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.

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?