Leave of Absence

I love taking on the critics of the LDS Church. It has been so inspiring to examine their charges and to discover that there is little merit to anything I've examined so far. But I need to focus on other things for now so I am leaving this blog for a season. Hopefully one day I'll feel a desire to return and pick up the fight. For now what I have written will have to suffice. Hopefully it has helped strengthen some of you.

Danites

FAIR has a great description of who the Danites were.

The Danites were a brotherhood of church members that formed in Far West, Missouri in mid-1838. By this point in time, the Saints had experienced serious persecution, having been driven out of Kirtland by apostates, and driven out of Jackson County by mobs. Sidney Rigdon was publicly preaching that the Saints would not tolerate any more persecution, and that both apostates and mobs would be put on notice. The Danite organization took root within this highly charged and defensive environment.

The Danites are sometimes confused with the “Armies of Israel,” which was the official defensive organization that was tasked with defending the Saints. This is complicated by the fact that members of the Danite organization also served in the “Armies of Israel.”

They ended up being a bunch of vigilantes who used religion as an excuse for their illegal activities, not that dissimilar from modern-day terrorists who abuse Islam in a similar manner. Again from FAIR.

The Danites were led by Dr. Sampson Avard, and the group appears to have been formally formed about the time that Sidney Rigdon gave his “Salt Sermon” in Far West, in which he gave apostates an ultimatum to get out or suffer consequences. According to Avard, the original purpose of the band was to “drive from the county of Caldwell all that dissented from the Mormon church.” Once the dissenters had left the country, the Danites turned their attention to defending the Saints from mobs. Avard, however, took this purpose one step further by including retaliation against those who persecuted the Saints. Thus, the Danites began operating as a vigilante group outside the law. This, unfortunately, included stealing and plundering from those who stole and plundered from the Saints. The Danites believed that if they consecrated plundered goods to the Church, that they would be protected in battle. The group held secret meetings, with special signs used to identify themselves to one another.

It is important at this point to understand a bit of Missouri history. Caldwell County was created especially for the Mormons, similar to an Indian reservation, by the State of Missouri. Prior to its creation, there was no county in this area, just undefined land within the boundaries of Missouri. This was in reaction to the Mormons being driven out of their lands in Jackson county and how the politicians solved the "Mormon problem".

Blood Atonement - Final Comments

One of the silliest of charges relative to the teachings of Brigham Young about Blood Atonement is that it is unbiblical. Have they read the Old Testament? But you say, the Old Testament was done away with by the New Covenant (New Testament) and Christ. All right, let see what the apostle John has to say about it.

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death:

John obviously believes that some sins are worthy of death. How is that different from the teachings of Brigham Young? Unbiblical? Ridiculous.

In a related topic we will next cover the story of the Danites and the various charges regarding them. Stay tuned!

Blood Atonement Charge

Critics claim that during the administration of Brigham Young apostates were secretly put to death. They claim this is in line with the teachings of LDS leaders at the time that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly. H/T FairWiki

As outrageous as this claim is, it was a popular charge 150 years ago. The First Presidency responded formally to this preposterous charge in 1889.

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.

This illustrates in part the extreme lengths to which our enemies will go to in order to smear the Church. I submit that it is more of a reflection on them, then it is on us. Now I concede that the First Presidency issuing a statement is not proof that it never happened. Proving a negative is always difficult, that is probably why dishonest critics engage in such outrageous charges. Honest critics are never so outrageous. Dishonest ones practice this form of sophistry with regularity.

Brigham Young's Preaching Style

Sunstone, a sometimes questionable magazine concerned with all things Mormon, has a wonderful article on Brigham Young's preaching style. It is important that we understand that before examining any more of his teachings because a lot of criticism of the Mormon Church is rooted in what is called a "historical fallacy". Historical fallacies are logical fallacies that occur when one applies modern day thinking and values to issues from a previous time. In order to not fall into this trap, here is an excerpt that illustrates Brigham's style from Ronald W. Walker, a BYU history professor.

There grew between the Mormon leader and his congregation a bond that permitted...irreverence [toward Brigham personally]. Brigham cast himself as the Saints' gruff but loving father, alternately scolding and befriending his flock. As lawgiver, he felt he should preach without compromise.

"I will tell you what this people need, with regard to preaching," he said. "You need, figuratively, to have it rain pitchforks, tines downwards.... Instead of the smooth, beautiful, sweet, still, silk-velvet-lipped preaching, you should have sermons like peals of thunder."

True to his word, Brigham gave saints and sinners pitchforks aplenty. The latter might be especially hard hit if guilty of malicious anti-Mormonism....

But his outbursts were the exception rather than the rule, and even when thundering he often softened his blows with humor....He conjectured that some women's dresses might conceal a six-horse team, with "a dozen dogs under the wagon."....Far from rankling under his thrusts, the Mormon membership came to tolerate, expect, and even enjoy the show....

One did not have to go far to find the keys to his speaking popularity. For one thing, his audience sensed that behind his strong words lay a genuine concern". my heart yearns over [the Saints]... with all the emotions of tenderness, so that I could weep like a child," he said, but I am careful to keep my tears to myself." He assured his people that he never intended malice. "There is not a soul I chasten but what I feel as though I could take them and put them in my bosom and carry them with me day by day."

Brigham believed that his strong words had not separated him from his flock. "Although I may get up here and cuff... [the people] about, chastising them for their forgetfulness, their weakness and follies, yet I have not seen a moment when they did not love me The reason is, because I love them so well." He had rebuked with caution, he thought, employing a primary rule: "When you have the chastening rod in your hands, ask God to give you wisdom to use it, that you may not use it to the destruction of an individual, but to his salvation."...

The Saints also understood that there was little bite to his celebrated bark. Young admitted as much. "I have had some people ask me how I manage and control the people," he once remarked. "I do it by telling them the truth and letting them do just as they have a mind to."...

Thus, Young's words and platform manner were often calculated for effect. For a typical Tabernacle congregation, he thought normal and respectable words were like "wind," going "into the ear and... [soon] forgotten," Therefore, he used stronger measures. "When you wish the people to feel what you say," he once said revealingly, "you have got to use language that they will remember, or else the ideas are lost to them. Consequently, in many instances we use language that we would rather not use."

When you are prone to criticize Brigham, perhaps it would be wise to remember that he spoke to a different, tougher people, at a different, tougher time. Each understood the other.

H/T Fair.

Blood Atonement

I have been wondering what controversial topic to cover next. Thanks to my buddy Mark, I've decided on Blood Atonement. Stay tuned!

H/T Mark Giles

Brigham's Adam-God Theory

In my last post I commented that if it turns out that Brigham is wrong, that wouldn't threaten my faith. Here is why. I have often posted on logical fallacies (see here). I also have previously posted on the fact that prophets can be in error and still be prophets (see here). I know of no place in all of scripture that states that prophets are perfect and can make no mistakes. Nathan was wrong as we covered here. Using the strict standard that our enemies use for us, Jesus would have been wrong as explained here.

Now I admit that this Adam-God theory of Brigham's looks looney on the surface. I actually think that Elden Watson's (probably the leading scholar on Brigham Young) explanation is probably best. But prophets are human, they make mistakes. Our position has consistently been that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. The rest of the time he is a man. To discover that Brigham was a man with flaws doesn't threaten my faith. I never thought he was perfect to begin with.

PS I won't be surprised if I learn that Thomas S. Monson (the living prophet today) isn't perfect either.

Some Explanations for Adam-God

Scholars and defenders of Mormonism have offered several possible explanations for Brigham's Adam-God statements. Here are a few of the theories:

1. Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of Adam being the patriarch of the human family.
2. Transcription errors
3. Adam was a name/title for God as well as the actual name for the first man
4. Brigham was wrong

I find # 1 and #2 a bit hard to swallow. Brigham's statements just don't square with the first theory and there would have to be a lot of transcription errors for the second theory to hold any water. Personally, I don't buy either of them.

There does seem to be some merit for the last 2 theories however. We know that Elias is a name/title for prophets who are forerunners; and we also know there was at least one prophet with the name of Elias so there is a scriptural pattern. I give this theory credibility because its author, Elden Watson, is an unusually knowledgeable scholar on Brigham Young who also has a firm understanding of our doctrine. His credibility gives this theory credibility.

I also think there is a lot of merit to theory #4, that Brigham was wrong. While I'm reluctant to take this position out of faith in modern prophets; my faith would not be tested even if this turned out to be the case. I will explain why in my next post.

H/T FAIR Wiki

Adam-God Theory II

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

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

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

• Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.
• Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.
• Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.
• Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.

Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and that he learned it from Joseph Smith. While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.) H/T FAIR Wiki

That this was his teaching seems to be above dispute. In upcoming posts we will address some interpretations behind these strange teachings and the logical fallacy that our enemies employ in addressing this topic.

Missionaries in Haiti Safe

This article indicates that all of the LDS missionaries in Haiti are safe. It also explains what the Church is doing to assist these victims of the earthquake in this poverty-ravaged nation. We will return to our usual theme in the next post. In the meantime LDS readers of this blog might consider making a contribution to this effort by giving to Humanitarian Aid on Sunday.

Adam-God Theory

There is evidence that Brigham taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Since modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics also accuse us of either changing our teachings or rejecting the teachings of prophets that we find uncomfortable or unsupportable.

Both charges are serious and both charges have some merit. Addressing this will not be as simple as dismissing most of the claims we have addressed so far. Followers of this blog know that we often require several posts to tell the whole story of both our critics and my reply. This will be no different. Stay tuned!

Is Anyone Reading This?

Is anyone reading this? Please comment if you would like me to continue.