New Topic

Followers of this blog know that we have addressed a number of controversies over the past 6 months: claims of false prophecies, claims of an "evolving First Vision", priesthood restrictions, etc... It is time to tackle a new topic. Before I just grab one and run with it, are there any things you would like me to research?

The Only Critiques of the 1835 Account

Critics of Latter-day Saints claim that the reference to angels in the 1835 account of the First Vision listed below gives rise to two complaints, both rather specious:

• Since the word angels is capitalized it must be referring to Deity thereby contradicting other accounts who refer to a visitation by the Father and the Son.
• The Official History of the Church was falsified because this contradiction isn't noted.

Both of these claims are weak. What really happened that day in 1820 is that Heavenly Father appeared with the Savior, accompanied by angels. The upper-case detail is trivial and simply is what an unlearned man, in an era before grammar had been standardized, wrote. To find fault with this account over this detail is evidence of the paucity of arguments by our opponents. Come on guys, you could at least make it challenging. It isn't even any fun shooting down such pathetic attempts to smear the Prophet of the Restoration. If this is all you have its a wonder everyone doesn't join the Mormon Church. These arguments are beyond lame.

The 1835 Account of the First Vision

The 1835 account of the First Vision is as follows. There is only one frequent criticism of this account that we will cover in our next post. In the meantime, here is the 1835 account.

From Joseph's journal entry of 9 November 1835 (Monday)

I commenced giving him a relation of the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the book of Mormon, as follows being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord, under a realising sense that he had said (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened seek and you shall find and again, if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men libarally and upbradeth not; information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me, I strove again to pray, but could not, the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me , 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 I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed

From Joseph's journal entry of 14 November 1835 (Saturday)

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon

Done With 1832

The 1832 version of the First Vision is the most criticized version of the four that are considered authentic. I've addressed enough of the criticisms so unless someone wants a specific criticism addressed, I'm done with it and will move onto the other criticisms and my replies. Anyone?

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 6

One of the more interesting critiques of the 1832 account of the 1832 account of the First Vision is one concerning something that the Prophet reported was said by Deity. The claim of our critics is that when Jesus Christ spoke to Joseph Smith in the 1832 First Vision account He said that all of those who believe on His name may have eternal life - regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

I find this interesting because our greatest critics tend to be people who hold to this doctrinal view - that it doesn't matter what church you belong to as long as you believe in Jesus Christ. Basically they are claiming that they are right, and that the 1832 account of the First Vision proves that they are right. But is their interpretation accurate?

The people at The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) answer that question this way.

While it is true that the Lord is quoted in the 1832 First Vision account as saying "all those who believe on my name may have eternal life" it can be seen in an earlier revelation dated 7 March 1831 that those who "believe on [Christ's] name" must also "come unto [Him]" in order to "have everlasting life" (D&C 45:5).

The Lord does not state in the 1832 narrative that eternal life is available to members of every Christian church. Rather, He declares unambiguously in that account that "none" of the existing Christian denominations of the time were keeping His commandments; they had all turned aside from His gospel. From this piece of information alone, it is clear that eternal life could not be made available to them. In the 1832 text Jesus Christ says to Joseph Smith - "keep my commandments," and in connection with this it can be seen in a revelation dated March 1829 that the Lord informed the Prophet that he could only be granted "eternal life" if he was "firm in keeping the commandments" that Christ gave unto him (D&C 5:21-22; D&C 14:7; D&C 18:8; D&C 30:8).

On 1 November 1831 the Lord affirmed to adherents of the LDS faith that there was "only [one] true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). Earlier—in May 1831—He had spoken specifically to members of "the church that profess my name" (compare with the 1832 document wording) and indicated that only the faithful members of it who endured would "inherit eternal life" (D&C 50:4-5). Thus, the blessing of eternal life could not be obtained without complying with certain conditions.

Before Joseph Smith penned the Lord's words that are found in the 1832 First Vision text he clearly understood that:

• Profession of the Lord's name alone is not sufficient for the reception of eternal life; a person must also "come unto" Him.
• Eternal life is granted only to those people who keep the Lord's commandments.
• One of the Lord's commandments is to be baptized by, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through His authorized representatives (D&C 49:11-14 / March 1831; D&C 76:51-52 / 16 February 1832).
• There is only one church on the earth that is recognized by Jesus Christ as being His own.

The implication of this last point is that only one church can perform ordinances that will be considered valid in the sight of the Lord. And so a person can only be truly obedient to all of the Lord's commandments by holding membership in His one true Church. Joseph Smith indicated in the introductory remarks of the 1832 history that he had received priesthood authority, from a heavenly source, which enabled him to "administer . . . the commandments . . . and the ordinances".

In summary, the interpretation of our critics is not accurate. I still find it fascinating that they would find validation of their doctrine in a vision that they contend never happened. The duplicity of that position should be obvious to everyone.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 5

The criticism of the 1832 account of the First Vision that we are going to examine today is one of our critics' weakest arguments to date. In the several months that I have been addressing the claims of our critics, there has sometimes been some merit to their criticisms. As you will see, that is not the case with today's critique. Yet our enemies include this in their never-ending lists of reasons why Mormons are so misguided (that is the most charitable way to characterize their discussions about us).

The criticism consists of an alleged failure to mention the feeling of religious fervor or sense of revival that is featured in the 1838 version. This is how this "omission" is characterized in the Pearl of Great Price.

5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

10 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?

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

To the charge that this is not really mentioned in the 1832 we plead guilty. Who cares? So what if something isn't mentioned in different accountings of a story? That is perfectly natural. What is important is whether this religious revival really occurred or whether Joseph Smith was making it up. If you could prove that this has no basis in fact - that would be a significant critique of the prophet, because he would be shown to be a liar. So why don't our critics make that claim?

The reason they do not make that claim is because it is an historical fact! See just a few references below.

GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—Palmyra Register, June 7, 1820

REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—Palmyra Register, August 16, 1820

REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—Palmyra Register, September 13, 1820

FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...Palmyra Register, October 4, 1820

When I was in college at Southeastern Louisiana University in the late 1970's I took a course on the history of religion in America and a one-hour lecture was devoted to this period of revival that occurred in the Northeast in the 1818-1821 timeframe with the greatest activity occurring in western New York. Our critics do not dare address the factual argument here - they cannot do it with a straight face. Instead they attempt to smear the Prophet with this incredibly pathetic attempt to label him a liar simply because he failed to repeat the story identically each time he recorded it. Do you see what I meant about this being one of their lamest critiques?

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 4

There is no mention in the 1832 account of the First Vision of a struggle with Satan. The 1838 account records this struggle as follows:

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when 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—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

Since this story element is not present in the earliest known account of the event, but shows up in later retellings, critics claim that it is evidence that this tale evolved over time - becoming more dramatic and elaborate.

Once again we find ourselves in a logical quandary - the only way to avoid our critics is to repeat the story of the First Vision identically each time you tell it. But if that were done the critics would certainly jump on the fact that the story never varies and therefore must be memorized. From that they would deduce that only a liar memorizes a story in order to avoid making mistakes. Its a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". In my experience honest people do not put others in such quandaries - only the dishonest resort to such tactics. Doesn't speak well for our critics does it? A sincere seeker after truth would be repulsed by such strategies.

PS In the dozens of written accounts by Joseph and others who recorded conversations with Joseph, it seems that Joseph included this detail (the struggle with Satan) less than half the times he told the story. He also omitted it in the Wentworth Letter, the only account written in the Prophet's own handwriting.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 3

There are a number of things missing from the 1832 account of the First Vision that are found in the 1838 account. One of the missing items is that there is no mention of a new dispensation of the gospel. The basic criticism is that, like a fisherman's tale of the fish that got away, the Joseph's story gets bigger and bigger as time goes on.

The vital question here is not whether the two versions are identical; we've already conceded that that are not. We have already discussed how perfectly natural it is for a story to be told differently each time it is recounted. Implied in those differences it is expected that some details will be missing, while others added. What matters is whether it is the truth or not.

No New Dispensation

In Joseph Smith's 1832 account he states that before the First Vision took place he was of the opinion that “mankind . . . had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” When the Prophet saw the Savior during the First Vision experience Jesus verified what Joseph previously had believed. There are at least a dozen written recollections of people remembering Joseph speak of a new dispensation.

Did Joseph mention a new dispensation in the 1832 account? No. Is the 1832 account about a new dispensation consistent with other contemporary records? Yes. The only rational conclusion is that he simply omitted that detail in the written account, although he made that point on at least a dozen other occasions. The charge that his "story evolved over time" is false relative to this detail.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 2

In the 1832 account of the First Vision the Prophet Joseph Smith records that he was "in the 16th year of [his] age" when the manifestation took place. Since the 1838 account, the one found in the Pearl of Great Price, states that he was in his 15th year, the dates contradict each other. The charge is that this is evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time, and is thus a fabrication.

First of all lets agree that Joseph contradicted himself. That part of the charge is 100% accurate. The 1838 account says that he was in his "15th year" and the 1832 account says that he was in his "16th year" - a clear contradiction. But does that mean that he made it up? Does that mean that he is lying? Be careful about making someone an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21). In this verse Isaiah is describing the last days and he uses this expression to define some of the wicked in our day. I'm certain that none of us want to be one whom Isaiah calls wicked.

That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Now I am not saying that if you find fault with the Prophet Joseph Smith, that you are guilty of making him an offender for a word. I'm simply suggesting that you precede with caution when you find yourself needing to parse words in order to make your point.

Our critics are definitely parsing words at this point. But are they guilty of making someone an offender for a word? One way of testing this is to see how consistent they are. Our critics are almost without exception, members of other Christian faiths. If they apply this same standard to their faith, then they are not guilty of "making someone an offender for a word". But if we can find duplicity in their stand, then they are. Readers of this blog probably remember how often we could point out our critics' inconsistencies in judging prophecies made by Joseph Smith (1, 2, 3, 4). I'm afraid they are guilty of that same inconsistency in this case.

To test our critics sense of honesty and consistency in applying the same standard to their beliefs. What do they say about the conflicting versions of Paul's Damascus experience? Do our critics reject Paul as a prophet because of this? Do they reject the Bible because of these errors? Almost without exception the answer is NO! Yet if one reads the two versions of this experience they find that Paul's version in Acts 9 and Acts 22 completely contradict each other. Therefore if our critics truly believe that Joseph Smith made it up and this is evidence of his fabrication, why do they not charge Paul with the same?

In recent years scholars have become aware of the duplicity of their criticisms of Joseph Smith and have made rather lame attempts to show that Paul's accounts really aren't in conflict. But once again they have to parse words and "strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel". Truth is not on your side when you have to do that. Remember that it was Christ who first used that expression in describing his Jewish critics. Why do you think our critics are doing the same thing? Could it be that they are motivated by the same spirit?

The real reason for this mistake is that Joseph Smith was horrible with numbers. His close associates tell us that it was in mathematics that his lack of schooling was most glaring. He even made the same mistake when telling the story of his brother Alvin's death - one time getting the year right, and another time being off by a year (sound familiar?). However in the case of Alvin's death, editors caught the Prophet's error before it went to press and made the needed correction. We have the original manuscripts and can clearly see where the Prophet says that Alvin died in 1824 instead of 1823.

Joseph was a man, just as Paul was a man. The measure of whether they were prophets does not lie in whether we can find fault with them. Of course we can find fault, they were human. The question for both men is whether they were commissioned of God and whether there are fruits worthy of a prophet, despite their human flaws. I submit that both men pass the test with flying colors, despite sometimes getting the details mixed up. And I submit that if you are honest in heart, you recognize that I am telling the truth as well.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 1

Critics of the LDS Church often focus on the pivotal event in Mormon history, the First Vision. The mostly commonly known version is called the 1838 version, the one found in the Pearl of Great Price. This version seems to be the one that draws the most criticism - we will address about a dozen specific charges about differences between the 1832 and 1838 versions.

The first charge that often arises is that the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith—only says that the Savior appeared to the Prophet; the Father is missing. Since this is the earliest known account critics believe this is evidence that the story evolved and became more elaborate over time. The relevant text (in its original form) reads as follows:

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy 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 the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not 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 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 in the glory of my Father."

The critics have, however, failed to notice a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is:

"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 in the eve of time according as the Lord brough [it] forth and established [it] by his hand he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

Did the Prophet refer to the Father in his phrase "receiving the testimony from on high"? There is evidence that he believed this phraseology to mean exactly that. But that is not my major point. It is an "enforced either/or" logical fallacy to conclude that unless one explicitly lists all major details in all versions of the story then they must be lying. Joseph made an admittedly vague reference to the Father in this account; choosing instead to focus on the message given by the Son. Is this unlearned man less than a perfect witness - yes. But that is not evidence of lying. Lying is found in contradictions. There are no contradictions here.

PS For individuals troubled by the spelling in the Prophet's account it is important to note that the standardization of spelling had not yet occurred in the Prophet's lifetime. Everyone wrote phonetically. In our day it gives the appearance of ignorance but that is not accurate nor kind. No standard for spelling had yet been invented.

Four Different Versions of The First Vision

It is accepted by both critics and advocates that there are four versions of the First Vision that can be attributed to the prophet Joseph Smith: an 1832 edition, an 1835 version, the 1838 account that is found in the Pearl of Great Price, and the Wentworth Letter. Naturally each version has slight differences between them as would be expected by anyone who has ever told a story twice.

Police love to get witnesses to write down their testimony when they are interviewed. The reason behind this is that they want them to be on record with what they saw happen. If they change their story at any time, they can use the original recorded version to then impeach them. Opposing lawyers love it when witnesses change their stories as they can also use it to impeach a witness. In preparation for testifying in court, an attorney does their level best to make sure that the witness does not do what is normally natural - tell the story differently. They go over their recorded testimony and coach them on how to tell the same story without repeating the same words exactly. It takes effort and it takes practice.

Joseph Smith did not live in our modern litigious world. He recorded what happened four different times and predictably there are differences. An honest investigator expects there to be differences. Identical stories would be more suspicious than ones that different modestly. Our critics say that these differences disprove the prophet. In our next few posts we will address the different accounts; point out where they differ from the version found in the Pearl of Great Price, and examine whether these differences are normal, or are they evidence of someone trying to pull off a hoax. We will cover it completely (and it will take a lot of posts to do this) and you will be the judge at the end - are our critics being fair, or are they "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel"? Stay tuned!

The First Vision

The First Vision which are are discussing in this series of posts is Mormonspeak for the inaugural event in Mormon history – when the Prophet Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. This experience is considered by Latter-days Saints to be the most significant event from the atonement of Christ to the present day. The best known version of this event is found in the Pearl of Great Price – one of the four books that Latter-day Saints accept as scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). The following selection is taken from Joseph Smith – History 1:7-20.

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

10 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?

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when 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—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me 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!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Not surprisingly this has come under attack by critics of the Mormon Church for if this event happened in the way which we claim; it is a devastating blow to every other religion on the face of the earth. The part that sticks in their craw is found in verse 19.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Interestingly, the early Mormon missionaries did not share this story with converts. It was considered either too sacred, or not important. Instead early missionaries started their discussions with the Book of Mormon, something tangible.

The Prophet Joseph Smith also did not speak of this event often. The evidence suggests that he first shared his experience with a Methodist minister, Reverend Lane, and was ridiculed for the effort. We believe it was Reverend Lane who first suggested to Joseph the scripture in the Epistle of James for we know that Joseph was partial to the Methodist faith and often attended their services. We also know that Reverend Lane preached on James 1:5 during this time and it is possible that Joseph was in attendance. Joseph’s account of this is found in verse 21.

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

There is some doubt to when he even told members of his own family. Our best evidence suggests that Joseph was very closed-mouthed about this experience throughout his life; although he did speak of it publicly from time to time. In our next post we will address the four written versions before addressing our critics’ claims.

First Vision

Critics of the LDS Church often point to the several versions of the First Vision that are in circulation. The claim is that this is somehow proof that the Prophet Joseph Smith made it all up. As has been our pattern, it will take several posts to set the stage and then address the exact criticism, and counterargument. Stay tuned!

Order of the New Testament Books

In recent posts we have been addressing the criticism that Mormons are adding to the Bible in violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

We have shown in previous posts (1, 2) that the Bible wasn't even compiled until the 4th century. Next we shall examine the historical order in which the books of the New Testament were written. In compiling this list I have been careful to avoid even looking at the work of LDS scholars on the same subject. My list is from a traditional Christian website. Although there is disagreement about the following list in minor ways, it is representative of a consensus among a majority of New Testament scholars.

1. James - 50 AD
2. First Thessalonians - 52-53 AD
3. Second Thessalonians - 52-53 AD
4. Galatians - 55 AD
5. First Corinthians - 57 AD
6. Second Corinthians - 57 AD
7. Romans - 57-58 AD
8. Philippians - 62-63 AD
9. Colossians - 62-63 AD
10. Philemon - 62-63 AD
11. Ephesians - 62-63 AD
12. Luke - 63 AD
13. Acts - 64 AD
14. First Timothy - 65 AD
15. Titus - 65 AD
16. Second Timothy - 66 AD
17. Mark - 66 AD
18. Matthew - 67 AD
19. Hebrews - 67 AD
20. First Peter - 67-68 AD
21. Second Peter - 68 AD
22. Jude - 68 AD
23. Revelation - 68 AD
24. John - c 85 AD
25. Epistles of John - 90-95 AD

You will notice that Revelation was the first of John's writings. John wrote 5 books of the New Testament. Four of them were written after the Book of Revelation.

If John truly meant that no one was to add to a book that wasn't compiled yet; then why did he add most of his writings to it? The argument that enemies of the Mormon Church make claiming that we are adding to the Bible is false. It represents a total lack of understanding of the history of the Bible and is a really bad interpretation of Revelation 22:18-19.

Bible Differences

In our last post we commented on the canonization of the Bible that took place in Carthage in 397 AD. Some of the books listed in that decision appear unusual to readers of the King James Bible. Basically it boils down to this - the Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants are not the same. A Catholic explains the differences this way.

Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading.

The King James Bible, the one used by English speaking Latter-day Saints, is considered a Protestant Bible by scholars. Isn't it interesting that Catholics do not make a big deal about Protestants taking books out of the Bible? Both Catholic and Protestants tend to be really concerned about Mormons who are allegedly adding to the Bible by accepting the Book of Mormon. To be consistent, the scripture in Revelation that we are discussing in this series of posts condemns both those who add and those who take away.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why charge Mormons with adding to the Bible without a peep for Protestants who took away from the Bible defined in 397 AD? Why this lack of consistency? Could it be that they know the true meaning of these verses?

Now that we've laid an historical foundation, we will address the specific charge of Mormons adding to the Bible in our next post. Stay tuned!

Third Synod of Carthage

The Synod of Carthage that addressed the formation of the Bible is sometimes called the Third Council of Carthage. It took place in August of 397 AD in what would be today a suburb of Tunis, Tunisia. The The Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ records what was decided this way:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

As you read this list you will probably notice reference to books not found in the King James Bible. We will address that in our next post.

History of The Bible

Before we address specifically the charge that Latter-day Saints are adding to the Bible, let's review how the Bible came to pass. A Christian website devoted to telling the story of the Bible puts it this way.

The history of the Bible starts with a phenomenal account of history! It's not one book like I always thought -- It's an ancient collection of writings, comprised of 66 separate books, written over approximately 1,600 years, by at least 40 distinct authors. The Old Testament contains 39 books written from approximately 1500 to 400 BC, and the New Testament contains 27 books written from approximately 40 to 90 AD. The Jewish Bible (Tanakh) is the same as the Christian Old Testament, except for its book arrangement. The original Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, while the original New Testament was written in common Greek.

The New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible came into being this way according to this same website.

Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulate their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the entire set of writings as the "New Covenant." During the 200s AD, the original writings were translated from Greek into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria), and widely disseminated as "inspired scripture" throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond). 5 In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage.

In our next post we will address the Synod of Carthage that authorized the beginnings of the modern Bible.

The Book of Mormon and The Book of Revelation

The next topic I will address involves the Book of Mormon and a scripture out of the Book of Revelation that our critics often use to find fault with our belief in the Book of Mormon. The scripture in question is nearly the last verse of the Bible - Revelation 22:18-19 which reads as follows.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The charge is that the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible. In coming posts I will address whether this is a legitimate criticism or not. Stay tuned!

Hebrew Temple In MesoAmerica?

Critics of the Mormon belief that ancient Hebrews emigrated to Central/South America thousands of years ago will not want to read about recent research that shows that the Temple of Solomon, the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and the ruins of Izapa in Mexico all have the same dimensions.

The story includes this paragraph:

From the cloth and wood tabernacle, to the stone temple of Solomon, to the huge complex of buildings in Izapa, there was a correlation in size, according to Hauck. "The measurements system used to design Izapa, and the basic architecture in Izapa were copied directly from sacred architecture employed by Moses and Solomon."

Of course none of this is surprising to Latter-day Saints who believe in the Book of Mormon. It is only uncomfortable for our critics. To read the whole story click here.

Reid criticizes LDS Church's Prop. 8 involvement

Hmmm... I wonder where exactly Senator Reid's loyalties lie. Here is the introductory paragraph from the linked article.

Gay-rights activists say that in a private meeting with them, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., criticized the LDS Church for working to ban gay marriage in California.

I am not challenging the Senator's right to disagree with his church leaders. Obviously he retains his agency and is free to believe whatever he chooses to believe. But as all Latter-day Saints know, scriptural history doesn't speak highly of those who oppose a prophet.

You can read the rest of the story here http://mormontimes.com/people_news/newsmakers/?id=11192.

We Don't Know Why

Why Noah cursed Canaan and his descendants is not made clear in the Bible. LDS General Authorities have provided no guidance as well. So we Latter-day Saints are left without an explanation as to why this restriction was put in place in the first place. There has been a lot of speculation by members and nonmembers alike as to the cause. But as far as I know, the Lord has never spoken of His reasons for the restriction. I certainly am not willing to speculate.

The Lifting of the Priesthood Restriction

In a previous post a couple of months ago I addressed the topics of whether Mormons were/are racist. In that post I quoted Harold B. Lee who in answering a question from the press regarding the priesthood restriction against men of African descent said the following:

For those who understand revelation, there is no problem. For those who do not, there is no answer.

That is the point that I have been trying to make in these recent posts covering the religious history of priesthood restrictions. It is a matter of faith, not race.

In 1977 when I was investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I was greatly troubled by this priesthood restriction. It bothered me so much that I almost wasn't baptized because of it. I had the same reaction of many people; that it was racist. The young missionary who was teaching me explained it something like this.

If the Mormon Church truly is divine then it has the priesthood, and God who decides who can hold it. However if the Mormon Church is false, then its priesthood is also false, and we are denying those of African descent nothing. If true, then God has His reasons; if false, then we are sparing these men the indignity of ordaining them to a false priesthood.

I found his reasoning to be persuasive. We were denying these men nothing if the Church isn't truly divine. However, if the Church is truly the Kingdom of God on the earth; then the Lord is free to do as He sees fit.

I took comfort in the teaching that the day would come when all men would be eligible to hold the priesthood if they simply met the worthiness requirements. At the time we didn't know that the promised day would come in less than a year. Wikipedia tells of the events leading up to the revelation.

In the early 1970s, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball announced the construction of a number of new temples to be built both in the United States and abroad. On March 1, 1975, he announced plans to build a temple in São Paulo, Brazil.

The problem of determining priesthood eligibility in Brazil was thought to be nearly impossible due to the mixing of races in that country. When the temple was announced, church leaders realized the difficulty of restricting persons with black African descent from attending the temple in Brazil.

According to first-person accounts, after much discussion among the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this matter, they engaged the Lord in prayer. According to the writing of one of those present, Bruce R. McConkie of the Twelve: "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

Gordon B. Hinckley, a participant in the meetings to reverse the ban, said, "Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

Saints throughout the world rejoiced that the final priesthood restriction was finally lifted. None celebrated quite so much as the faithful in Africa.

Restoration of All Things

In our most recent post we commented on the priesthood restrictions that have been in place from the time of Adam (women were excluded) down until the time of Christ (only the sons of Levi could hold the priesthood).

A point that I failed to make in my last post was that after the time of Abraham the priesthood and its availability seems to have been limited to the Hebrews only. I am unaware of any scriptural injunction for this, but since the family of Abraham; and later the children of Israel were the only worshipers of the true God, the priesthood naturally was limited to them. (This is a de facto limitation, not a legal one as far as I know)

At the birth of Christ eligibility for ordination to the priesthood was limited to the male descendants of Levi, the same standard that had existed from the time of Moses. Jesus started to reverse this trend and commenced an expansion of priesthood eligibility that wasn't completed until 1978. While recognizing the legitimacy of the Levitical Priesthood, Jesus expanded priesthood eligibility by ordaining men who were not of the tribe of Levi (apostles, deacons, priests, evangelists, bishops, etc...) . This expanded and restored eligibility for priesthood ordination to a level similar to the time of Abraham.

In quick order Peter received a revelation restoring the gospel (and its priesthood) to the Gentiles, thereby expanding priesthood eligibility to a level that existed from the time of Noah to Moses. Just as the limitations were revealed to prophets (Noah and Moses) so has its reversal been revealed through prophets (Jesus, Peter, and Spencer W. Kimball).

What I find fascinating is that the priesthood restrictions that started with Adam and were gradually put in place until the time of Christ were reversed in exactly the opposite order in which they were applied. A timeline of restrictions and the lifting of those restrictions goes something like this:

1. The priesthood was available to all men for 2000 years (Adam - Noah).
2. The limitation on the descendants of Canaan was the first limitation and that lasted as the only limitation for approximately 1000 years (Noah - Moses).
3. The next limitation was restricting the priesthood to Levites which stayed in place for over 1000 years (Moses to Christ).
4. The priesthood was restored to all men except the sons of Canaan for nearly 2000 years (Peter to Spencer W. Kimball).
5. In 1978 the restriction against the sons of Canaan was lifted (Spencer W. Kimball through the end of time).

It has taken 2000 years for all of the restrictions to be reversed (Christ to 1978) to a point in time where now the priesthood is as widely available as it was at the time of Adam. The only standard at the time of Adam was worthiness among the sons of men; a standard that has been restored in our day. It truly is evidence of the "restoration of all things" predicted by the prophets.

Our next post will address more of the details involving the lifting of the final restriction in 1978. Stay tuned!

Priesthood Restrictions Through the Ages

There have always been restrictions on who could hold the priesthood. For example, women have never been able to hold the priesthood. It is a matter of faith, not sexism, that governs this practice. The belief is that the priesthood is a male responsibility - it is simply a matter of belief (faith).

As Latter-day Saints we believe that in the beginning of this world, Adam was given the priesthood and that all worthy males were eligible to hold the priesthood for centuries. But the world rejected righteousness (and its accompanying priesthood) and the Lord had to cleanse the earth of all but 8 souls; Noah and his family.

The first restriction to the priesthood came when Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, and all of his descendants. This curse is found in the Book of Genesis 9:20-26 which reads as follows in the King James version.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

At this point in time the priesthood was available to all men, not women (first restriction) except the descendants of Canaan (second restriction).

The next restriction came once again as the result of sin as the world rejected the true religion and went after false gods. Moses entered into history and gave the Hebrews the Law of Moses. This law defined a priesthood, a lesser priesthood, the Aaronic Priesthood. The only men eligible to hold this priesthood were Levites, members of the Tribe of Levi. This excluded most of humanity (third restriction), and this exclusivity continued until the time of Christ.

At this point the trend from a very broad priesthood where all men could bear it to a very narrow one (Levites only) started to reverse itself. We will cover the gradual restoration of the priesthood to all worthy men in our next post.

Are Mormons Racist?

The next topic we will address in this blog will be "Blacks and the Priesthood". Mormons have long been charged with being racist. In this era of supersensitivity about issues of race and ethnicity, that is paramount to being called a Nazi. It is the ultimate insult. Are Mormons racists? We will cover that subject in the next series of posts. Stay tuned.

Is the Church to Blame for Mountain Meadows?

As I have written elsewhere, it is impossible for the Church to say that it has nothing to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We are quick to tell people to judge us by our fruits. Usually that argument works in our favor. If we are to be consistent then we must also accept the argument when it doesn't make us look so good such as in the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But how much culpability do we, as a Church, bear for these criminal acts?

The following is an account of what happened when the leaders of this conspiracy presented their plan to a council of civic and church leaders. Isaac Haight referred to in this quote is a Stake President (local leader).

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President [Brigham] Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.

William Dame, another Stake President and district commander of the militia, advised Haight and others. “Do not notice their threats,” words are but wind—they injure no one." He later convened another council under pressure from Haight and that second council decided that "men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace." These local councils never authorized the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Haight would not be placated and later cornered Dame, sharing with him additional information, and without the moderating influence of the council, managed to persuade Dame to rescind his earlier order. This was the fatal decision that later left Haight lamenting that "I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deci[s]ion of the council."

An Ensign article of September 2007 describes Brigham Young's reply to the dispatch as follows:

President Young’s express message of reply to Haight, dated September 10, arrived in Cedar City two days after the massacre. ...

“In regard to emigration trains passing through our settlements,” Young continued, “we must not interfere with them untill they are first notified to keep away. You must not meddle with them. The Indians we expect will do as they please but you should try and preserve good feelings with them. There are no other trains going south that I know of[.] [I]f those who are there will leave let them go in peace. While we should be on the alert, on hand and always ready we should also possess ourselves in patience, preserving ourselves and property ever remembering that God rules.”

When Haight read Young’s words, he sobbed like a child and could manage only the words, “Too late, too late.

In the interest of brevity I have summarized this story but there is no credible critic who denies the events as I have detailed them. While it is true that some local Church leaders were tragically involved, the Church as an institution both in its councils, and by direction of its Church President Brigham Young, were innocent of any involvement in this horrible tragedy. In each instance, the Church as an institution through its councils and its leader counseled against the action and refused to sanction it. As much as they were able, they did their best to prevent this tragedy from ever happening.

Individuals committed this crime. Were some of them also local Church leaders? Yes, they were. Did this series of actions have anything to do with their official church duties? Absolutely not.

Logical Fallacies in the Criticisms of the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Enemies of the LDS Church have tried to paint the Church as somehow being responsible for the tragedy at Mountain Meadows. While it is impossible to deny that these actions are the fruits of the Church, they are an anomaly. Anyone who knew Mormons then, or today for that matter, would agree that cowardly massacring men, women, and children under a flag of truce; and then trying to cover it up by blaming the Indians is not normal behavior taught or endorsed by the Church or its leaders.

My problem with our critics is when they try to blame the whole Church because of the actions of a few. This kind of reasoning is what is called a logical fallacy. A website devoted to the discussion of logical fallacies explains them in this manner:

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.

I can identify at least four errors in reasoning that our enemies use in regards to the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There are probably many more, but this should be sufficient to show the flawed thinking that they employ.

• Correlation Does Not Mean Causation is one of the errors in reasoning mentioned above. Just because all of the conspirators were Latter-day Saints does not mean that being a Latter-day Saint caused this behavior.

• Fallacy of a Single Cause occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause when in reality it may have been caused by a number of things.

• A third logical fallacy used by our enemies in blaming the Church for this tragedy is called the Historian's Fallacy. This occurs when one assumes that decision makers in the past viewed events with the same perspective and information as us in the present.

• Mostly this reasoning is a Fallacy of Composition. This arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true for part. Since some members of the Church did this horrible crime, then the whole Church is smeared by it.

If we discover that the leaders of the Church (Brigham Young et al.) were involved then that would dispute my logical fallacy argument. We will address in our next post the historical facts of whether Brigham or other high ranking leaders were involved, or endorsed the actions at Mountain Meadows.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

A website devoted to telling the story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre explains it as follows:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the killing of roughly 120 emigrants who were passing through Southern Utah in September 1857. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857. The emigrants--men, women, and children--were traveling from Arkansas to California, part of the Baker-Fancher wagon train. They were killed by a group of Mormons with the help of local Paiute Indians.

After leaving Arkansas, the Fancher party traveled west through Kansas and Nebraska territories before entering Utah territory. In Utah, the party passed Fort Bridger and Salt Lake City, traveling south west until reaching Cedar City. Cedar City was the last stop before California. In Cedar City, the Fancher party attempted to buy grain and supplies but was refused by the local Mormons due to the Mormons' suspicion of aiding potential enemies.

After the Fancher party left Cedar City, frustrated with the refusal of local Mormons to sell them needed goods, they continued southwest through the mountain pass called Mountain Meadows. There they were attacked by Mormon assailants, some of them killed. The remaining emigrants pulled their wagons into a tight circle for protection. Over the next five days, the emigrants were held at siege in their wagon circle. During this period they were attacked two more times.

On September 11, 1857, John D. Lee entered the wagon circle with a white flag, convincing the emigrants to surrender peacefully. Required to put down their guns, the women and children were escorted out first, then the men and boys. Each man and boy was escorted by an armed militiaman.

They walked about a mile when, upon a predetermined signal, the militiamen turned and fired on each man and boy. Indians who had been convinced to participate in the massacre came out from their hiding places to attack the women and children.

While most of the Fancher party was killed (about 120 people), there were 17 young children who survived. These 17 children were adopted by local families. Two years later in 1859, the U.S. government reunited the children with their extended families in Arkansas

In our next post we will discuss whether the LDS Church had anything to do with this tragedy.

After Missouri

After being expelled from Missouri by the Extermination Order, the Mormons found refuge in Quincy, Illinois, in January of 1839. These kind people helped them until they could find a place to establish themselves. Brigham Young led the Church while Joseph remained in prison on charges of treason. Finally, on April 16, a friendly guard, realizing that Joseph and the others were being unjustly confined, allowed them to escape. [1]

The Mormons were anxious to return to Missouri or get just compensation. Joseph asked everyone to write down what had happened and to try to account for all that they had lost. In October, 1839, Joseph took these affidavits to Washington, D.C., and spoke with members of the Congress and President Martin Van Buren. They said that since Missouri was a sovereign state, only Missouri could redress their wrongs. [1]

Joseph returned to Nauvoo and with the other leaders determined that they would not let themselves be driven and harassed by mobs again. They petitioned for a charter for their own city, giving them the legal right to defend themselves against attacks both from the law and from mobs. The charter created a militia, which was very common at the time, and established a university. It also stated that no resident of Nauvoo could be arrested without a writ of habeas corpus before a city judge. This meant that no person living in Nauvoo could be dragged off by mobs or sheriffs without getting a fair chance to hear the charges against them. [1]

By 1841, the number of Mormons had grown, and they spilled over into Hancock County and across the Mississippi into Iowa. Persecution followed, and the Missouri government tried several times to extradite Joseph Smith and others back to Missouri. [1]

The years of 1842 and 1843 were not so peaceful. Joseph and other leaders were often forced into hiding. In May, John C. Bennett, who had become a close associate and friend of Joseph Smith, was excommunicated from the Church because of adultery. After he left the Church, he became very bitter and started writing attacks on Joseph and the Church. This forced Joseph to spend much of the fall in hiding. [1]

Early 1844 was a difficult time. Some people dissented from the Church because they opposed polygamy or felt that Joseph had fallen from being a prophet. Anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons like Bennett continued to stir up trouble by publishing scandalous and libelous reports about the Mormons and Joseph, whom they mockingly called Joe Smith orPeepstone Joe. Joseph decided that to respond to these critics, he needed a national forum. He therefore decided to run for President. It isn't likely that he expected to win, but he and the Church used this as a platform to express their views. Joseph promised that if elected, he would use the government to protect minorities. He also planned to end slavery by establishing a fund to buy slaves from slave owners, and then free them. The slave owners could use the money to transform their estates so that they would no longer need slaves. [1]

In June of 1844, William Law, a disaffected Mormon, published the first and only edition of the Nauvoo Expositor. It was a scandalous paper that called for Joseph Smith to be hung. It described in lurid prose all the evil things they suspected Joseph and other leaders of doing. Joseph as mayor and the city council met to decide what to do. They determined that based on their interpretation of their charter, they had the power to remove the press, since it posed an imminent threat by calling for violence. The press and most copies of the paper were destroyed. [1]

A riot ensued and the next day Joseph was sought by the sheriff on charges of inciting riot. Fearful that a mob would attack when in jail or that the trial would be unfair, Joseph hid for a few days. He sought a change of venue, but was denied. Governor Thomas Ford came from Springfield to oversee the affair and promised Joseph protection and a fair trial if he turned himself in. So on June 22, Joseph surrendered to the governor and was taken to Carthage, Illinois. The governor left Carthage on June 26, and left the Carthage militia in charge. [1]

On June 27, 1844, Joseph arose early with his brother Hyrum, and apostles John Taylor, and Willard Richards. Around 5:00 p.m. a mob with faces painted black surrounded the jail. The mob, comprised of the Carthage Greys stormed the jail. As the mob rushed the jail, Joseph and Hyrum tried to hold the door. As Hyrum tried to hold the door, he was shot in the face and fell to the floor. His last words were: "I am a dead man!" While the other men, Willard Richards and John Taylor, (Taylor would be shot four times but survive) held the door, Joseph walked to the window. At the window he was shot. He collapsed. He exclaimed, "Oh Lord, my God," as he fell out the window and landed near a well. He was shot three more times as he lay on the ground. [1]

Joseph’s murder gave the Mormons a short respite, as their enemies waited for them to disintegrate but they did not. In January of 1845, the Nauvoo charter was rescinded. Adding insult to injury, in May, the leaders of the mob who murdered Joseph and Hyrum were acquitted in a sham trial where no Mormons were allowed to testify or attend. In September, the citizens of Hancock County demanded that the Mormons leave. [1]

In February 1846, the first company of Mormon pioneers left Nauvoo, walking across the frozen Mississippi into Iowa. By September 16, 1846, the last Mormons were driven from the city and eventually made their way to the Salt Lake Valley. [1]

Having established the background of persecution, in our next post we will cover the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Early History of Persecution

Early believers in the LDS Church suffered tremendous persecution. Those who joined the church in the first days in New York suffered pretty mild persecution compared to what would come later. The headquarters of the church moved from New York to Kirtland, Ohio in January of 1831. Although there was some persecution from time to time, the nearly 7 years of the Ohio period was not dominated by these problems. But then the Saints moved to Missouri. Things were different in Missouri from the very beginning.

Although the headquarters was in Ohio, a second settlement was established in Jackson County starting in 1831. By 1833 the church members were driven from Jackson County by mobs, their leaders tarred and feathered, some of their homes burned, and the rest stolen from them. Remuneration for the loss of property never occurred as the local authorities (and later federal authorities) refused to provide justice.

It would be bad enough if this was the only persecution that occurred in Missouri, but it was only the opening round compared to the atrocities that would follow.

The Saints found temporary refuge in Clay County, Missouri, but the residents made it clear that they could not stay. In 1836, the residents of Clay County voted to expel the Saints, and the state of Missouri created Caldwell County for their home. They built up new cities in Caldwell County, but their numbers grew and they spilled over into Ray, Carroll, Clinton, and Daviess Counties. [1] That created problems.

Mobs continued to attack outlying areas, and some Mormons were fed up with running. A few of them organized defenses and retaliatory attacks. Sidney Rigdon delivered a fiery speech condemning the apostates and their enemies. Some took this as permission to fight back. The battles got worse.

As the Saints from Ohio began arriving in early 1838, the Mormons were again mobbed by those who feared their growing political influence. In August of 1838, Mormons attempting to vote in the town of Gallitin in Daviess County were attacked and kept from the voting. A group of Saints, calling themselves Danites, began to fight back without Joseph Smith or the Church knowing or approving their actions. In October, Mormon Apostle David W. Patten was killed in a battle along the Crooked River in Ray County. Finally, on October 27, 1838, Governor Lilburn Boggs issued what later became known as the Extermination Order. [2] It read, in part as follows:

The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary, for the public peace-their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so, to any extent you may consider necessary. [3]

Three days after the order, a mob attacked Mormon settlers in the village of Haun's Mill and massacred dozens of men, women and children. On October 31, 1838, Joseph Smith and several others were arrested. The militia commanders illegally condemned the Mormon leaders to death, but Alexander Doniphan, a former state legislator and friend to Mormons, refused to allow it to be carried out, declaring that such action would be "cold-blooded murder." Moreover, he said, the militia could not condemn Joseph Smith, because he was a civilian, and that he had to be tried before a civilian court. In the end Joseph Smith and other leaders lives were spared but they were imprisoned nontheless. [4]

Once again the Saints were driven from their homes in the dead of winter. Brigham Young lead the people to Illinois where kind people, especially the citizens of Quincy, took care of them. Joseph Smith and a few others languished in jail until April of the following year. They were not permitted to see their families or even to call witnesses on their behalf. After several attempts at a trial, the guards allowed Joseph Smith and the others escape to Illinois, where they rejoined their families. [5]

In our next post we will cover the trials that awaited the Saints in Illinois and on the trail to the West. With that historical foundation we will then address the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

One of the ugliest parts of Mormon history - the Mountain Meadows Massacre - will be our next topic. Because of the nature of this cold-blooded massacre of men, women, and children on 11 September 1857; some preliminary historical explanations need to be done in order to put this tragedy in context.

Over the course of several posts I will address this horrific crime with a promise to tell the whole story. We will also address some of the criticisms of the Church over this event in what will probably be 3 or 4 different posts. Stay tuned!