygamous marriage and later referring to it as a “dirty, nasty, filthy scrape.” Oliver’s vitriol may have been intensified due to his frustrations from recent leadership changes that diminished his overall importance.

As a consequence of the discovery, Emma immediately “turned Fanny out of the house.” (josephsmithspolygamy.org)

In the revelation on eternal marriage, the Lord said:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood— if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. (Em. added, D&C 132:61)

•Why didn’t Joseph tell Emma about the marriage in advance?

•Is it acceptable for a man to marry a woman and then kick her out of his house or allow her to be kicked out?

Lucy Walker

When Lucy Walker was 15 years old, her mother died and her father's health was not good. She wrote:

The Prophet came to our rescue. He said, “If you remain here brother Walker, you will soon follow your wife. You must have a change of scene, a change of climate. You have just such a family as I could love. My house shall be their house. I will adopt them as my own. For the present...the four eldest shall come to my house and be received and treated as my own children.... ” I wrung my hands in the agony of despair at the thought of being broken up as a family, and being separated from the loved ones. But said the Prophet, “My home shall be your home, eternally yours.” I understood him not. (Em added, josephsmithspolygamy.org)

Her father was sent on a mission and she moved into the Smith home. She recorded the following:

In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: “I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. “Most assuredly I do,” I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage.... He said, “If you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle. (Em added, Ibid)

She prayed about it for some time. Her account continues:

I prayed sincerely, but was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable....

The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject, and said.... “This principle will yet be believed in and practiced by the righteous. I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.” (Em added, Ibid)

Lucy then insisted that she needed confirmation from God before taking such a step. She wrote:

He walked across the room, returned and stood before me with the most beautiful expression of countenance, and said: “God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew.”

Oh, how earnestly I prayed for these words to be fulfilled. It was near dawn after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. (Em added, Ibid)

They were married when Lucy was 17 years old.

•Joseph sent Lucy's father on a mission and took her in as one of his "own children." He said God had commanded him to take another wife and told her "you are the woman." He appealed to his position as a prophet of God and told her she would receive a testimony of plural marriage. When she wasn’t receiving an answer to her prayers, Lucy thought it because she wasn’t asking in faith and she prayed more earnestly. Joseph later said God commanded her to marry him and told her, "If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."

•Did the pressure, biased prayers, and sleep deprivation cause her own mind to produce a conviction?

Helen Mar Kimball

Joseph was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball in 1843 when she was 14 years old. The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens. Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations. After Joseph’s death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage. (lds.org)

Though marriage at age 14 was legal, it was very rare. Also, a 14-year-old girl would almost certainly not marry a man as old as Joseph, who was well over twice her age. It is suggested that sex was not involved, but Helen herself wrote:

But the work of the Almighty is rushing towards its completion, which makes this plural wife system an actual necessity.... The principle was established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and all who have entered into it in righteousness, have done so for the purpose of raising a righteous seed; and the object is that we may be restored back to that Eden from whence we fell. (Em. added, Helen Mar Whitney, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, pp. 7-8, archive.org)

It’s true that she became a defender of plural marriage, but the essay doesn’t mention her emotional pain. In an autobiographical letter to her children she wrote later in her life, she explained:

My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage - after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.

This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. (Em. added, byu.edu)

Her letter included a poem, which suggests she thought the marriage would be “for eternity alone” and life would go on as before, but then the poem says:

The world seamed bright the thret'ning clouds were kept

From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.

They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.

And poisonous darts from sland'rous tongues were hurled,

Untutor'd heart in thy gen'rous sacrafise,

Thou dids't not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price

She elaborated on this later:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls.... Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week.... I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there.... I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. (josephsmithspolygamy.org)

Also, Brian C. Hales wrote:

After leaving the Church, dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen saying: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than a ceremony.” Assuming this statement was accurate, which is not certain, the question arises regarding her meaning of “more than a ceremony?” While sexuality is a possibility, a more likely interpretation is that the ceremony prevented her from associating with her friends as an unmarried teenager, causing her dramatic distress after the sealing. (Ibid)

After Joseph died, Helen married Horace Whitney. They crossed the plains as husband and wife, had 11 children, and were together for 38 years. However, they lived without hope that they would be together after death (even if they were sealed sealed posthumously). They were married for time only because she was sealed to Joseph, who lived for only a year after their sealing and with whom she had no meaningful relationship.

•Did Joseph Smith have the authority the promise exaltation to her and family if she would be sealed to him? How much pressure would that put on a 14-year-old girl?

•Does promising exaltation imply that she and her family would be damned if she rejected him?

•Helen stated that the purpose of polygamy was the raising of righteous seed, but even if the marriage was not consummated, part of her childhood was taken away and she was to belong to Joseph forever. She could not be sealed to the man she spent her life with, though they may have been sealed after they died.

The Partridge Sisters

Brian C. Hales wrote about Joseph’s marriages to Eliza and Emily Partridge:

Emily and her older sister, Eliza, went to live in the Prophet’s home. She recalled: “Joseph and Emma offered us [Emily and her sister Eliza] a home in their family They treated us with great kindness. We had been there about one year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us, and I was married to Joseph Smith on the fourth of March 1843 Brother Heber Kimball performing the ceremony.” Her sister was sealed to the Prophet about the same time, but neither was aware of the other’s marriage.... (josephsmithspolygamy.org)

Richard L. Bushman wrote:

While Joseph was alive, there were times when Emma countenanced plural marriage. In May 1843 she approved two wives, Eliza and Emily Partridge, daughters of Edward Partridge and helpers in the Smith household. The sisters were an awkward selection because Joseph had already married them two months earlier in March without Emma’s knowledge. When Joseph proposed, Emily and Eliza, nineteen and twenty-three, went through the usual turmoil. At first they turned Joseph down, but by the time he told Emily that “the Lord had commanded him to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him,” she was prepared. They married on March 4, 1843.... Eliza Partridge married him four days later. In May, they both went through the ceremony again with Emma present. (Em. added, Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 27, “Emma and Joseph”)

•Why did Joseph go through the trouble of deceiving Emma by having another ceremony instead of telling her the truth?

•How must he have viewed her in order to treat her that way?

Bushman continued:

Emma had agreed to the plural marriages, but she immediately regretted it.... One day Emma heard Joseph talking to Eliza Partridge in an upstairs room. Joseph closed the door and held it shut, while Emma called Eliza’s name and tried to open the door. “She seemed much irritated,” he reported to William Clayton....

Emma wanted the marriages to the Partridge girls ended. Emily said, “Joseph asked her [Emma] if we made her the promises she required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persist in our marrying some one else. She made the promise. Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us.” Later he said to Emily privately, “You know my hands are tied. And he looked as if he would sink into the earth.” Emma wanted the girls out of the house and the city. Emily said later that “my sister and I were cast off.” (Em. added, Ibid)

•Why did Joseph keep Emma out of the room?

•Is it acceptable for a man to marry a woman and then cast her away?

The Savior taught, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6). And Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

Many who marry withhold full commitment, poised to flee at the first serious challenge.

In contrast, modern prophets have warned that looking upon marriage “as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure...and severed at the first difficulty...is an evil meriting severe condemnation,” especially where children are made to suffer.

In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior.... (lds.org)

•Did God join Joseph with Eliza and Emily? If so, why were the marriages apparently “severed at the first difficulty”?

There are many more stories about the women who married Joseph Smith.

Polyandry

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

...Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone. Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone. (lds.org)

Three possible explanations for these polyandrous marriages are provided. The first has to do with the Law of Adoption (see the part titled “The Law of Adoption” in the “Temples” section). Here are the others, as explained in the essay:

These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma. He may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord’s command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships. This could explain why, according to Lorenzo Snow, the angel reprimanded Joseph for having “demurred” on plural marriage even after he had entered into the practice. After this rebuke, according to this interpretation, Joseph returned primarily to sealings with single women.

Another possibility is that, in an era when life spans were shorter than they are today, faithful women felt an urgency to be sealed by priesthood authority. Several of these women were married either to non-Mormons or former Mormons, and more than one of the women later expressed unhappiness in their present marriages. Living in a time when divorce was difficult to obtain, these women may have believed a sealing to Joseph Smith would give them blessings they might not otherwise receive in the next life.

The second possible explanation implies that God was so upset about Joseph not having multiple “normal marriage relationships” that He sent an angel to rebuke him. This might make sense if God wanted to “raise up seed” through Joseph, but evidence that he had children with his plural wives is not strong.

The third possible explanation could work for some polyandrous wives. However, David Sessions was a faithful member, Johnathan Holmes was a faithful member who served as a pallbearer at Joseph Smith’s funeral, and Orson Hyde was a faithful member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, but Joseph was still sealed to their wives.

•It seems that the alleged absence of sexual relations in Joseph’s polyandrous marriages is supposed to make it okay, but he took those wives to be his forever, even if a husband was good and faithful.

•If these relationships were not consummated, why didn’t Joseph just say so instead of acting in secret?

The story of Zina D. H. Young is troubling to me. At a FairMormon conference, Allen L. Wyatt explained that when Henry Jacobs was courting Zina, “she was also approached by Joseph Smith who explained plural marriage to her and indicated that she should be his plural wife. From available accounts, Joseph approached Zina three times and was turned down each time” (Zina and Her Men, fairmormon.org).

Wyatt related how Zina learned that Joseph had been commanded by “an angel with a drawn sword” to establish polygamy and she was sealed to him. She was pregnant with Henry’s child at the time and they continued to live together as husband and wife. Wyatt stated:

Some may claim that such polyandrous sealings were eternal in nature only, meaning that Joseph never intended them to be recognized as an earthly marriage. There is strong historical evidence to refute such a position, however. Perhaps the best contraindication in Zina’s case is that the sealing was repeated after the completion of the Nauvoo temple, Brigham was married to Zina in what appears to be a levirate marriage on behalf of Joseph, and Zina declared herself a wife of the martyred Prophet after polygamy was made public in the 1850s. (Ibid)

Wyatt also said, “One of the recurring explanations for the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage is that it was an unhappy union.”

•Did Joseph’s pursuit of Zina contribute to the unhappiness?

In a letter to Zina, Henry wrote:

I feel alone & no one to speak to or call my own I feel like a lamb without a mother I do not blame eny person or persons no may the Lord our father Bless Brother Brigham and all pertains unto him forever tell him for me I have feelings against him nor never had, all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph Zina be comforted be of good cheer and the God of our fathers bless you I know your mind has been troubled about many things but fear not all things will work together for good for them that Love God.... (fairmormon.org)

Denials

Referring to polygamy during the Nauvoo era, the Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

Participants in these early plural marriages pledged to keep their involvement confidential, though they anticipated a time when the practice would be publicly acknowledged.

Nevertheless, rumors spread.... The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage. The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so. (Em. added, lds.org)

Footnote 22 says, “In the denials, ‘polygamy’ was understood to mean the marriage of one man to more than one woman but without Church sanction.”

There was a clear statement regarding marriage included in section 101 of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and section 109 of the 1844 edition. This scripture stated:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. (Em. added, josephsmithpapers.org)

Also, some Church members issued a declaration in 1842 saying the only system of marriage they knew about was the one published in the Doctrine and Covenants. Among others, it was signed by John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Emma Smith, and Eliza R. Snow (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 23, pp. 939-940, byu.edu).

•Is it honest to create a new definition of “polygamy” and then deny it’s being practiced?

William Clayton's journal demonstrates what Joseph was willing to do to keep polygamy a secret. Clayton was worried about being discovered because his plural wife Margaret was pregnant, so Joseph told him, "just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging & probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptise you & set you ahead as good as ever" (boap.org).

•What does this say about how Joseph might have viewed the saving ordinances of the Gospel?

This was spoken by Joseph Smith from the stand just 32 days before he died:

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery....

I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. (Em. added, History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 410-411, byu.edu)

The Gospel Principles manual states that “Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest” (lds.org) and the scriptures teach that the devil is “the father of all lies” (Em. added, 2 Nephi 2:18). Joseph himself taught:

When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you. If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand. If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message. If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.

These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God. (Em. added, D&C 129:4-9)

•It is apparent that Joseph Smith and others used “carefully worded denials” to the point of bearing false witness in order to deceive others. Was that supported by God?

Emma

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay relates the following:

Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. After he had entered into plural marriage, he poured out his feelings in his journal for his “beloved Emma,” whom he described as “undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma.” After Joseph’s death, Emma kept a lock of his hair in a locket she wore around her neck.

Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household. She may have approved of other marriages as well. (Em. added, lds.org)

It is very difficult to believe Joseph had much respect for Emma. She discovered him having a “transaction” with Fanny Alger in a barn. The four wives referred to above are Eliza and Emily Partridge and Sarah and Maria Lawrence. It doesn’t mention that Joseph secretly married the Partridge sisters and then held a mock ceremony when Emma gave him permission to marry them, that Joseph was in a room with Eliza and held the door shut when Emma tried to get in, and that the two sisters were “cast off.”

William Clayton recorded the following:

This A.M. J[oseph] told me that since E[mma] came back from St Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto & he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would given him E[liza] & E[mily] P[artridge] but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him & obtain a divorce & leave him. (William Clayton Journal, 16 August 1843, boap.org)

Bushman continued the story:

But Joseph told Clayton that he “should not relinquish any thing.” He was unwilling to put away the women he had married. Even with his marriage at stake, he could not back down. Meanwhile, Emma kept watch for suspicious signs. She was “vexed & angry” when she found two letters from Eliza Snow in Joseph’s pocket, and demanded to know if Clayton had delivered them. The next day, Emma learned from Flora Woodworth, another plural wife, that Joseph had given her a gold watch. Emma demanded its return. When Joseph learned of the incident, he reproved her, and on the return trip from the Woodworths, Emma “abused him much & also when he got home,” Clayton reported. “He had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse but finally succeeded.” (Em. added, Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 27, “Emma and Joseph”)

Joseph told Emma he would relinquish his plural wives, but he did not intend to do that at all. She then became upset because he had letters from another woman (her friend who was invited into their home) and gave a gold watch to 16-year-old Flora.

•Joseph had already “reproved her,” so what “harsh measures” did he use with Emma later?

Bushman also wrote:

Joseph was unsure how far the usually composed Emma would go in her anger. Near the end of June, he warned William Clayton that Emma “wanted to lay a snare for me.” Joseph said that “he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things she thought that if he would indulge himself she would too.” (Ibid)

•Does this really sound like a respectful marriage?

The same essay referred to above also stated:

The revelation on marriage required that a wife give her consent before her husband could enter into plural marriage. Nevertheless, toward the end of the revelation, the Lord said that if the first wife “receive not this law”—the command to practice plural marriage—the husband would be “exempt from the law of Sarah,” presumably the requirement that the husband gain the consent of the first wife before marrying additional women. After Emma opposed plural marriage, Joseph was placed in an agonizing dilemma, forced to choose between the will of God and the will of his beloved Emma. He may have thought Emma’s rejection of plural marriage exempted him from the law of Sarah. (Em. added)

Joseph did not ask Emma about Fanny or Louisa Beaman, who allegedly were his first two plural wives, so this explanation doesn’t work.

Authority

It is generally believed that Joseph Smith’s marriage to Fanny Alger took place before 1836 (see Todd Compton’s website, toddmcompton.com), yet the Church essay referred to above states:

The sealing of husband and wife for eternity was made possible by the restoration of priesthood keys and ordinances. On April 3, 1836, the Old Testament prophet Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple and restored the priesthood keys necessary to perform ordinances for the living and the dead, including sealing families together.

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time. (lds.org)

Supporting evidence for a revelation received in 1831 is debatable (see Fairmormon).

•Did Joseph have the authority to marry Fanny?

The Law of Chastity

Church Handbook 2 defines the Law of Chastity:

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Adultery, fornication, homosexual or lesbian relations, and every other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice are sinful. (Em. added, lds.org)

Elder D. Todd Christofferson confirmed that definition and stated that it has always been that way and will never change:

The law of chastity has applied since the very beginning, when the Lord commanded a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and to none else. Our doctrine—not just belief, but doctrine—that sexual relations are only appropriate and lawful in the Lord’s eyes between man and woman legally and lawfully married is unchanged and will never change. (lds.org)

Additionally, the Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood manual states that “God has never changed His laws and commandments concerning sexual sin” (Em. added, lds.org).

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states, “In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States” (Em. added, lds.org). However, Joseph had sexual relations with some women to whom he was not legally married (josephsmithspolygamy.org).

This picture from shows Elder George Q. Cannon (in the middle with a white beard) serving time in Utah's federal penitentiary for “unlawful cohabitation” (wikipedia.org):

•God’s law regarding morality has always been “sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded.” This has never changed and can never change.

•Joseph’s plural marriages were not legal and lawful. How could it be possible that he did not break the law of chastity?

Summary of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay states:

Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties. (Em. added, lds.org)

This idea is used to excuse the questionable ways polygamy was implemented. Joseph asked questions about issues far less important than celestial marriage and received answers. For example, God provided great detail on issuing stock to fund the construction of the Nauvoo House (D&C 124:56-83). It’s difficult to believe that God wouldn’t provide more instructions.

•Why couldn’t he get a revelation detailing how polygamy should have been implemented?

•When he was visited by an angel three times to be told he must proceed with plural marriage, didn’t he ask for instructions?

Richard L. Bushman summarized how Joseph Smith gained wives:

There was pressure put on these women. They were told that this was the Lord's will and he was the Lord's prophet, and that if they were to please God, they had to comply. Joseph tended to couch it in terms of the blessings that would come not only to them, but to their whole family, that they would all be blessed by being sealed together in this relationship with the prophet. It led to all sorts of problems for him. It tried the souls of even the faithful members. And of course, it led to grave alienation of his own wife, Emma. (The Mormons, PBS television special, 2007, pbs.org)

Joseph was the mayor and chief justice of Nauvoo (byu.edu) and was the Lt. General of the Nauvoo Legion (lds.org), so he pressured women as one with civic and religious authority.

Women who did not accept polygamy were publicly shamed. Richard S. Van Wagoner wrote:

Like Sarah Pratt, Martha Brotherton and Nancy Rigdon also suffered slanderous attacks because they exposed the Church's private polygamy posture. The Wasp, for example, on 27 August 1842 denounced "John C. Bennett, the pimp and file leader of such mean harlots as Martha H. Brotherton and her predecessors from old Jezebel." Orson Hyde attempted to blacken Nancy Rigdon's character by saying her conduct was "notorious in this city" where she was "regarded generally, little, if any better, than a public prostitute," defending the Prophet's actions toward Nancy as efforts to "reprove and reclaim her if possible." (Em. added, Sarah M. Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate, pp. 76-77, dialoguejournal.com PDF)

•Joseph Smith applied pressure on teenagers, house guests, and some who might have been considered foster children, and he did it as one with civic and religious authority.

The Standard Form of Marriage

The teachings from prophets and apostles taught a different standard of marriage during the 19^th century. President Brigham Young stated:

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire.... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers....

Why do we believe in and practise polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. “And is that religion popular in heaven?” It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise. (Em. added, Deseret News, August 6, 1862, p. 1, column 4, utah.edu)

(utah.edu)

He also taught:

Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious. Polygamy did not have its origin with Joseph Smith, but it existed from the beginning. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, pp. 127-128, fairmormon.org)

And Elder Orson Pratt stated:

All these principles that I have treated upon, pertaining to eternal marriage, the very moment that they are admitted to be true, it brings in plurality of marriage, and if plurality of marriage is not true or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true: and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinances and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true. Amen. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296, fairmormon.org)

And this is from President Heber C. Kimball:

I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman, will be damned, and they, and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them.... (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 211, fairmormon.org)

The Millennial Star had a series called "Nelly and Abby" with fictional women having conversations to teach doctrines. In one of those talks, Abby says:

I have come to the conclusion, Nelly, that the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people. Hence I see the wisdom of God in not tolerating any such system among the celestial worthies who are to be kings and queens unto God for ever. (Millennial Star, vol. 15, no. 15, p. 227, byu.edu)

It was even taught that Jesus was a polygamist. President Young said, “The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 309, fairmormon.org) and President Orson Hyde stated:

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 259, fairmormon.org)

•They taught that polygamy was God’s standard and one of the most holy principles, that monogamy was founded in Rome (not in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve) and was responsible for many evils, and that Jesus was a polygamist.

Plural marriage was often referred to as “celestial marriage,” as shown in these quotes:

One day in the month of February, 1843, date not remembered, the Prophet invited me to walk with him.... This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine which pertained to celestial order and glory. After giving me lengthy instructions and informations concerning the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage, he concluded his remarks by the words, ‘It is your privilege to have all the wives you want.’ (Em. added, Joseph F. Smith reading affidavit of William Clayton, Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p.10, byu.edu)

If plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment those prophets would have denounced it, otherwise their silence on the matter would have been dangerous to themselves, inasmuch as the blood of the people would have been required at their hands. The opposers of Celestial Marriage sometimes quote a passage in the seventh chapter of Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality of wives is wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality of husbands is wrong. (Em. added, George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pp. 40-41, fairmormon.org)

...Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage. You will recollect, brethren and sisters, that it was in July, 1843, that he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage.... As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, "This is rather a hard business; I don't like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh." (Em. added, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 166, fairmormon.org)

•To what extent was eternal marriage tied to plural marriage?

Polygamy in Utah

Consider the following marriages that Joseph Smith’s successors participated in:

-Brigham Young (age 42) married Clarissa Caroline Decker (age 15).

-Wilford Woodruff (age 46) married Emma Smith (age 15).

-Lorenzo Snow (age 57) married Sarah Minnie Ephramina Jensen (age 16).

•It is very difficult for me to believe these marriages were acceptable in any way.

Paul wrote, “Husbands, love your wives” (Ephesians 5:23). In the Tabernacle in 1861, President Brigham Young taught:

Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. Here are the middle-aged and the young. I am now almost daily sealing young girls to men of age and experience. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man? Yes, to a man of God.... It is for you to bear children, in the name of the Lord, that are full of faith and the power of God.... Do you look forward to that? or are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, "I have got a man from the Lord!" "Hallelujah! I am a mother—I have borne an image of God!" (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 37, fairmormon.org)

President Young also delivered a sermon in 1856 that is concerning to me (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, pp. 55-57, fairmormon.org). He remarked that some women had been complaining that they were not happy. He then told his wives that they had two weeks to decide to either submit to the celestial law without complaining or leave:

I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. "What, first wife too?" Yes, I will liberate you all....

Now recollect that two weeks from to morrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, "It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;" then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....

And then let the father be the head of the family, the master of his own household; and let him treat them as an angel would treat them; and let the wives and the children say amen to what he says, and be subject to his dictates, instead of their dictating the man, instead of their trying to govern him. (Em. added)

Reading this sermon, I didn’t sense any sympathy from President Young. He seemed to believe his wives should submit to him in all things without complaint or just leave. Maybe this summarizes how he saw polygamy:

Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 178, fairmormon.org)

Another issue is that a woman who was sealed to her husband could leave him for another man without obtaining a divorce if she wanted to be with a man who had a higher priesthood power, that man was willing to take her, and the first husband gave his consent (fairmormon.org). It seems this would benefit the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

•It seems President Young did not care if his wives were happy, was willing to send them away if they didn’t comply without complaint and replace them with younger women, and would not miss his children.

•Did the Church really value commitment in marriage?

Polygamy Cannot be Abandoned

It was taught that polygamy could not be abandoned and that doing so would relinquish the faith altogether:

I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God—I know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. "Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?" If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269, fairmormon.org)

If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can't do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past. (Em. added, Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 166, fairmormon.org)

It was also taught in 1866 that the United States government could not get rid of polygamy:

Plurality is a law which God established for his elect before the world was formed, for a continuation of seeds forever. It would be as easy for the United States to build a tower to remove the sun, as to remove polygamy, or the Church and kingdom of God. (Heber C. Kimball, Millennial Star, vol. 28, no. 12, p. 190, byu.edu)

Also, President John Taylor wrote this unpublished revelation:

You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord—All commandments that I have given must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me, or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant? For I, the Lord, am everlasting, and My everlasting covenant cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever....

And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law and have I not commanded men, that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. (Em. added, John Taylor, 1886, fairmormon.org)

•Polygamy was abandoned due to pressure from the government and Utah was admitted as a state, so why was it taught that polygamy could not be abandoned?

The Church may never be free from the effects of polygamy. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people.... Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 410, archive.org)

While it’s not official doctrine, it was written by a member of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the idea that polygamy will someday return is secure in the minds of many members. For some, it is a source of anxiety.

•Considering the details regarding polygamy, it is difficult for me to see God’s hand in it.

Our Father and God

Brigham Young’s Teachings

On April 9, 1852, Brigham Young delivered a sermon in the Tabernacle. He stated:

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.... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family....

Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50, fairmormon.org)

Wilford Woodruff corroborated the account when he quoted Brigham Young in his journal the same day:

Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. (Em. added, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 9, 1852)

Brigham Young later said:

Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam”? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. (Em. added, Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308, utah.edu)

And here are some other references:

It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father, than hunt for another, and take up with the devil. Whoever is acknowledged Father must have the rights and honor that belong to him. (Em. added, Samuel W. Richards, Millennial Star, vol. 15, no. 51, p. 825, 1853, byu.edu)

Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and our God, I have to say do not trouble ourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter.... If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord. (Em. added, Elder Franklin D. Richards, Millennial Star, vol. 16, no. 34, p. 534, 1854, byu.edu)

...Adam has continued to bear rule over the earth, and control the destinies of his never-ending posterity. From the time he received his commission in the Garden of Eden, he has been labouring diligently to fulfil the instructions there given him by The Lord God concerning his dominions, and to bring them under subjection to his will. This will be fully accomplished when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” (Em. added, Millennial Star, vol. 17, no. 13, p. 195, 1855, byu.edu)

Implementation in the Temple

Brigham Young implemented the Adam-God doctrine into the endowment in the St. George temple. It is not clear if it was used in other temples. At Young’s request, L. John Nuttall assisted in creating a written record of the endowment and FairMormon has an account of what was written regarding the Lecture at the Veil. Here is a part of it:

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....

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.) (Em. added, fairmormon.org)

Dissent

Some members were denigrated for not believing in the Adam-God doctrine:

It should be borne in mind that these wonderful mysteries, as they are supposed to be, are only mysteries because of the ignorance of men; and when men and women are troubled in spirit over these things which come to light through the proper channel of intelligence, they only betray their weakness, ignorance, and folly. (Em. added, Samuel W. Richards, Millennial Star, vol. 15, no. 51, p. 825, 1853, byu.edu)

Elder Orson Pratt was one of the dissenters. During a meeting of select Church authorities on April 4, 1860, he was asked to make a confession of his errors because he had disagreed with Brigham Young on other issues. He then mentioned another point upon which he and Young disagreed:

There are certain points taught by Bro. Y as being true that there does seem to be disputed between those & the Revel[ations].... I would like to ennummerate [those] items, first preached & publish[ed] that Adam is the fa[ther] of our spirits, & father of Spirit & father of our bodies. When I read the Rev[elations] given to Joseph I read directly the opposite. (Minutes of Meeting at Historian's Office, April 4, 1860, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives)

The Minutes also reports that Brigham told him, “you will be voted as a false teacher, & your false doctrines discarded. I love your integrity, but your ignorance is as great as any philosophers ought to be.” Pratt replied, “I cannot retract from what I have said. I sometimes feel unworthy of the apostleship which I hold.” He was then told, “These are temptations of Satan” and his salvation was on the line.

During another meeting the following day, Pratt stated:

...in regard to Adam being our Father and our God, I have not published it, altho I frankly say, I have no confidence in it, altho advanced by bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards approved by bro. Brigham.... It was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden. B. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, both of his spirit and Body, in his teachings from the stand.... (Minutes of Meeting at Historian's Office, April 5, 1860, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives)

According to the Minutes, Elder George A. Smith said the only satisfactory thing that Pratt could do is “acknowledge Brigham Young as the President of the Church, in the exercise of his calling.” (Ibid)

•It was said that members who didn’t believe in the Adam-God doctrine “betray their weakness, ignorance, and folly."

•Elder Pratt was called to repentance for disagreeing with President Young on various issues, including the Adam-God doctrine. He was told he would “be voted as a false teacher,” that "These are temptations of Satan," that his salvation was on the line, and he needed to “acknowledge Brigham Young as the President of the Church.” He was right on this issue.

Repudiation and Possible Cover-up

President Spencer W. Kimball said:

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. (lds.org)

And Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. (byu.edu)

Here is a quote from the Brigham Young lesson manual:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24). (lds.org)

It doesn’t show what President Young said immediately after that. He said, “Michael...is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (already referenced above).

•Brigham Young taught that Adam is the Father and God of Jesus Christ and everyone on Earth. It was taught in the St. George temple.

•How can I trust teachings of prophets and temple ordinances after learning about this?

Tithing

The following revelation was given in 1838:

Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion, For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church. And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. (Em. added, D&C 119:1-4)

•What does “one-tenth of all their interest” mean?

Speaking of Abraham and Melchizedek, the Bible says, “And he gave him tithes of all” (KJV Genesis 14:20). Joseph Smith changed it to, “Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need” (Em. added, JST Genesis 14:39).

The article The Tithing of My People on the Church’s website reports how the Bishop of the Church viewed tithing:

Bishop Partridge understood “one tenth of all their interest” annually to mean 10 percent of what Saints would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year.... Bishop Partridge explained, saying, “If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.” (Em. added, includes part of footnote 17, lds.org)

Brigham Young said in 1841:

The Temple is to be built by tything and consecration, and every one is at liberty to consecrate all they find in their hearts so to do; but the tythings required, is one tenth of all any one possessed at the commencement of the building, and one tenth part of all his increase from that time till the completion of the same, whether it be money or whatever he may be blessed with. (Em. added, Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 4, p. 626, byu.edu)

And Elder Orson Hyde wrote in 1847:

The celestial law requires one tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church, and one tenth part of his annual increase ever after. If it requires all a man can earn to support himself and family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not this world’s goods to spare, but serve and honour God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father. But the rich, and such as have this world’s goods which they can spare, without injury to themselves, or without bringing want upon themselves and upon their families, can never obtain a celestial crown unless they pay their tithing. (Em. added, Millennial Star, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 12, byu.edu)

Many other references to a tenth of “increase” were made and here are just a few of them:

-Heber C. Kimball in 1852 (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 295-296, fairmormon.org)

-Brigham Young in 1863 (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 253, fairmormon.org)

-George Q. Cannon in 1872 (Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, p. 146, fairmormon.org)

-John Taylor in 1872 (Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, p. 214, fairmormon.org)

While there were some mentions of “income” previously, that language seemed to gain prominence in 1873:

Well, we pay our tithing. What does it consist of? One-tenth of all we possess at the start, and then ever after one-tenth of our annual income. If that be one thousand dollars per annum you pay one hundred of that in taxes to the kingdom of God. (Em. added, Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 15, p. 308, fairmormon.org)

What is the law of tithing? Part of that law enjoins it upon the Saints as a duty to pay into the Lord's storehouse one-tenth of all their annual income. (Em. added, Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 6, fairmormon.org)

The Saints should pay the tenth of their income with glad and thankful hearts, and help to bring home the poor. (Em. added, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 45, fairmormon.org)

However, the word “income” was still sometimes considered very differently than it is today:

...out of this that is not called surplus property, they should try to make an income, and if they could make an income, they should consecrate one-tenth part of that income.... Say a man comes here with fifty thousand dollars and it is judged by proper authority that forty thousand is surplus. He goes to work with the remaining ten thousand and gets him a farm and home, and enters into some other business, and makes not only a sufficiency for support, but finds at the year's end that he has made a thousand dollars: he has to pay one-tenth of that, that is a hundred dollars. This is really the meaning of the word Tithing. (Em. added, Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 157, fairmormon.org)

In 1879, Elder Lorenzo Snow mentioned a significant change:

But as regards the law of tithing, it is in force upon the poor as well as the rich, and it seems that it acts almost unequally in some respects. There is a widow, whose income is ten dollars; she pays one for tithing, and then has to appeal to the Bishop for support. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 368-369, fairmormon.org)

And President Joseph F. Smith said in 1899:

Every man is left to be his own judge as to what he calls his tithing, and there is a great variety of opinion as to what a tithing is. A man who works for wages and devotes his whole time to the service of his employer; and receives $1,000 or $2,000 a year for his salary, it is an easy matter for him to tell how much he owes for tithing. If I earned $2,000 a year, I should know that my tithing was just one-tenth of that. And I would not take out what it had cost me to feed and clothe myself and to pay all the expenses necessary to the maintenance of my family before I reckoned with the Lord as to what belonged to Him. Two hundred dollars would be my honest tithing, would it not? That is the way I look at it. (Em. added, Conference Report, byu.edu)

Tithing changed further later on. Elder LeGrand Richards said in 1944:

We have many inquiries at our office, constantly, about the matter of deducting taxes, income taxes, etc., before paying tithing, and we are told that in some cases the Saints are advised to do this, by their bishops. I think the bishops are being pretty liberal with the Lord's money. Taxes are no different from what they have always been except in amount and manner of payment. We have never expected to pay our taxes out of the Lord's tenth. (Em. added, Conference Report, byu.edu)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie even taught that tithing should be paid on gifts received, but the First Presidency issued a statement in 1970 saying:

...the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly. (Em. added, lds.org)

That statement stands today and is quoted in the General Handbook of Instructions, but some leaders still try to justify themselves in adding to the definition of tithing. At the October 2006 General Conference, Elder Daniel L. Johnson said:

Please note that the tithe is not just any freewill offering, nor is it a 20th or some other fraction of our annual interest or income.

President Howard W. Hunter stated it this way: “The law is simply stated as ‘one-tenth of all their interest.’ Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law ‘forever’ as it has been in the past.” (lds.org)

In the December 2012 Ensign, a bishop is quoted as saying:

If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you. (lds.org)

•The annual part of tithing started out as “10 percent of what Saints would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year” or a tenth of what was left after paying for the support of a family. Over time, it evolved to mean a tenth of income. Eventually, the people were specifically taught to pay tithing on income before deducting expenses for clothing and food, and later taught to pay on taxes and gifts. Despite the 1970 First Presidency letter, we are taught to pay tithing even if we can’t pay for water, food, or rent.

•It is difficult to believe I should pay tithing on income after learning the original meaning of the revelation that was to “be a standing law unto them forever.”

Homosexuality

In 1978, Elder Boyd K. Packer delivered an address BYU. It was later printed as a pamphlet titled To The One (images of pamphlet) and distributed among Church members. He said:

And so, now to the subject, to introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. (p. 2)

He said the word “homosexual” only once because “With many things, it is easy – very easy – to cause the very things we are trying to avoid.” Here are some more quotes:

Is sexual perversion wrong?... The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction. When practiced, it is immoral. It is a transgression. (p. 2)

Some so-called experts, and many of those who have yielded to the practice, teach that it is congenital and incurable and that one just has to learn to live with it.... Much of the so-called scientific literature concludes that there really is not much that can be done about it. I reject that conclusion out of hand. (p. 4)

Some who become tangled up in this disorder become predators. They proselyte the young or the inexperienced. It becomes very important for them to believe that everyone, to one degree or another, is "that way." (pp. 5-6)

Have you explored the possibility that the cause, when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness—selfishness in a very subtle form? Now—and understand this—I do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with.... When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition. (pp. 10-11)

If unselfishness can cure it— if it has to be applied for a long period of time, and thereafter continually— is it not worth it?... The cure rests in following for a long period of time, and thereafter continually, some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health. (pp. 13-14)

There is great power in the scriptures. Study the gospel— live it. Read the revelations. Every prescription against selfishness of any kind will bring some control of this disease. Every routine of unselfishness will give you more strength. (p. 18)

Here are some points from the address:

1. When Elder Packer refers to “sexual perversion,” he is including same-sex attraction even when not acted upon.

2. Being subject to homosexual temptation is a temporary condition.

3. Talking about homosexuality can cause homosexuality.

4. Sexual perversion is abnormal and is an affliction.

5. People are not born gay and it is curable.

6. Some gay people become predators, seek to convert the young or inexperienced, and believe that everyone is at least partially gay.

7. He proposed that the cause of homosexuality is selfishness.

8. Unselfishness, applied continually for a long period of time, can cure homosexuality.

9. Studying scriptures and the Gospel and doing other unselfish things will help control the disease and give gay people more strength.

During a 2006 interview, Elder Dallin H. Oaks was asked, “At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’” He replied:

That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all. (Em. added, mormonnewsroom.org)

Today, the Church “does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction” and states, “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them” (mormonandgay.lds.org).

However, Elder Packer’s pamphlet To Young Men Only was published until October, 2016 and there is an archived version available (archive.org PDF). It was derived from a talk delivered during the Priesthood Session of the October 1976 General Conference, which is still available on the Church’s website in video format. He stated:

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just “that way” and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. (lds.org)

•How much damage was done to various people over the years due to Church teachings?

•Were those teachings inspired or were General Authorities preaching “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”?

In a post published in March of 2017 on the Church’s blog, Becky Mackintosh wrote:

Early one morning my adult son called to ask if he and his boyfriend could come to church with me.... As we entered the chapel that Sunday, I sensed my son’s uneasiness as we quickly took our seats. I saw no awkward stares. The people who looked our way smiled with a friendly nod. As the congregation began to sing one of my favorite hymns, “Because I Have Been Given Much,” gratitude filled my heart, and that’s when the tears began. The words “I have been given much” rang true. I had a wonderful husband; seven grown children, four who are married, raising children of their own; a son on a mission; and, in my church pew that day, I had one arm around my unwed, pregnant daughter and my other arm around my gay son, with his boyfriend sitting beside him. (lds.org)

That’s a positive message, but she also included this:

I reflected back to the day my son told his father and me that he was gay. I felt like the sky was falling. He was our third of seven children, and everything I thought my child’s life would look like changed in an instant. I grieved. I cried. I even had bouts of anger. How could this be happening? What was I supposed to do?

•Are the teachings of the Church responsible for such anguish?

An article by Elder Larry R. Lawrence was released that same month. He wrote:

Counterfeits bear a resemblance to the real thing in order to deceive unsuspecting people. They are a twisted version of something good, and just like counterfeit money, they are worthless.... Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit. It brings neither posterity nor exaltation. Although his imitations deceive many people, they are not the real thing. They cannot bring lasting happiness. (lds.org)

•Despite giving some positive messages, the Church still publishes hurtful remarks, such as indicating same-sex marriage is worthless.

November Policy

Some changes to the Church’s Handbook 1 were leaked on November 5, 2015. The changes indicate that members who enter into a same-sex union are in apostasy. Also, children in such households can’t receive a baby blessing or be baptized and they would have to live outside of that household and disavow same-sex unions in order to be baptized as an adult.

The following day, Elder D. Todd Christofferson was interviewed to provide context to the changes. He said:

It’s a statement to remove any question or doubt that may exist. We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification....

With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. (Em. added, mormonnewsroom.org)

An update to the content of the interview was published on November 12. It stated:

The interview took place after the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles updated Church policy regarding same-sex marriage in Handbook 1, an instruction guide for bishops and other priesthood leaders. The changes, which mandate Church discipline for same-sex couples, also update Church policy impacting their children. (Em. added, lds.org)

Another news release was issued the following day (mormonnewsroom.org). At that point, there had been no mention of a revelation or any type of inspiration being received regarding this issue. Then President Russell M. Nelson delivered an address on January 10, 2016 at a worldwide devotional for young adults at Brigham Young University–Hawaii. It was posted to the “Broadcasts” section of the Church’s website (lds.org), but was not published in the Ensign until late September. He said:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed in 2012 with the change in minimum age for missionaries and again with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter.

Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind and will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. (lds.org)

To summarize, the policy was written in a document not available to most members, leaked anonymously, deemed a clarifying policy statement by Elder Christofferson, and further clarified as an update to an instruction guide. Two months later, it was declared to be a revelation at a devotional for young adults, and that declaration was published in the Ensign eight months after that.

•Why did more than two months pass before it referred to as a revelation from God to the prophet, and why did it take over eight months for that to get published?

•When President Monson proclaimed the mind and will of the Lord, did someone record the revelation?

•Will this revelation be presented to the body of the Church for approval according to the Law of Common Consent?

•Have other revelations come about this way?

Homosexuality and Marriage

The Church published an article titled The Divine Institution of Marriage. It states:

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage derives from its doctrine and teachings, as well as from its concern about the consequences of same-sex marriage on religious freedom, society, families, and children....

While some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children, traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society. (mormonnewsroom.org)

The “Polygamy” section shows what prophets used to teach about monogamy. It “has always proved a curse to a people,” was “so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom” to the point of “rottenness and decay,” and one could “see the wisdom of God in not tolerating any such system among the celestial worthies.”

•The prophets used to declare that polygamy was God’s standard and preach against monogamy. Today's prophets have the same position and authority. Do they have credibility when they decry same-sex marriage?

Church Transparency

Also see the “Seer Stone” part of the section “The Book of Mormon.”

Regarding honestly, the Gospel Principles manual states:

When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. (Em. added, lds.org)

I have wondered if Church leaders have hidden or suppressed some things regarding Church history. I understand Sunday School lessons are supposed to promote faith, but something should not be presented as history if it is not portrayed accurately.

Current Church Historian Elder Steven E. Snow said:

My view is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates. We might not have all the answers, but if we are open (and we now have pretty remarkable transparency), then I think in the long run that will serve us well. I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open. (Em. added, 2013, byu.edu)

Leonard J. Arrington, who was the Church Historian from 1972 to 1980, wrote:

It is unfortunate for the cause of Mormon history that the Church Historian's Library, which is in the possession of virtually all of the diaries of leading Mormons, has not seen fit to publish these diaries or to permit qualified historians to use them without restriction. (Scholarly Studies of Mormonism in the Twentieth Century, 1966, p. 26, dialoguejournal.com PDF)

Arrington noted that the Church restricted access to its archives. When he was the Church Historian, he loosened those restrictions and some Church publications in the 1970s acknowledged that certain women were Joseph Smith’s plural wives. Things changed again in the early 1980s when access to the archives again became more limited and Boyd K. Packer taught:

Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.... There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.... (1981, byu.edu)

When asked about the the orthodox narrative of Church history, Richard L. Bushman said:

I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can't be sustained. So the Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that's what it’s trying to do, and it will be a strain for a lot of people - older people especially. But I think it has to change. (Em. added, 2016, youtube.com)

•To what extent have we been taught an inaccurate depiction of Church history?

Polygamy

After the Church published the essays about polygamy in 2014 (lds.org), a news release stated:

Much of what you'll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians and Church leaders for many years. The Church has now gathered this information into a single location as a convenient means of placing these resources in the hands of all members.

The fact that Joseph Smith had plural marriage relationships is not new, of course. (mormonnewsroom.org)

While it should be well-known “that Joseph Smith had plural marriage relationships,” few details have been available through Church-approved sources and we were taught to be very skeptical of outside sources. It's a fact that many long-time members were not aware of the details. To this day, very little is said of Joseph Smith’s wives and some information is inaccurate and misleading.

For example, it’s difficult to find any mention of Zina D. H. Young’s sealing to Joseph Smith on the Church’s website. The article Great-Grandmother Zina: A More Personal Portrait (lds.org), published in 1989, mentions her marriages to Henry Jacobs and Brigham Young only. The article Zina Diantha Huntington Young—Angel of Mercy (lds.org), also published in 1989, says, “After Henry deserted Zina and the two little boys, Zebulon and Chariton, she married Brigham Young and crossed the plains to the Salt Lake Valley with his family.” This is wrong. Henry Jacobs did not desert them (see fairmormon.org). There is even a profile page for her with a “Marriage and Family” section that says only this about her marriages:

Zina married Henry Bailey Jacobs on March 7, 1841. They had two sons but did not remain together. As a plural wife of Brigham Young, Zina had one daughter, and she raised four other children as her own after their mother died. Blessed with the gift of healing and limited medical training, Zina helped the sick and delivered countless babies. She died August 28, 1901, in Salt Lake City. (lds.org)

A page posted in 2012 does mention her sealing to Joseph. It says, “In a rare instance of polyandry, Zina remained married to Henry Jacobs after being sealed to Joseph Smith. After Joseph's death, she married Brigham Young for time and went west with the Saints” (lds.org).

The Church has a website dedicated entirely to Joseph Smith (josephsmith.net). Plural marriage was supposedly "one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed," but only one wife is mentioned on the site.

•Were all of Joseph’s wives after Emma so unimportant that it’s not worth mentioning them on his website?

•Excluding polygamy completely makes it an incomplete and inaccurate profile of the Prophet.

Joseph Smith’s Legal Issues

In a lesson for Sunbeams, the Primary 1: I am a Child of God manual says:

In your own words, tell the story of when the Prophet Joseph Smith and other Church leaders were in Carthage Jail. Evil men had put them in jail even though they had done nothing wrong. The Prophet knew his life was in danger, and he felt very sad. (Em. added, lds.org)

This, of course, is not true. Having a printing press destroyed was illegal. In the Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History manual, another lesson for Primary children mentions the destruction of the press but teaches another deception:

Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a “public nuisance” and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper. (Em. added, lds.org)

At least some things in the Nauvoo Expositor were true, but the lesson implies otherwise. The most significant issue addressed in the paper was Joseph’s secret practice of polygamy.

•How can teaching children these deceptions be justified?

•Are children being deceived in other ways?

History of the Church

The preface to the first volume of History of the Church states that “a history more correct in its details than this was never published,” that it “is one of the most authentic histories ever written,” and “no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed” (History of the Church, vol. 1, byu.edu). However, it contains many material inaccuracies and I will show just three of them. Following are some quotes with the original on the left and the changed version on the right:

I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God.

In consequence of these things....

(Em. added, Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 11, p. 749, byu.edu)

I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations,

offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament. In consequence of these things....

(Em. added, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 9, byu.edu)

It was reported to me that some of the brethren had been drinking whisky that day in violation of the Word of Wisdom.

I called the brethren in and investigated the case, and was satisfied that no evil had been done, and gave them a couple of dollars, with directions to replenish the bottle to stimulate them in the fatigues of their sleepless journey.

Peter W. Conover gave me....

(Em. added, Millennial Star, vol. 21, no. 18, p. 283, byu.edu)

It was reported to me that some of the brethren had been drinking whisky that day in violation of the Word of Wisdom.

I called the brethren in and investigated the case, and was satisfied that no evil had been done.

Peter W. Conover gave me....

(History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 450, byu.edu)

At one, p.m., I rode out with Dr. Richards and O.P. Rockwell. Called on Davis at the Boat. Paid Manhard $90. Met George J. Adams, and paid him $50. Then went to John P. Greene’s, and paid him and another brother $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William Clayton’s, while Dr. Richards and O.P. Rockwell called at the Doctor’s new house. Returned home at 4 ½ p.m.

(Em. added, Millennial Star, vol. 23, no. 45, p. 720, byu.edu)

At one, P.M., I rode out with Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell. Called on Davis at the boat. Paid Manhard $90. Met George J. Adams, and paid him $50. Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother $200. Called at William Clayton's, while Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell called at the doctor's new house. Returned home at 4:30 P.M.

(History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 424, byu.edu)

(byu.edu)

Violence

I only recently learned details about the disavowed concept of Blood Atonement. There are many quotes about it and I will provide just two of them. Joseph Smith (or someone writing for him) recorded:

In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging.

I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so. (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 296, byu.edu)

And President Brigham Young stated:

A few of the men and women who go into the house of the Lord, and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants. Do I have compassion on them? Yes, I do have mercy on them, for there is something in their organization which they do not understand; and there are but few in this congregation who do understand it.

You say, "That man ought to die for transgressing the law of God." Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands....

There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgments of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants. (Em. added, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247, fairmormon.org)

I was led to believe that the saints simply wanted to live their religion in peace and didn’t do anything to contribute to anger and violence. I heard all about the extermination order issued by Governor Boggs on October 27, 1838, but didn't learn about this speech, which occurred earlier:

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.—Remember it then all MEN. We will never be the aggressors, we will infringe on the rights of no people; but shall stand for our own until death. We claim our own rights, and are willing that all others shall enjoy theirs. (Em. added, Oration Delivered by Mr. S. Rigdon on the 4th of July 1838, LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 12)

I didn't know about the Danites until recently. The Church’s Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints essay has some information about them, though it seems to inform on the violence as softly as possible. It states:

Historians generally concur that Joseph Smith approved of the Danites but that he probably was not briefed on all their plans and likely did not sanction the full range of their activities. Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods. (lds.org)

•To what extent have members been taught a whitewashed history of the Church?

•Why are relevant details still omitted in Church publications?

•Will today’s anti-Mormon rhetoric become tomorrow’s official Church history?

The Church Today

Today the Church has for-profit businesses in newspaper, radio, insurance, securities, retirement services, residential properties, and commercial properties. Here are some recent projects and activities:

-City Creek Center (mormonnewsroom.org)

-A 32-story building in downtown Philadelphia (KSL)

-A $125 million office tower on Main Street in Salt Lake City (deseretnews.com)

-Elder Dallin H. Oaks dedicated an office for Utah's largest law firm (KSL)

-President Thomas S. Monson dedicated the Zions Bank Financial Center, which will houses restaurants and shops (deseretnews.com)

-An 11,000-acre revenue-generating hunting preserve (deseretnews.com)

(Main Street tower, KSL)

(Zions Bank Financial Center, deseretnews.com)

•What do these things have to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Before City Creek Center was built, the church affirmed that “No tithing funds will be used in the redevelopment” (lds.org). This is probably true, but it can’t be verified because the Church does not disclose its financial as it did until the late 1950s.

•Since the Church does not disclose financial data, does it have something to hide?

Those Who Question

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said at the October 2013 General Conference:

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations....

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question....

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. (lds.org)

Despite that message, some unsubstantiated ideas regarding dissenters (see wikipedia.org) are sometimes promoted. President Brigham Young said those who apostatize “will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332, fairmormon.org). And Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught:

The basic cause of apostasy is sin. Men leave the Church because they are sensual and carnal. It is not a matter of rejecting gospel doctrine, or preferring a more liberal interpretation or application of revealed truth. These are excuses. The basic reason for rebellion against the truth is a desire to enjoy the lusts of the flesh. (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 426-427)

Also, Elder Charles A. Didier stated:

Unfortunately, there are those who gain testimonies and then deny them and lose them. How does this happen? If you follow the steps to obtain a testimony, you do exactly the opposite to deny it or lose it. Do not pray; the door to revelation will be closed. Do not be humble but listen to your own superior voice.... Do not listen to prophets and follow their counsel but interpret their declarations according to your own desires. Do not obey the commandments but live according to your own appetites and desires. (lds.org)

It seems that there is a pervasive belief that Church members lose faith due to neglecting prayer and scripture study, but many start neglecting such things only after losing their faith for other reasons. Some members accuse people of following worldly appetites, being prideful, not following leaders, or just sinning in general. That is simply not Christlike. Some also seem to believe that anyone who falls away will become dark, angry, and miserable.

Joseph Smith

Of course, Joseph Smith has already been mentioned many times. This section discusses the last days of his life, what has been said about him since, and the First Vision.

The Council of Fifty

Joseph Smith established the Council of Fifty in March of 1844. Richard L. Bushman wrote:

The council was, theologically speaking, “the summit of all earthly powers.” In the same spirit, Parley Pratt wrote in April that the Council of Fifty is “the most exalted Council with which our earth is at present Dignified.” Lyman Wight said to Joseph during the presidential campaign, “You are already president pro tem of the world.”

As the council’s original records are not available to researchers, its exact nature is hard to determine, but the council may have considered itself the incipient organization for millennial rule, a shadow government awaiting the demise of worldly political authority and the beginning of Christ’s earthly reign. In early April 1844, Joseph “prophecied the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years”....

When a St. Louis reporter asked “by what principle I got so much power,” Joseph answered “on the principle of truth and virtue which would last when I was dead.” “I go emphatically, virtuously, and humanely for a THEODEMOCRACY,” he wrote in the spring of 1844, “where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men in righteousness. And where liberty, free trade, and sailor’s right, and the protection of life and property shall be maintained inviolate, for the benefit of ALL”....

In an act shocking to democratic sensibilities, at the Council of Fifty meeting on April 11, 1844, “Prest J[oseph] was voted our P[rophet] P[riest] and K[ing] with loud Hosannas.” The office of king came out of temple rituals where other Saints were anointed “kings and priests,” according to the prescriptions in the Revelation of St. John, but here the title had overt political implications.... (Em. added, Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 28, “The Kingdom”)

The Council talked about changing the US Constitution or creating a new one, but “On 25 April 1844, a JS revelation stated that the council itself was the constitution of the kingdom of God and that its members were God’s ‘spokesmen’ in civil matters” (josephsmithpapers.org). This came about despite the Lord saying, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (D&C 101:80).

The Nauvoo Expositor

On June 7, the one and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. Regarding this paper, Bushman wrote:

The paper aimed “to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms”—meaning primarily polygamy. On top of that scandalous practice, the editor objected to the doctrine “that there are innumerable Gods as much above the God that presides over this universe, as he is above us.”

The more political voice in the Expositor wrote to gratify the county’s anti-Mormons. The editors promised everything the anti-Mormons had been calling for, including “the rights of the old citizens of the county” to control elections.... The political editors favored repeal of the charter and limits on the power of municipal courts. (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 29, “Reform”)

The Nauvoo City Council met on June 10 and Joseph declared the Nauvoo Expositor to be a nuisance and ordered the city marshal to destroy it. Bushman wrote:

Joseph’s enemies were persuaded that he had crossed the line in closing the Expositor. Whether or not the law of libels or abatement of a nuisance justified the action, he had trespassed freedom of the press, which had become nearly a sacred right in the United States.... The paper was, he thought, an attempt to “excite the jealousy and prejudice of the people of the surrounding country, by libels, and slanderous articles upon the citizens and City Council, for the purpose of destroying the ‘Charter’ of said city, and for the purpose of raising suspicion, wrath, and indignation among a certain class of the less honorable portion of mankind, to commit acts of violence upon the innocent and unsuspecting.” Joseph failed to see that suppression of the paper was far more likely to arouse a mob than the libels. (Ibid)

Plurality of Gods

Joseph preached his final sermon on June 16. He stated:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474, byu.edu)

As explained in the part titled “The First Vision” below, he actually taught a more Trinitarian view in the early 1830s and did not explicitly teach about a plurality of gods until 1838 or later. Later in the sermon, he said:

Some say I do not interpret the scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. (Ibid, p. 475)

There are many scriptures saying there is only one God. Following are some verses from all four of the Standard Works:

-“You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other" (Deuteronomy 4:35).

-“...that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other” (1 Kings 8:60).

-“Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. " (Isaiah 43:10).

-“We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one.’” (1 Corinthians 8:4).

-“And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No" (Alma 11:27-29).

-“...whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off..." (Ether 2:8).

-“And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship (D&C 20:19).

-“...and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all" (Moses 1:6).

These are the words of Paul that Joseph referred to:

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV 1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

He also told the Galatians, “when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods” (Galatians 4:8). It seems clear that Paul was saying there really is only one God, even though heathens have many so-called gods that are not actually gods.

Joseph also stated:

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. (Ibid, p. 476)

Regarding the word Eloheim or Elohim:

In Hebrew the ending -im mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7)....

In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we"). (wikipedia.org)

•It is very difficult for me to reconcile Joseph's discourse with the scriptures.

•Considering all the issues with Joseph’s scriptural translations, it is difficult to believe he was correct about the plurality of gods.

Final Days

Bushman explained that Joseph was cornered during the last two weeks of his life (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 29, “Reform”). Joseph put Nauvoo under martial law and prepared for battle, having the troops march on Main Street, while his enemies gathered in Carthage. However, he decided to surrender in Carthage and arrived at a hotel there late at night on Monday, June 24. The following day, Governor Ford marched Joseph and Hyrum through town, probably in an attempt to placate the people. In a letter to Emma, Joseph wrote:

I have had an interview with Governor Ford, and he treats us honorably. Myself and Hyrum have been again arrested for treason because we called out the Nauvoo Legion; but when the truth comes out we have nothing to fear. We all feel calm and composed.

This morning Governor Ford introduced myself and Hyrum to the militia in a very appropriate manner, as General Joseph Smith and General Hyrum Smith. There was a little mutiny among the Carthage Greys, but I think the Governor has and will succeed in enforcing the laws. I do hope the people of Nauvoo will continue pacific and prayerful. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 565, byu.edu)

In the upstairs bedroom of the jail, Joseph spent Thursday preparing for the trial scheduled for Saturday. This is what happened later that day:

Before the jailor came in, his boy brought in some water, and said the guard wanted some wine. Joseph gave Dr. Richards two dollars to give the guard; but the guard said one was enough, and would take no more.

The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail soon after the jailor went out. Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor and the doctor, and the bottle was then given to the guard, who turned to go out. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 616, byu.edu)

When the attack from the mob began, “Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane” (Ibid, p. 617).

Bushman continued the narrative:

Joseph pulled the trigger six times into the hall, dropped the pistol on the floor, and sprang to the window. With one leg over the sill, he raised his arms in the Masonic sign of distress. A ball from the doorway struck his hip, and a shot from the outside entered his chest. Another hit under the heart and a fourth his collarbone. He fell outward crying, “O Lord my God!” (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 29, “Reform”)

The First Vision

Joseph Smith changed revelations, produced dubious scriptures, and recorded prophecies that were not fulfilled. I have to question the veracity of the First Vision, which is considered “the most important event since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” (lds.org). President Gordon B. Hinckley stated:

We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.... Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.... Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church. (Em. added, lds.org)

The Joseph Smith-History section of the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith - History 1) was dictated in 1838 and published in 1842. However, the earliest known account of the First Vision, which is the only one containing Joseph’s own handwriting, was written in 1832. It is notable that this version was actually hidden for some time, perhaps by Joseph Fielding Smith (fairmormon.org). This account says:

...by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament... (josephsmithpapers.org)

And this is what was written regarding the vision:

...I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my Son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father....

(josephsmithpapers.org)

He did not mention seeing “two Personages” or being told “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” He indicated that he had already concluded that all churches were wrong, but in the official version he says that thought had never entered his heart before (v. 18). It also seems to be a vision in his mind’s eye rather than a physical visitation. Following is a comparison with the 1832 version on the left and the Joseph Smith-History version on the right:

...by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament...	In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? (v. 10) ...it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong... (v. 18)
[Not mentioned]	...I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being.... (v. 16)
... I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my Son thy sins are forgiven thee.	I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (v. 17)

The First Vision Accounts essay says:

The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details.... Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. (lds.org)

I find it difficult to believe that Joseph would change significant details of the story if he actually had the experience described in Joseph Smith-History. Consider the introduction to the 1832 version:

A History of the life of Joseph Smith jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ....

Joseph wasn't speaking to a specific person in a specific setting and there wasn’t a time constraint. It sounds like it was meant to be his authoritative and definitive history containing all of the most important details. Except for the official version, this one contains the most details regarding what was discussed during the vision. It’s very problematic that Joseph didn’t mention seeing God the Father along with Christ.

There are other factors involved. First, Joseph appears to have had a different view of the Godhead in the early 1830s. Consider these Book of Mormon verses:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. (Mosiah 15:1-4)

Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen. (Mosiah 16:15)

And compare the KJV and JST renditions of this verse:

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. (Em. added, KJV Luke 10:22)

All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. (Em. added, JST Luke 10:23)

Then this was taught in 1834 and 1835 as part of the Lectures on Faith, which used to be in the Doctrine and Covenants:

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things... —They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man.... (Em. added, D&C Lecture Fifth, josephsmithpapers.org)

Another account of the First Vision was given in 1835. It says:

I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision....(josephsmithpapers.org)

Two personages are identified, but there is no indication that they are Heavenly Father and Jesus. The speaker actually referred to Christ as if He were not present (“he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”).

The year 1838 was a difficult time for Joseph Smith. Many people were leaving the Church and five apostles were excommunicated. That was the year the official version of the First Vision was recorded. Then this was recorded in 1839:

God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. (Em. added, D&C 121: 26-28)

The Book of Abraham, which presents a plurality of Gods, was published in 1842. It was 1843 when Joseph taught “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

It is also notable that people in general were not aware of the First Vision until 1840. Assistant Church Historian James B. Allen wrote:

The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days....

In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained "the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe." Included in the book were the "Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication. (The Significance of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” in Mormon Thought, pp. 30-32, dialoguejournal.com PDF)

•Was the importance of the First Vision purposely built up over time?

It could be said that the nature of God was revealed to Joseph “line upon line,” but it could also be said that his view of the Godhead evolved over time and he changed his teachings on his own. I understand people share different details in different ways when telling a story, especially if the story covers a long period of time and many people are involved. However, the First Vision was a single event and those involved were few and very significant.

•Why was the 1832 account hidden?

•Did Joseph change his story over time as his view of the Godhead changed?

•If he was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, wouldn’t that be an important enough detail to remember clearly and mention in every account?

•Why wouldn’t God have Joseph properly record “the most important event since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” immediately after it occurred?

•Did Joseph make the 1838 version more literal, physical, and miraculous to bolster his position as prophet during a trying time?

Summary

In this section only, references are provided in footnotes and all links that are not in a footnote lead to the pertinent section within this document. This makes it so reading only the summary can be sufficient to understand the issues.

In order to have a testimony that the gospel was restored through Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church, I have to believe, accept, or overlook the following:

•Joseph Smith experienced a heavenly vision in 1820. When he was apparently writing his authoritative and definitive history 12 years later, he indicated that he saw the Lord only.¹ He later said he actually saw two personages but neither was identified as the Lord.² After that, he said he was visited by two personages and one called the other “My Beloved Son.”³ His story seemed to change as his teachings regarding the Godhead evolved.⁴ When the first account was discovered, it was hidden for a time.⁵

1. josephsmithpapers.org.

2. josephsmithpapers.org.

3. JS History 1.

4. See in order Mosiah 15:1-3, Mosiah 16:15, and KJV Luke 10:22; JST Luke 10:22, Lectures Fifth, D&C 121:26-28, and D&C 130:22.

5. FairMormon.

•Joseph was paid to locate buried treasure using a stone he found in the ground.¹ He later obtained a set of gold plates and the Urim and Thummim that were buried in a hill. Ancient prophets had gone through the trouble of engraving on the plates and carefully preserving them. Rather than using these items to do the translation, Joseph put the stone into a hat and saw words on it and produced the Book of Mormon.² The stone worked for that process even though he never found buried treasure with it.³

1. Richard L. Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 2, “Treasure”) and the Book of Mormon Translation essay (lds.org).

2. Book of Mormon Translation essay (lds.org).

3. Richard L. Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 2, “Treasure”).

•The Book of Mormon contains material errors¹ despite a heavenly voice declaring that the translation was correct.² It does not mention the endowment, work for the dead, eternal marriage, tithing, the Word of Wisdom, plurality of gods, the three degrees of glory, or homosexuality, yet it contains the fulness of the Gospel³ and was written for our day.⁴

1. See fairmormon.org and also compare 2 Nephi 19:1 with translations of Isaiah 9:1.

2. History of the Church (byu.edu).

3. Book of Mormon Introduction.

4. President Ezra Taft Benson, The Book of Mormon—Keystone of Our Religion, Conference Report (lds.org).

•Joseph recorded and published revelations from God and then changed them later. He added language that gave him more authority and provided support for his claim to the priesthood.¹

1. Compare Book of Commandments 4:2-5 (josephsmithpapers.org) with D&C 5:4-19 and compare Book of Commandments 28:6 (josephsmithpapers.org) with D&C 27:5-14.

•God has never changed His law of chastity,¹ which is that sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded.² However, Joseph had sexual relations with other women even though polygamy was illegal.³

1. Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood (lds.org).

2. Handbook 2 (lds.org).

3. josephsmithspolygamy.org

•God didn't provide specific instructions on how to live polygamy

,¹ even though Joseph asked questions about issues far less important than celestial marriage and received answers. For example, God provided great detail on issuing stock to fund the construction of the Nauvoo House.² Joseph was visited by an angel three times about the issue³ and apparently didn't ask any questions.

1. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (lds.org).

2. D&C 124:56-83.

3. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (lds.org).

•Emma saw Joseph with Fanny Alger in a barn and concluded the relationship was adulterous, so Fanny was kicked out of the house.¹ It is claimed that Joseph received a revelation from God commanding him to institute plural marriage prior to this, but supporting evidence is debatable² and the revelation was not recorded until 1843.³ We know little about this marriage,⁴ even though Joseph was commanded by the Lord to keep a history of the Church and taught others they must record important items or they may lose the Spirit and face God’s anger.⁵ Even though he was required to seek permission from Emma before marrying others,⁶ he did not talk to her about it before the “transaction” with Fanny occurred. Decades later, people reported that it was a marriage.⁷ The necessary sealing keys weren't restored until after the marriage occurred.⁸

1. josephsmithspolygamy.org.

2. fairmormon.org.

3. D&C 132 preface.

4. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (lds.org).

5. Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (lds.org).

6. D&C 132:61.

7. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (lds.org).

8. Most scholars agree that the marriage occurred prior to 1836 (see Todd Compton’s website). The Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay (lds.org) states that the sealing keys were restored on April 3, 1836.

•Joseph pressured¹ teenagers, house guests, and some who might have been considered foster children² to marry him, and he did it as one with civic and religious authority.³ He promised exaltation to a girl’s family if she would marry him.⁴ Unware that they were already married, Emma gave Joseph permission to marry Eliza and Emily Partridge. Rather than tell Emma the truth, Joseph held a mock ceremony to “marry” Eliza and Emily again.⁵

1. Richard L. Bushman (The Mormons, PBS television special, 2007, pbs.org).

2. One example is Lucy Walker (josephsmithspolygamy.org).

3. He was the mayor and chief justice of Nauvoo (byu.edu) and was Lt. General in the Nauvoo Legion (lds.org).

4. This refers to Helen Mar Kimball (byu.edu).

5. Richard L. Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 27, “Emma and Joseph”).

•Joseph told Emma he would relinquish his plural wives, but he did not intend to do that at all¹. She then became upset because he had letters from another woman (her friend who was invited into their home) and gave a gold watch to 16-year-old Flora Woodworth. Joseph “reproved” Emma and then “had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse”².

1. William Clayton Journal, 16 August 1843 (boap.org) and Richard L. Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 27, “Emma and Joseph”).

2. William Clayton Journal, 23 August 1843 (boap.org).

•The Savior taught, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”¹ Also, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said “modern prophets have warned that looking upon marriage ‘as a mere contract that may be entered into at pleasure...and severed at the first difficulty...is an evil meriting severe condemnation’” and this type of “unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior....”² However, some of Joseph Smith’s wives were apparently discarded “at the first difficulty.”³

1. Matthew 19:6.

2. Dallin H. Oaks, Divorce, Ensign (lds.org).

3. This happened to Fanny Alger (see above) and the Partridge sisters (josephsmithspolygamy.org).

•Joseph married some women who already had a husband.¹ It seems that the alleged absence of sexual relations in Joseph’s polyandrous marriages is supposed to make it okay, but he took those wives to be his forever, even if a husband was good and faithful.² Those who shared a life together on earth did not have the hope of being together in heaven.³

1. Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (lds.org).

2. Some examples are David Sessions, Johnathan Holmes, and Orson Hyde.

3. One example is Helen Mar Kimball and Horace Whitney (byu.edu). They were together for 38 years but were married for time only (though they may have been sealed posthumously).

•Joseph’s practice of polygamy continued despite a canonized scripture denying it was being practiced and declaring that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage.¹ When accused of having multiple wives, he bore false witness² and had a printing press destroyed.³

1. Section 101 of the 1835 D&C and section 109 of the 1844 D&C (josephsmithpapers.org).

2. History of the Church (byu.edu).

3. Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Student Study Guide (lds.org).

•Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that has nothing to do with Abraham.¹ He also began translating plates that were invented as a hoax.²

1. Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham (lds.org).

2. Stanley B. Kimball, Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax, Ensign (lds.org).

•Some things in the Doctrine and Covenants contradict the Book of Mormon.¹

1. Compare Alma 11:27-29 with D&C 121:32; compare 1 Nephi 15:35, 2 Nephi 28:8-9, Alma 41:4, and Alma 42:16 with D&C 76:96-98; compare 3 Nephi 30:2 with D&C 42:18; and compare Alma 34:36 with D&C 130:3.

•The Lord told Joseph that a temple shall be built in New Jerusalem in that generation.¹ However, He excused the Saints when they failed to build the temple,² even though His works cannot be frustrated³ and He gives no commandments without preparing a way for them to be accomplished.⁴

1. D&C 84:3-5.

2. D&C 124:49.

3. D&C 3:1-3.

4. 1 Nephi 3:7.

•Joseph prophesied in 1835 that the Second Coming would occur within 56 years. At the same time, several apostles received blessings stating that they would live to see it.¹

1. Millennial Star (byu.edu).

•The Lord told Joseph that Salem, Massachusetts would be given into his hands and he would receive its gold and silver,¹ but that didn’t happen.

1. D&C 111:4.

•Joseph prophesied that the war between the North and the South would lead to war being poured out upon all nations,¹ but that didn’t happen. Also, Brigham Young said the war could not free the slaves and they would continue to be cursed.

1. D&C 87:1-3.

•Joseph prophesied that the United States government would be “utterly overthrown and wasted” within a few years if it didn’t redress the wrongs committed against the Saints in Missouri,¹ yet neither of those things happened. He established the Council of Fifty in 1844, was voted King,² and again “prophecied the entire overthrow of this nation in a few years.”³

1. History of the Church (byu).

2. josephsmithpapers.org.

3. Richard L. Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling, ch. 28, “The Kingdom”).

•Joseph mistakenly believed Masonry came from Solomon's Temple and used it for the temple endowment.¹ We are supposed to know Masonic signs and tokens to get into heaven.²

1. fairmormon.org.

2. ElRay L. Christiansen, Some Things You Need to Know about the Temple, New Era (lds.org).

•For his last sermon, Joseph preached on the plurality of Gods¹ and seems to have contradicted the scriptures.²

1. History of the Church (byu.edu)

2. See Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 43:10, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Alma 11:27-29, Ether 2:8, D&C 20:19, and Moses 1:6.

•Before going to Carthage, Joseph removed his garments,¹ but we are supposed to wear them almost constantly.²

1. fairmormon.org.

2. Church Handbook 2 (lds.org).

•God set temple “ordinances to be the same forever and ever”¹ and they can’t be changed,² yet significant changes have been made multiple times.³

1. Joseph Smith in History of the Church (byu.edu).

2. Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Ordinances and Covenants, Ensign (lds.org).

3. fairmormon.org.

•People used to be sealed to Church leaders instead of their own parents.¹

1. Wilford Woodruff in Millennial Star (byu.edu).

•Though many people in various religions believe they will always be with their loved ones, the Church claims exclusive authority to seal families together forever.¹ For a sealing to be effective, people have to go to the temple to have ordinances performed and make covenants that must be kept. In order to go to the temple, they must have certain beliefs, pay tithing, and obey other rules.¹

1. Temple Marriage, Young Women Manual 2 (lds.org).

2. We Must Be Worthy to Enter the Temple, Endowed From on High: Temple Preparation Seminar Teacher’s Manual (lds.org).

•The First Presidency said the pattern for garments was revealed from heaven.¹ Later, the First Presidency said no fixed pattern had ever been given.²

1. Messages of the First Presidency 5:110, 28 June 1906.

2. Heber J. Grant Letter Books, pp. 436-437, 14 June 1923.

•The Book of Mormon says those without law will be saved¹ and baptism avails them nothing,² but we are going to perform a proxy baptism in the temple for every adult who has ever lived.

1. Mosiah 3:11-12 and 2 Nephi 9:25.

2. Moroni 8:22-23.

•Animal sacrifice will be reinstated in temples¹ even though the death of Christ ended animal sacrifice as a gospel ordinance.²

1. Joseph Smith in History of the Church (byu.edu).

2. See Alma 34:10, 3 Nephi 9:19-20, and The Guide to the Scriptures (lds.org).

•It was said that no one in the scriptures - including the Savior - presents a character better than Joseph Smith.¹ We are taught that no one can have a testimony of Christ without having a testimony of Joseph,² he was the most exalted of people,³ had more integrity than anyone,⁴ never wronged anyone, was God-like, and he was “a lamb slain before the foundation of the world.”⁵

1. Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

2. Teachings: Brigham Young (lds.org).

3. Teachings: John Taylor (lds.org).

4. Teachings: Lorenzo Snow (lds.org).

5. Teachings: Joseph F. Smith (lds.org).

•It was taught as doctrine that polygamy has existed from the beginning¹, the Lord’s servants have always practiced it², was synonymous with celestial marriage³, and that Jesus was a polygamist⁴.

1. Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

2. Brigham Young in Deseret News (utah.edu).

3. Joseph F. Smith reading affidavit of William Clayton (byu.edu), George A. Smith (fairmormon.org), and Brigham Young (fairmormon.org) in Journal of Discourses.

4. Brigham Young (fairmormon.org) and Orson Hyde (fairmormon.org) in Journal of Discourses.

•It was taught that monogamy was commenced by the Romans, was a source of prostitution and whoredoms to the point of rottenness and decay,¹ degenerates the human family, has always proved to be a curse, and will not be tolerated among celestial beings.²

1. Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

2. Millennial Star (byu.edu).

•Paul wrote, “Husbands, love your wives.”¹ Brigham Young said he didn’t care if husbands loved their wives.² It seems he didn’t care if his wives were happy, was willing to send them away if they didn’t comply without complaint and replace them with younger women, and would not miss his children.³

1. Ephesians 5:23.

2. Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

3. Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

•When Lorenzo Snow was 57, he married 16-year-old Sarah Minnie Ephramina Jensen.¹When Wilford Woodruff was 46, he married 15-year-old Emma Smith.²

1. See wikipedia.org.

2. See wikipedia.org.

•It was taught that polygamy could not be abandoned without abandoning the gospel altogether¹ and that the United States could not get rid of it.² Also, the Lord stated in a revelation to the Prophet that the law of plural marriage is everlasting and He would not revoke it.³

1. Wilford Woodruff in Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org)

2. Heber C. Kimball in Millennial Star (byu.edu).

3. John Taylor ( fairmormon.org ).

•The prophets taught that black people couldn’t hold the priesthood or go through the temple because they were not valiant during the pre-existence and came to earth as the seed of Cain. This was “not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization.”¹ Today the Church disavows those teachings and refers to them as theories.²

1. First Presidency Letter, 1949 (fairmormon.org).

2. Race and the Priesthood (lds.org).

•There is no claim today that the priesthood restriction was inspired by God.¹

1. The Race and the Priesthood essay (lds.org) gives no indication that it was inspired. When President Hinckley was asked why the restriction was in place, he said only, “Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way” (youtube.com).

•The Lord stated that the Saints were to pay one-tenth of their interest as tithing and it was to be a law that would stand forever.¹ It was understood that they would pay ten percent of what they would earn if their net worth were invested for one year.² Tithing was not paid on income and those who only had enough to support a family were not expected to pay at all.³ The law evolved so that the Saints were taught to pay on income,⁴ then they were instructed to pay before deducting necessary living expenses,⁵ and later told to pay before taxes.⁶ Today we are taught to pay tithing even if we can’t afford rent, water, or food.⁷

1. D&C 119:1-4.

2. The Tithing of My People (lds.org, see footnote 17).

3. Orson Hyde in Millennial Star (byu.edu).

4. While there were some mentions of “income” previously, that language seemed to gain prominence in 1873. See Orson Hyde (fairmormon.org), Orson Pratt (fairmormon.org), and Brigham Young (fairmormon.org) in Journal of Discourses.

5. Joseph F. Smith in Conference Report (byu.edu).

6. LeGrand Richards in Conference Report (byu.edu).

7. Aaron L. West, Sacred Transformations, Ensign (lds.org).

•Brigham Young clearly and repeatedly taught that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do.¹ This doctrine was taught by other General Authorities²and implemented in the St. George Temple.³ Those who disagreed with this doctrine were denigrated for their weakness and ignorance.⁴ For disagreeing with President Young on this and other issues, Elder Orson Pratt was called to repentance and told his salvation was on the line.⁵ The doctrine was later repudiated and perhaps covered up.⁶

1. The Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org) and Deseret News (utah.edu) show just two of many quotes available.

2. For examples, see Samuel W. Richards in Millennial Star (byu.edu) and Franklin D. Richards in Millennial Star (byu.edu).

3. FairMormon (fairmormon.org).

4. Samuel W. Richards in Millennial Star (byu.edu).

5. Gary James Bergera, The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 (dialoguejournal.com PDF).

6. Spencer W. Kimball, Our Own Liahona, Ensign (lds.org) and Bruce R. McConkie, The Seven Deadly Heresies (byu.edu).

•It was taught that if a man violated his covenants, the blood of Christ could never atone for it and that man’s own blood would have to be shed.¹

1. Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses (fairmormon.org).

•Material information was edited out when producing History of the Church.¹

1. Compare the account of Joseph Smith’s “foolish errors” in Times and Season (byu.edu) to History of the Church (byu.edu), compare the account about drinking whisky in Millennial Star (byu.edu) to History of the Church (byu.edu), and compare the account about drinking beer in Millennial Star (byu.edu) to History of the Church (byu.edu).

•The Church has a history of restricting access to significant historical documents¹ and very few details regarding polygamy are provided through official channels today.

1. Current Church Historian Elder Steven E. Snow said, “I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information” (byu.edu). When the first account of the First Vision was discovered, it was hidden for a time (fairmormon.org). See also page 26 of Leonard J. Arrington, Scholarly Studies of Mormonism in the Twentieth Century (dialoguejournal.com PDF).

•The Word of Wisdom revelation¹ specifically states that it should be applied “not by commandment or constraint” and that barley is “for mild drinks,”² which refers to beer. Eventually, beer was banned and select portions of the revelation became a commandment that must be followed in order to obtain a temple recommend.³ However, the scripture itself has not changed and there is no record of a revelation from God saying the meaning and application should have been changed.

1. D&C 89.

2. D&C 89:17.

3. We Must Be Worthy to Enter the Temple, Endowed From on High: Temple Preparation Seminar Teacher’s Manual (lds.org).

•The youth of the Church are taught that it’s very important to be married in the temple¹ and there could be dire consequences if they don’t.² If a couple chooses to have a civil marriage in the United States and some other countries, they must wait a year after the wedding to be sealed in the temple. Because of these things, many couples are married in the temple while family and friends wait outside. There is no commandment or revelation regarding the one-year waiting period. It is a policy that could be changed at any time, but it remains in place despite many people being hurt by it.

1. Presidents of the Church Speak on Temple Marriage, New Era (lds.org).

2. See the story told by Spencer W. Kimball in Young Women Manual 2 (lds.org).

•Same-sex attraction was referred to as “sexual perversion” even when not acted upon. It was taught that people are not born gay and it’s curable, that talking about homosexuality could cause the condition, and that the cause could be selfishness.¹ Now the Church states that “individuals do not choose to have such attractions” and it “does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction.”²

1. Boyd K. Packer, To The One (images of pamphlet).

2. Mormon and Gay (lds.org).

•The “November Policy” was written in a document not available to most members,¹ leaked anonymously,² deemed a clarifying policy statement by an Apostle,³ and further clarified to be merely an update to an instruction guide.⁴ Two months later, it was declared to be a revelation at a devotional for young adults, which was posted to the Broadcasts section of the Church’s website⁵ but not published in the Ensign until late September.⁶

1. This refers to Handbook 1 (lds.org).

2. The New York Times (nytimes.com).

3. D. Todd Christofferson (mormonnewsroom.org).

4. Elder Christofferson Says Handbook Changes Regarding Same-Sex Marriages Help Protect Children (lds.org).

5. Russell M. Nelson, Becoming True Millennials (lds.org).

6. Russell M. Nelson, Stand as True Millennials, Ensign (lds.org).

•Despite the past teachings glorifying polygamy and vilifying monogamy, we are supposed to follow the Brethren today in opposing same-sex marriage.¹

1. The Divine Institution of Marriage (mormonnewsroom.org).

•The grace of Christ will apply to me only after I have done all I can do and have denied myself of all ungodliness,¹ so it seems that salvation might not be possible at all.

1. Moroni 10:32.

•Today the Church has for-profit businesses in newspaper, radio, insurance, securities, retirement services, residential properties, commercial properties,¹ and a hunting reserve.² It does not disclose financial data.

1. wikipedia.org.

2. Tending the flock, (deseretnews.com).

•The prophets today have the same position and authority as those in the past who committed some serious errors while acting in their official Church capacity, yet we are still taught they can’t lead us astray and we should always follow them.¹

1. Ezra Taft Benson, Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, Liahona (lds.org).

•Considering all these things, it is difficult to suppress doubts regarding the whole story of the Church and its claim to be God’s Kingdom on Earth. It is difficult to believe we are led by prophets who can’t lead us astray and who should be followed no matter what.

•Faith is believing in something without evidence supporting it. Is it going too far to have faith in something when there is so much evidence against it?

Saturday, June 27, 2020

Contents

Introduction

Quotes and Sources

Race Issues

Institution of the Priesthood Restriction

Theories

Doctrine

Ending the Restriction

Repudiation

Other Race Issues

Prophets

The Law of Common Consent

Prophecies, Revelations, and Commandments

Zion and the Temple

Civil War

Second Coming of Christ

Other Revelations

Pharisaism

Teachings of Jesus

The Church

Praise of Man

Follow the Prophet

Testimonies

Scriptures and Translations

The Book of Abraham

Kinderhook Plates

The Book of Mormon

Seer Stone

Treasure Hunting

Errors

Fulness of the Gospel

Possible Influences

The Doctrine and Covenants

Changing Revelations

Discrepancies

Temples

Masonry and Unchangeable Ordinances

Sealings

The Law of Adoption

Baptisms for the Dead

Garments

Sacrifices to be Reinstated

God does not Live in Houses made by Man

Salvation

Temples

Baptism

Grace

Polygamy

The Standard Form of Marriage

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

Fanny Alger

Lucy Walker

Helen Mar Kimball

The Partridge Sisters

Polyandry

Denials

Emma

Authority

The Law of Chastity

Summary of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy

The Standard Form of Marriage

Polygamy in Utah

Polygamy Cannot be Abandoned

Our Father and God

Brigham Young’s Teachings

Implementation in the Temple

Dissent

Repudiation and Possible Cover-up

Tithing

Homosexuality

November Policy

Homosexuality and Marriage

Church Transparency

Polygamy

Joseph Smith’s Legal Issues

History of the Church

Violence

The Church Today

Those Who Question