From: wcsa@iwtdx.att.com Subject: Mormon FAQ, Part 1 of 2 INTRODUCTION TO MORMON FAQ This file represents an attempt to identify and respond to the most frequently discussed issues on Mormonism so that future discussions will not be mired back in the basics. Mormonism is a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes called by its initials LDS). The nickname is taken from the Book of Mormon, which is part of the LDS canon. Though originally derogatory, the term "Mormon" has eventually became accepted by members of the Church. Many members, however, prefer the correct name because the nickname lacks any association with the Savior. Let me begin by stating up front that this is one Mormon's view of Mormonism and that not all Mormons will agree with everything described hereafter. Earlier versions of this FAQ were distributed among other Mormons on the net for criticism and suggestions. While not all of the Mormons agreed with 100% of everything written (it would take nothing short of a miracle to accomplish that), most of them agreed with most of the material. I have tried to show the differences of opinion and terminology whenever possible. I acknowledge the patience and contributions of many other Mormons on the network. Unfortunately this file is VERY LONG. I apologize for that. In reviewing my notes, I tried to identify and address only the most basic topics that have come up repeatedly during the years that I have participated on the net. Attempts to solicit suggestions from other Mormons on where to reduce were actually counterproductive. In most cases, they wanted me to expand certain topics or add information in yet another area. For the most part I resisted. I acknowledge the tremendous learning experience of reading and participating on the net over the last three and a half years. What I know of my own religion has been enhanced by learning the whens, hows, and whys of other religions. I also acknowledge the contributions of the moderator of s.r.c, who offered a few suggestions, raised a few questions, and brought a few facts to my attention. This file does not represent an official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I accept full responsibility for its contents. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON MORMONISM Outside of the LDS canon (termed Standard Works), the authoritative status of many works about Mormonism is fuzzy. The best thing I can do is list some of the most cited works, describe what they are, and the problems associated with them. The LDS Standard Works consist of four collections: The Bible, The Book of Mormon (BoM), the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price (PGP). The LDS Church publishes an AV (KJV) edition of the Bible which includes extensive reference notes, topical guide, Biblical dictionary, gazetteer, and maps. For a lengthy discussion on The Book of Mormon see the section THE BOOK OF MORMON. The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of revelations received by Joseph Smith and his successors. The current (1981 edition) has 138 sections and two Official Declarations (which describe changes in Church practices). The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of materials produced by Joseph Smith and published in the Church periodicals of his day. This collection was first gathered by Franklin Richards in 1851 for the members of the Church in England and had no canonical status. It was added to the Standard Works in October 1880. It contains the following items: JS revision of the first part of Genesis (called the Book of Moses), JS revision of the 24th Chapter of Matthew, The Book of Abraham (see Section MISC OBJECTIONS, subsection on The Book of Abraham), JS's 1838 account of the origin of the LDS Church, and the Thirteen Articles of Faith (similar to a Creed). Topical Guide to the Standard Works. The first edition, published in 1977, was based on a computer generated text. Members were invited to add changes, and a greatly expanded edition was published and bound with the LDS edition of the AV in 1979. The guide is arranged by subject with concordance-like entries. Messages of the First Presidency. Edited by James R. Clark. Six volume work covering Jan 1833 to Feb 1951. They include almost every public and private statement signed by the First Presidency of the Church accompanied by short historical backgrounds written by Clark. You will find doctrinal expositions on controversial and non-controversial issues, revelations (canonized and uncanonized), church policy, and the (ho hum) annual Christmas and Easter messages. An American Prophet's Record; the Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith. Edited by Scott Faulring. Consists of JS's journals from 1832 to 1844. Faulring reproduces the exact spelling, shows what was added or crossed out, and indicates whose handwriting appears where. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Edited by Joseph Fielding Smith. This book purports to be the sermons and remarks of Joseph Smith faithfully reproduced in book form, but is actually nothing of the sort. What we have of Joseph Smith's sermons are reconstructions made on the basis of notes taken in long hand, and the majority of those reconstructions were made several years after his death. A much better source is _The Words of Joseph Smith_ edited by Andrew Ehat and Lyndon Cook (1980) in which the actual notes are reproduced. History of the Church. Seven volumes. Alternately this work has been called, The Documentary History of the Church (sometimes abv. DHC, generally it is abv. HC). It began as a project of collecting all the primary material relating to the history of the church from 1829 to 1847. You will find minutes of meetings; sermons; letters; diary entries; newspaper 'clippings'; and what appear to be diary entries, but are actually rewrites of other primary sources. The individuals responsible for collecting and publishing this material were not trained historians. Although they followed practices current among historians of the 19th century, some of those practices would be considered rather appalling by today's standards. While this source is very interesting, IT IS NOT TO BE USED UNCRITICALLY. Several years ago, Joe Applegate tried to argue that JS had shot and killed several people at the time he was murdered by citing a passage from HC. At best the passage showed only what one person thought, not what actually took place. I had to go back to the primary sources to show that JS wounded a couple of his attackers (superficial in each case) and was able to supply their names and describe their wounds in detail. Journal of Discourses. A periodical of twenty-six volumes. The JD was originally put together by a group of Mormon entrepreneurs NOT by the general church officers. At the time, the majority of Mormons were actually in England, not in the United States, and this group of entrepreneurs got the brilliant idea to follow the general church officers around, take down their sermons in phonography (an early version of Pitman's Shorthand), and publish these sermons in 16 page semi-monthly installments in England (NOT UTAH). To encourage subscriptions, the editors decided to select the most controversial sermons of the lot. This was all proper when one considers the culture (that Mormons will often speculate, brain storm, or whatever wildly in public without anyone considering it authoritative). This tradition has been carried on today in the form of _Sunstone_, _Dialogue_, and _BYU Studies_, all of which are published independently and none are considered authoritative. This attitude is clearly evident by the time one gets to the second sermon in the very first volume of the series: Parley P. Pratt spends a lot of time speculating about the hereafter and where the spiritualists' spirits come from. No one in the LDS church would consider Pratt's remarks as authoritative. Finally, after about half a dozen years of independent editorialship, there was a falling out among the editors, a lack of funds to continue the project, and subscriptions were rather low. The LDS church took over the publication for several decades before discontinuing it in the mid-1880s. LDS Conference Reports. Twice a year (in April and October), the LDS Church holds a general conference where various church leaders speak at length on various topics. Starting in April 1880 the Church began publishing a report of the conference. April 1880 marked the Church's Jubilee (50 years since its organization) and President John Taylor thought it would be nice for everyone to have a copy of its proceedings. The idea caught on, and the LDS Conference Reports have been published regularly since October 1897. Like most church publications outside of the Standard Works, its authoritative status is fuzzy. One has to consider who is speaking and under what circumstances they are speaking. Articles of Faith. By James E. Talmage. Articles of Faith is a systematic study of Mormonism originally commissioned as a Sunday School manual around the turn of the century. During the Smoot hearings in 1905, Talmage realized that several positions that he had taken in his book, were not strictly doctrine; thereafter Talmage made sure that the preface to Articles of Faith contained a disclaimer. There are a number of books that tend to be "cut and paste" in style with authoritative sounding titles. Generally it takes some "inside" experience with LDS doctrine to be able to usefully determine from these books what is actually doctrine and what is speculation. The short "blurb" make up of these works doesn't help. It would have been better to see the entire context of the sermon, letter, etc. Some of the more commonly cited works are: Gospel Doctrine: Sermons and Writings. Edited by Joseph Fielding Smith. Contains short extracts by Joseph F. Smith (who died in 1918) which were edited by his son Joseph Fielding Smith (who died in 1972). Joseph F. Smith was the sixth president of the LDS church, but the passages in this book were not taken strictly from the time that he was in that position. If you are on the ball, you can follow some of the references and deduce which pronouncements were taken during his presidency and which preceded it. Doctrines of Salvation. Edited by Bruce R. McConkie. McConkie edited the sermons, books, writings, letters, and whatnot of his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith (d 1972). Joseph Fielding Smith loved to sound off (in an authoritative manner) even when what he said was not strictly authoritative. Although Joseph Fielding Smith was also one of the presidents of the church (tenth), Doctrines of Salvation was published 14 years BEFORE he rose to that position. Mormon Doctrine. An encyclopedia-type work by Bruce R. McConkie. The first edition (1958) was recalled for serious doctrinal inaccuracies and McConkie was privately censured for it. Since copies of the first edition did make it into circulation, McConkie was forced to rewrite succeeding editions rather extensively, so much so that he privately regretted having started the project in the first place. At best MD is a good place to begin gathering information about extremely conservative Mormon positions. GODHEAD Mormons believe the Godhead is made up of three separate and distinct individuals who are *one* in nature, purpose, action, and plan: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, Mormons believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ have perfected and glorified bodies of flesh and bone, but that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit (D&C 130:22). This view contrasts sharply with Western Christianity's view of the Trinity, which greatly emphasizes the One and deemphasizes the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, coming close to making them simply different roles played by the one God. Despite obvious differences, Mormonism seems to have much more in common with Eastern Christianity's view of the Trinity which starts with three entities and sees them as one God by their unity of nature and action. However Mormonism view of the Godhead is incompatable with the orthodox view of the Trinity for several reasons: most important the orthodox view is that the term "one" has a sense of "singular," while Mormons generally view "one" with a sense of "exclusiveness" or "unity." In other words, there may be many Gods, but they all work together "As One" with One purpose and share the same nature, and Mormons are to worship only One God, the Father, with a single purposeness of heart. To what degree Mormonism can accept the term "one" as meaning "singular" is debatable. While Mormons insist that there is one and only one Godhead, its composition is incompatible with the orthodox view of the trinity. The traditional view is that the Godhead is a higher-level abstraction, that is in some sense a single entity. The LDS view is that the Godhead is more like a council which makes decisions that govern this and many other worlds. This view is best expressed in modern revelation received by Joseph Smith (for example, Abraham 4:1 to 5:15) where the term "Gods" is repeatedly used in a manner that unmistakenly appears to be council-like. The second difference between Mormons and orthodox Christianity is that Mormons view man to be *potentially* the same nature as each member of the Godhead rather than as a created sub-species. The ability to reach that potential is dependent upon exercising one's faith in Jesus Christ, who was sent to atone for our sins, to serve as a revelation of God to Man, to impart Light (knowledge and power) to mankind, and to serve as a guide back to the Father (See the section GRACE AND THE PROCESS Of SALVATION particularly the OBJECTION Mormons believe that humans become gods). Probably the best sources of information concerning Mormonism's view of the Godhead are "Discourse on the Father and Son", _Messages of the First Presidency_ 5:26-34 and _The Mormon Doctrine of Diety_ by B.H. Roberts. Also by Roberts the third thru fifth years course of study in _Seventy's Course in Theology_, specifically "Doctrine of Deity," "The Atonement," and "Divine Immanence and the Holy Ghost." Be careful about condemning Mormonism's admittedly unorthodox view of the Godhead. Mormonism's emphasis on separate and distinct members is not the same as Arianism. While Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is subject to the Father, they do not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or try to make him a "lesser" diety. If you're going to take Mormons to task for their view of the Godhead, then be sure of what you're talking about: Often I have seen someone belittle the Mormons' view only to offer an example that is actually incompatible with the Western trinitarian model. OBJECTION: Since Mormons view each member of the Godhead as separate and distinct, then Mormons are polytheists. RESPONSE: It all depends on what you mean by polytheism. If you mean worship more than one God, then Mormons are not polytheists. They do not worship Gods who have their own agenda and compete against each other like the ancient Romans, Greeks, or what have you. Each member of the Godhead works in concert with the others to one purpose. "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from who all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Cor 8:6, NIV). However, if by polytheists, you mean one who recognizes the existence of many individuals who have the same nature as God, granted Mormons are, by that definition, polytheists. But polytheism is really in the eye of the beholder. While most Christians feel that they are not polytheists, if the beholder is Jewish, then any Christian holding to the trinitarian view of God is not monotheistic either. OBJECTION: There are strict monotheistic declarations in the Old Testament that are incompatible with Mormonism's view of God (for example, Deut 6:4; 32:39; and Isa 44:6). RESPONSE: Monotheism and its development among Christians is a critical issue of the early church and the following quotation (taken from _The New Dictionary of Theology_ Published by InterVarsity Press (1988)) should show that the OT passages referenced above are not interpreted by Christian scholars today and historically as strictly monotheistic: At the same time, the OT also accepts the existence of other 'gods' at all periods, though demoting those to the status of Yahweh's aids, beings whose divinity is not absolute as his is (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6). The OT does not develop from animism or polytheism to monotheism. Further, some of the OT's monotheistic-sounding affirmations (eg. Dt.6:4) are primary concerned to summon Israel to an exclusive commitment to Yahweh; and in general, the distinctive feature of biblical faith is the conviction that the God of Israel who is also the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is (the one) God, rather than merely that God (whoever he be) is one. This later belief would in any case not be peculiar to Israel, its clearest expression elsewhere being in Akhenaten's Egypt. ... The commingling of biblical and philosophical perspectives made it possible to work out the implications of the scriptural testimony regarding the uniqueness of God, BUT IT ALSO HINDERED THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY. INDEED, THE WORD 'MONOTHEISM' IN IS EARLIEST USAGE DENOTED NON-CHRISTIAN OR SUB-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS WHICH CONTRAST WITH TRINITARIANISM. (Emphasis mine. see article on "Monotheism," pp.443-444) The point of all this is that the passages in question are interpreted by Christians (not just Mormons) as meaning that God is the ONE (for example, to worship) *not* a strict monotheistic declaration. Furthermore, if these passages are to be interpreted as requiring *strict* monotheism, then all trinitarian models of God come under attack. OBJECTION: Mormonism's view of the Godhead is incompatible with the Book of Mormon which declares Jesus Christ to be both the Father and the Son (see Mosiah 3:8; Mosiah 15:2-4; Alma 11:38-39) RESPONSE: Jesus is not only the Son of God (hence the Son), but also each person who is "born again" is spiritually begotten of Jesus. Hence Jesus becomes a Father to each person who is spiritually begotten of God (Mosiah 5:7). In this sense, Jesus Christ is both Father and Son, but NOT God the Father and God the Son: which makes no sense in any trinitarian model I know of. ORGANIZATION AND REVELATION The LDS Church is organized in a hierarchical form. At the top is the office of President, who is sustained by the general church membership as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Assisting him are at least two counselors. These individuals are designated as the Quorum of the First Presidency. Directly under the First Presidency is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and under the Quorum of the Twelve are the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventies. Under the Seven Presidents are the two Quorums of Seventies. On a local level, a Ward (similar to a congregation) is under the leadership of a Bishop and his two counselors. The office of Bishop is a temporary position held by one of the members of the congregation and is typically rotated every five to eight years. Where there are not enough members to organize into a Ward, a Branch is organized and headed by a Branch President and his counselors. Several Wards and Branches are organized into a Stake which is directed by a Stake President, his counselors, and 12 High Priests. Stakes are organized into Regions, which are overseen by Regional Representatives who report to members of the Quorums of the Seventies. Some members of the Seventies Quorums, all Regional Representatives and all Stake Leadership positions are also temporary and usually rotated every six to eight years. Within a Ward or Branch, there are several auxiliary organizations: Sunday School, Primary (for young children), Young Men/Women's organizations, the Priesthood Quorums, the Relief Society (the LDS women's organization), and the Activities Committee (organizes the social activities). The heads and members of these auxiliaries are also temporary and are usually appointed by the Bishop or Branch President. Church leaders and members, from Regional Representatives down to a member of a local auxiliary unit, volunteer their time and do not receive a salary. There is a salaried central administrative bureaucracy in the church. This bureaucracy is run by individuals who administer and process the general church membership records, the historical records, the genealogical records, the church welfare resources, the church education system, and the church periodicals. Mormons believe that God, through angelic messengers and by means of ordination, restored the Priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name. All worthy male members over the age of 12 hold an office in the Priesthood. The Priesthood is used to officiate the ordinances and covenants which were restored by God (see section GRACE AND THE PROCESS OF SALVATION, subsection "Grace Through Ordinances"). The Priesthood is organized into two basic divisions: the lesser and greater Priesthoods (termed Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods). The Aaronic is a "preparatory" Priesthood and is organized into three Quorums : Deacon, Teacher, and Priest. The Melchizedek Priesthood is also divided into three Quorums: Elder, Seventy, and High Priest. Each Quorum's responsibilities are described in the 20th and 107th sections of the D&C. Mormons believe in continuous revelation from God to the members of his church through the power of the Holy Ghost by means of inspiration, vision, dreams, and visitations. One has a right to receive divine guidance within the sphere of one's authority. Each person has a right to personal revelations, the parents can receive revelation for their family, a Bishop can obtain instruction for his ward, and so forth. It is contrary to church order for any person to receive revelation for those higher in authority or outside of their sphere of authority (D&C 28:2-8; 100:11; 107:91-92). Mormons do not believe that every word that comes out of a Prophet's mouth is supposed to be considered God's word. As Joseph Smith put it, "A Prophet is not always a Prophet, only when he is acting as such" (see _An American Prophet's Record_, p 299, entry for Feb 8, 1843). Being human, a Prophet will have his own opinions and can make mistakes. The scriptures testify only too well to that fact: Abraham was not above misrepresenting his relationship with Sarah, Jacob did have intimate relations with his daughter-in-law while thinking she was a prostitute, Peter lied each time he denied the Savior, and Paul could hold grudges and lose his temper with his missionary companions. Within the church this lesson is emphasized over and over. One of the more memorable meetings I ever attended in the Salt Lake Tabernacle took place shortly after Harold B. Lee was set apart as the President of the Church. During that meeting, President Lee repeatedly asked the members to go home and pray, asking God to help him so that: "He will make only a few mistakes at first, and then later, none at all." The only way one may know for sure if a prophet is acting as such is if the Holy Ghost confirms that fact. This places the burden upon the spirituality of the listener, and continually challenges him to access his standing before God. In many LDS circles, Mormons who blindly go along with everything the President of the Church says are seen as spiritually inept. OBJECTION: Joseph Smith predicted the destruction of the United States of America. Specifically he stated: "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted and there will be not so much as a potsherd left" HC 5:394. That prediction has not occurred, therefore he is a False Prophet. RESPONSE: Before answering this specific charge, I would like to address some issues that deal generally with the problem of prophecy and specifically with the way that anti-Mormons try to use it against Mormons. First, there seems to be a tendency among critics of Mormonism to find some remark of JS or Brigham Young or some other leader of the Church, label it a prophecy or something similar, note that the prophecy has not taken place, and then label that particular leader as a False Prophet. I wonder exactly what gives anyone the right to label ANYTHING they want as a prophecy. Since Mormons believe that a Prophet is a Prophet only when he is acting as such, then not everything that comes out of his mouth is suppose to be taken as coming from God. I'm not asking for much, just for some kind of evidence that the prophet involved actually thought that he was giving an honest to goodness prophecy from God rather than speaking his own mind: such as the prophet invoking God's authority. Second, unless the prophecy is very specific, the fulfillment becames more of a matter for debate than anything else (a logical outcome of any private interpretation, see 2 Pet 1:20-21). For example, each year on the net I have observed one or more critics of the New Testament accuse Jesus of being a False Prophet because some the prophecies he made in the 24th chapter of Matthew never took place. The response of most apologists has been to present an interpretation which places the fulfillment of some of his prophecies in the future. While those interpretations do clear up most problems, frankly those possibilities are obvious only to those who have a "stake" in defending the integrity of Jesus and his calling and are not necessarily obvious from the text. I rather suspect that like other "signs," prophecy follows faith rather than preceding it. With this understanding, let's look at Joseph Smith's remarks concerning the destruction of the United States government. First, JS really did believe that he was giving an honest to goodness prophecy from God. He repeated this prophecy several different times, and in several cases actually invoked God's authority. It is the fulfillment of this particular prophecy that is in question. The problem is that some Mormons believe that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, some Mormons believe that Missouri was "punished" and the destruction of the government was not necessary, and some Mormons believe that this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. The difference in opinion is based on the circumstances when the prophecy was given, the vocabulary of the times, later historical events, and other revelations received by JS. In the late 1830s, the Mormons were violently expelled from the State of Missouri. Attempts by the Mormons to seek redress through the United States government came to naught for two reasons: The federalist nature of the U.S. government, and the reluctance of Congressional representatives to intervene on behalf of an unpopular group. Under the U.S. federalist system the individual states had a great deal of power, and the national government had no right to directly interfere in the internal affairs of the sovereign state of Missouri. In addition, members of Congress would not act indirectly or symbolically because Mormons were not very popular and no one wanted to risk their political career to support their cause no matter how just. In this context some Mormons believe that JS's prophecy was fulfilled. Some LDS have pointed out that U.S. government did not necessarily mean the U.S. Constitution, and that historically the term "government" had the British meaning which linked it to a specific administration. In this context it is possible that JS's prophecy was fulfilled: Van Buren's administration was tossed out after a single term. When the Mormons reapplied to the Tyler administration and were rejected again, his administration was also defeated after a single term. Other Mormons have pointed out that the U.S. federalist system, which blocked direct intervention, was the first major casualty of the Civil War. In this view, JS's prophecy was also fulfilled, because the Constitutional power, known to all Jacksonian Americans, was literally changed as that power was absorbed into a centralized Government. Still other LDS have pointed out that "punish[ing] the crimes committed by her [the state of Missouri] officers" was effectively carried out to some extent. Since the conditions of the Prophecy were fulfilled, the government did not have to be destroyed. The Federal government expelled the general population from the western end of Missouri during the Civil War to stamp out the guerrilla warfare taking place in that region. The affected area was exactly the same region where, twenty years before, the Mormons had been expelled and effected the same individuals responsible for expelling the Mormons. Further, the state government was essentially taken over and run by the Federal government during the Civil War. But there is still one more interpretation of JS's prophecy that suggests that the fulfillment of this prophecy is still in the not so distant future. In December of 1832, just after the conclusion of the South Carolina Nullification Crisis, Joseph Smith received a revelation now contained in the 87th Section of the D&C. This revelation, in part, predicts the outbreak of the Civil War, but it then goes on to predict National alliances, and that eventually, "... war shall be poured out upon all nations." The destruction and anarchy continues until, "... the consumption decreed hath made a FULL END OF ALL NATIONS;" [Emphasis Mine] Since the revelation indicates that eventually all nations (including the United States) will cease to exist, then perhaps JS's prophecy is simply a specific rewording of this revelation, and is something actually related to the End Times. In summary, given the context, I doubt very much that one can conclusively prove or disprove JS's ability as a prophet on the basis of his prophecies concerning the destruction of the United States government. Even the Mormons aren't quite in agreement on the subject, and I personally chalk it up to a matter of one's faith. THE BOOK OF MORMON Mormonism's rejection of a closed scriptural canon is a natural outcome of their view of continuing revelation from God. In addition to the Old and New Testaments, the Mormons include among their canon the Book of Mormon (BoM), the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price (PGP). The BoM was contained on a set of metal plates which "had the appearance of Gold" and were delivered to Joseph Smith through an angelic messenger. Joseph Smith translated the record through the gift and power of God and published the record in 1829. The BoM takes its name from the ancient prophet mainly responsible for abridging all the records of his ancestors into the form that the BoM takes. Before delivering the record back to the angel, Joseph Smith was permitted to show them to two sets of witnesses. The first set was made up of three individuals who saw both the plates and an angel, the second set was made up of eight individuals who examined only the plates. Each set of witnesses signed statements which have been included in each edition of the BoM. The BoM contains an account of several families, who fled Jerusalem prior to its destruction by Babylon (approx 600 BC) and eventually migrated to the American continent, and their descendants. The BoM also contains accounts of civilizations which they came in contact with. The BoM describes the eventual demise (i.e. destruction) of that culture and the reasons for it. The BoM is not intended to be a rigorous or comprehensive history. The BoM is a religious record whose emphasis is on the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and of the actions of God's prophets among this group of people. It contains an account of the appearance of the resurrected Christ to those people, and as such it is considered to be a second witness for Jesus Christ. Over the years I have heard a lot of individuals tell me that they have read the BoM "cover to cover" and they are not impressed. In at least three cases I probed their knowledge only to discover that their reading seemed rather superficial. I suppose that, like the Bible, one can study the BoM and get a lot out of it, or one can zip though it and wonder what the big deal is. If you are going to "blast away" at the BoM, fine, but please try to have more than just a surface understanding of the text. OBJECTION: The BoM is a plagiarism lifted from the lost work of Solomon Spalding. RESPONSE: The Spalding theory originated with D.P. Hurlbut and was first described in _Mormonism Unvailed_ (sic) in 1834. It states that the basis of the BoM is a romance (now lost) written by an educated minister named Solomon Spalding. The theory was based on the fact that Joseph Smith was poorly educated and completely untrained to the degree necessary to compose the BoM, hence it had to have been copied from someone else's work. Hurlbut, an ex-Mormon who heard rumors about Spalding, went to his widow, and got permission to borrow his manuscript to expose the Mormons. When he got back to Ohio, he and E.D. Howe (his co-author and editor of the _Plainsville Telegraph_) examined the manuscript and found it to contain a romantic story dealing with a Roman Ship blown off course and landing in North America. Hurlbut and Howe postulated the existence of yet another manuscript and then carelessly lost the manuscript which they had borrowed from Spalding's widow. This version of the Spalding theory (two manuscripts) was widely accepted for nearly 50 years among non-Mormons until the early 1880s when the first major discrepancy became evident. Spalding's widow and daughter didn't know anything about a second manuscript. In a series of widely published interviews they insisted that there was only one manuscript which Hurlbut took and never returned. Their position was championed by a cousin, Ellen E. Dickinson (_New Light on Mormonism_, 1885), who set out to prove that Hurlbut had taken the only manuscript and sold it to the Mormons to cover up the plagiarism. She attempted to do this by collecting a series of statements that showed that only one manuscript existed and that a number of people had examined it between the time that it had been sent to a publisher (where it was supposed to have been copied) and the time that Hurlbut borrowed it. In 1839, E.D. Howe sold his newspaper to L.L. Rice who was active in the anti-slavery movement. In 1884, James Fairchild, the president of Oberlin College, visited Rice (then retired to Honolulu) with the goal of getting him to donate some of his papers to the college library's abolitionist collection. While going through his papers, Fairchild and Rice stumbled across the manuscript that Hurlbut had borrowed from Spalding's widow. Apparently Howe left some of his papers behind (including Spalding's manuscript) when he sold his newspaper to Rice. The Spalding manuscript has been widely published since then, and the original is still retained by Oberlin College. Remarks scribbled by Hurlbut on the back of the manuscript (apparently at the time that he had first received it, but before he had examined it), strongly suggest that he had no inkling of any other manuscript and that he fully expected it to be the source of the BoM. He even stated that all the witnesses (whose statements he would later use) confirmed that THIS was THE Spalding manuscript. While some critics have wanted to retreat back to the multiple manuscript version of the theory, their principle stumbling block has been the statements of Spalding's widow, daughter, the material collected by Ellen Dickinson, and Hurlbut's remarks scribbled on the back of the original manuscript. OBJECTION: The three primary witnesses (who saw the Metal Plates and Angel) disassociated themselves from Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. RESPONSE: Although all three witnesses left the Church (two returned many years later), none of them retracted their testimony about seeing the plates and the angel. Typically, on the net, someone will state that one or more of the witnesses made a retraction. In such cases exact references should be offered. Todate the evidence cited has boiled down to either hearsay, to known historical forgeries or to charges that they never physically saw the plates. One of the best known forgeries is "Defence [British spelling] in a Rehearsal of My Grounds For Separating Myself From the Latter-Day Saints." In 1906, the President of the Utah Ministerial Association, R.B. Neal, announced the "rediscovery" of an original and unknown pamphlet published by Oliver Cowdery in 1839. For a long time most historians treated it as authentic, but the evidence against it has been steadly piling up. R.B. Neal steadfastly refused to allow anyone access to the original, and upon his death an original copy was not found among his papers. Attempts to locate an original copy or even a contemporary mention of the original have failed. Even libraries that think they have an original turn out to have only the 1906 pamphlet. Other problems: the place of publication, Norton, Ohio and the surrounding area, never had a printing establishment from 1838 to 1840, much less one named Preseley. Finally, Oliver Cowdery was living in Kirtland, Ohio from late 1838 to 1840. Why he would suddenly travel over to Norton, Ohio is anyone's guess (see: Richard Lloyd Anderson, _Investigating the BoM Witnesses_ (1981), pp.171-2). Several anti-Mormon writers have also concluded that the "Defence" is a forgery, namely Wesley Walters and Jerald & Sandra Tanner (see: Tanner, "A Critical Look; A study of the Overstreet Confession and the Cowdery 'Defence'", 1967). The charge that the witnesses never physically saw the plates is based upon a phrase that they insisted on using, wherein they stated that they saw the plates "through the eyes of faith." Two of those witnesses, Martin Harris and David Whitmer, later commented on this phrase when anti-Mormons attempted to use this phrase as a means of rejecting their testimony. In essence they insisted on using this phrase because at the time they were shown the plates, a voice from heaven declared that they had been shown the plates "by the power of God," and unless they had the necessary faith, they could not have seen them. See: _Nathan Tanner Jr Journal_ entry April 13, 1886 for comments from David Whitmer. Martin Harris' comments are found in _Saints Herald_ 22 (1875): 630. Other anti-Mormon materials cite statements that Joseph Smith made, at the time of their dissociation from the LDS Church, wherein he calls them liars, blacklegs, etc. Closer examination of the references cited by anti-Mormon literature will reveal that these angry exchanges had nothing to do with their testimony of the BoM, rather with charges that they made against Joseph Smith such as supporting Sampson Avard's activities in Missouri. The lives of these witnesses have been closely examined and are *well* documented. Mormons can cite many primary and secondary sources, especially of the type when the witnesses were outside the Church, were invited to retract their earlier statements, but choose to reaffirm what they had seen. A few examples of some of these sources: Oliver Cowdery: _Deseret News_, March 24, 1858; JD 2:259; JD 22:254; Nielsen, _Liahona_ 8:162-3. David Whitmer: _Richmond Conservator_ March 24, 1881; _Saints Herald_ 31 (1884): 442; _Instructor_ 80: 401. Martin Harris: _Saints Herald_ 22 (1875): 630; Quaife, _Kingdom of Saint James_ (1930), 243. _Autumn Leaves_ 2 (1889): 141. OBJECTION: There are thousands of changes made in the BoM since its first edition. RESPONSE: Correct but irrelevant. There are tens of thousands of changes made in the AV since its first edition too. Primarily most of the changes in the BoM are updating the language of the text: for example, from "ajourneyed" to "journeyed." There are some cases where Joseph Smith added additional phrases to clarify the meaning of the text (Mormons ever since have debated whether the additional phrases should have been typeset in italics). Differences are also related to the printing mechanism: the type of the first edition was not stereotyped but hand set. The printer did not simply print 5000 copies of the first signature, second, third, and so forth before sending them to the binder. Rather, he printed 500 copies of each signature until he got a complete set, sent them up to the binder's loft, and went back and printed another 500 copies, and so forth. Each time the type was broken down and reset. This has resulted in many differences just among copies of the first edition. Finally there are differences that relate to the manuscript that was used by the printer of the first edition. There had been several incidents in which the integrity of the Primary Manuscript had been threatened. Joseph Smith, understandably, would not let the printer work off the original manuscript. A copy of the original manuscript was made by Oliver Cowdery (labeled the Grandin Manuscript -- after the name of the printer) and the printer worked off Cowdery's copy. There are not only differences between Grandin Manuscript and the final printed edition, there are also differences between the Grandin Manuscript and the Primary Manuscript: These include cases where phrases and words were dropped, added, or repeated unnecessarily. Attempts in the 1920 and 1981 editions to produce a correct text had mixed results. The 1920 edition made corrections based solely on the Grandin Manuscript and the 1981 edition made corrections based on the Grandin Manuscript and what remains of the Primary Manuscript. If you want to get into the nitty gritty parts of the problem, a critical edition has been produced by FARMS (though the current FARMS edition did not use either the Grandin or Primary Manuscripts, rather the various printed editions). However, if you don't mind the language updating, the 1981 edition is probably the best there is. If you really want to be picky about it, the LDS Church published, in 1980, a facsimile reproduction of the first edition which is available for examination at most LDS Institute of Religion libraries (most colleges). Even though the 1980 reproduction is now out of print, a facsimile of the First Edition is still available as part of Wilford Wood's set, _Joseph Smith Begins His Work_, Vol 1. OBJECTION: The changes in the BoM are not irrelevant. The translation was given to Joseph Smith word by word. Respecting the word of God involves preserving it exactly. RESPONSE: The exact manner of translation is quite debatable. Although there are some descriptions that suggest a straight mechanical process, there are also some problems with those descriptions involving the descriptors' primary knowledge and their prejudices of what constituted revelation. There are also primary sources which strongly suggest a mental process was involved (see D&C 9 for one such primary source). But, for arguments sake, let's pretend that the translation process was strictly mechanical, that Joseph Smith was given the translation word for word. That changes nothing. As far as Mormons are concerned the word of God is not contained on a printed page. The word of God comes to an individual when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Simply reading accomplishes nothing, one must read under the influence of the Holy Ghost to recover God's word. Mormons do not look upon the recorded word as inerrant because it was given to fallible individuals, "... these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, AFTER THE MANNER OF THEIR LANGUAGE, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24, emphasis mine). The very earliest challenge to Joseph Smith's authority *within* the church was based on his imperfect expressions: "Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and HIS LANGUAGE YOU HAVE KNOWN, AND HIS IMPERFECTIONS YOU HAVE KNOWN; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might EXPRESS BEYOND HIS LANGUAGE;" (D&C 67:5, emphasis mine). If the process is strictly mechanical then God would communicate according to "language" of the individual to whom he is speaking, not according to some grand universal rules, otherwise the message could be misunderstood. For example, if God choose to communicate with an individual whose grammar was nonstandard and who used double negatives, then God would speak to that person using nonstandard grammar and double negatives. If other individuals are going to study the message, then restricting God's word to *exact* words on paper without adjusting the grammar for a more general audience is absurd. Moreover, if God's word is restricted to *exact* words on paper, then it is inevitable that one will become distanced from God's word as changes in grammar, culture, terms, and thought naturally occur. The preservation of God's living word (as opposed to the recorded word) becomes the prime mission of his living prophets. From the LDS point of view, a belief that requires a strict preservation of recorded words and grammar is nothing more than an implicit denial of continuing personal and general revelation from God. OBJECTION: The BoM describes things that cannot be supported by archeology. RESPONSE: The issues of BoM archeology, such as where did the BoM occur, does the archeological investigations in that area support or come in conflict with the BoM, etc. are probably too extensive to go into in an introduction of this size. There is a mixed bag of results that is hardly one sided for or against the BoM (although critics will emphasize the negatives and believers the positives). Perhaps it is worth mentioning that most people tend to approach archeology with a "common sense" mind set. This approach is dangerous, because archeology is not like other sciences in terms of how it evaluates its evidence and derives its conclusions. The most current work describing the Mormon position on aspects of archeology is _An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon_ by John L. Sorenson (Deseret Book, 1985). Sorenson is an anthropologist who goes into the issues thoroughly. Although Sorenson's book is not an official church publication, most Mormons responding to archeological objections, are going to be familiar with his book, therefore, to avoid going over material that has been previously discussed, one should borrow a copy of his book (InterLibrary Loan is one possibility) and read it before initiating a discussion on this topic. OBJECTION: The BoM is incompatible with the Bible. RESPONSE: Usually, Mormons have found that when this objection is raised, the incompatibility is actually related to how the individual INTERPRETS the Bible. Mormons reject many traditionally orthodox positions as later additions to Christianity, and they believe that many Christians read their Bible through eyeglasses tinted by those traditions. In contrast, Mormons have been using the Bible and the BoM side by side for over 150 years without any problem. OBJECTION: If the BoM represented an ancient text then its style would not be patterned after the AV. RESPONSE: I have often wondered exactly what the "proper style" is supposed to be since every translation is rendered into whatever style the translators wish. The AV *was* the standard English scriptural style in 1829. In the New Testament, when Jesus and the Apostles (and the angel Gabriel for that matter) quote the Old Testament, did they quote some ultimate original or present their own inspired translations? No, they are represented as quoting the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. because it was the standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. Inspired men in every age have been content to use the received version of the people among whom they labor with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary. OBJECTION: The BoM copies passages from the Bible word for word. RESPONSE: The issue isn't that simple. There are several passages in the BoM where Old Testament prophets are identified and quoted. Isaiah occurs the most often. Portions of the Bible quoted or alluded to in the BoM represent a small percentage (I once generously computed it to be 6% of the whole), and the passages are not exactly word for word. The differences generally fall into one of the following categories: the alteration or deletion of italicized words, alternate words or phrases which are found in other manuscript versions of the Old Testament but are not contained in the AV, and alternate words or phrases not found in any known variant of the Old Testament. While there are several schools of thought among Mormons concerning the impact of the differences and the relation of the tradition found in the BoM to some ancient text, the majority of Mormons attach little importance between the similarities of the BoM and the AV, it is the differences that are important. This attitude arises from Mormonism's rejection of inerrancy. For studies of Isaiah in the BoM, see Gary Bishop, _Tradition of Isaiah in the BoM_, BYU Thesis, 1974; John Tvedtnes, _Isaiah Variants in the BoM_, Provo: F.A.R.M.S., 1989. The BoM issues parallel the problems of the Septuagint in the New Testament: There are cases in which the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint word for word even when the Septuagint is a poor translation of the Hebrew (such as Acts 7:30); there are cases in which the New Testament departs from the Septuagint and is actually closer to the Hebrew (such as 1 Cor 3:19); and there are cases where the New Testament quotation either does not resemble any known variant of the Old Testament passage or seems to be at odds with the original intent of the passage (such as Acts 13:41, Acts 8:33, or Heb 10:37-38). A pair of inerrantists attempted to reconcile some of these problems. How well they succeeded, that's another matter, but their remarks are not unlike those Mormons who approach the same problem in the BoM. For the problem of the Septuagint in the New Testament, see Archer and Chirichigno, _Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A complete survey_, Moody: Chicago, 1983. OBJECTION: The BoM's use of the New Testament is anachronistic. RESPONSE: Critics charge that the BoM borrows New Testament phrases and have compiled several lengthy lists. Most of the passages in question actually have Old Testament equivalents. For example, see Roper's review of one such lengthy list in _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol. 3 (1991) for an exhaustive demonstration. Of the *few* remaining passages there are several explanations that do not compromise the integrity of the BoM. First, some Mormons believe that God could have revealed the same ideas to people in different parts of the world, and that when Joseph Smith rendered the BoM into English, he expressed those ideas in the English theological terms of *his* day, most of which were derived from the AV. Second, there is some evidence that many passages of the New Testament were not original compositions, but paraphrases and quotations of other writings. The debate on this point is far from settled, but, for example, some researchers claim to have identified New Testament phrases in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Gaster's translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls includes a lengthy appendix listing such passages. OBJECTION: The BoM quotes passages of Isaiah which modern Biblical criticism identifies with 2nd Isaiah and were probably written after the Babylonian captivity, not before it. RESPONSE: There are two schools of thought among the Mormons who deal with this objection. The first denys the multiple authorship of Isaiah and will cite computerized studies of Isaiah (called "wordprint analysis") that appear to support the single author view. They will also cite structural analysis studies of Isaiah which emphasize multiple stylistic structures that overlap and "cross the borders" of the multiple authors (a next to impossible editing task if there were multiple authors). The other school of thought accepts the multiple author theory, but argues that portions of "second Isaiah" could well have been written before the Babylonian captivity. They will point out that the obvious passages, that many critics point out as "post Babylonian," do not appear in the BoM, and that the sections that most critics consider to be third Isaiah also do not appear in the BoM. They will also point out that themes such as "The Captivity of Israel," found in "second" Isaiah and used by Biblical critics to date it after the captivity, are also found in other prominent pre- Babylonian writings of the Old Testament and would have been naturally revived by "Isaiah" in light of the deportation of the Northern Tribes. Willard C. Smith Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtdx!wcsa Because I Might have to Eat all of Them. | wcsa@iwtdx.att.com