Archive for the ‘Fred Anson’ Category

banksy_2_EDITED

Banksy, “Sweeping it Under the Carpet”, Mural, Chalk Farm, London England

“If history has shown us one thing, it’s that today’s Mormonism is tomorrow’s dustbin fodder”

compiled by Fred W. Anson
The Church of Jesus Christ claims, “The gospel has been known throughout eternity, and its principles have been preached among men and women from their beginnings on this earth.” (Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel”, Ensign, July 1996) and “The gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine and perfect plan. It is composed of eternal, unchanging principles, laws, and ordinances which are universally applicable to every individual regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Gospel principles never change.” (Ronald E. Poelman, “The Gospel and the Church”, Ensign, November 1984).

But history tells a different tale: The Mormon gospel is temporal and constantly changing. Here’s a partial list of Mormon Doctrine, scripture, and bits and various pieces that have been left on the dustbin of history. This is the fourth in this ongoing, intermittent series of articles.

 “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.”
(Joseph Smith, “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p.345)

17) Adam-God Doctrine
I’m still stunned at the number of Ex-Mormons who have never heard that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God. But I’m not nearly as stunned as they are when they find out that he did. The following summary is from Wikipedia:

The Adam–God doctrine (or Adam–God theory) was a theological doctrine taught in mid-19th century Mormonism by church president Brigham Young, and accepted by later presidents John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, and by apostles who served under them in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Although the doctrine is rejected by the LDS Church today, it is still an accepted part of the modern theology of some Mormon fundamentalists.

According to Young, he was taught by Joseph Smith that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.”

According to the doctrine, Adam was once a mortal man who became resurrected and exalted. From another planet, he then came as Michael to form Earth. Adam brought Eve, one of his wives, with him to Earth, where they became mortal by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. After bearing mortal children and establishing the human race, Adam and Eve returned to their heavenly thrones, where Adam serves as God and is the Heavenly Father of humankind. Later, Adam returned to the Earth to the ancient prophets and to become the literal father of Jesus.

During the 19th century and the early 20th century, the Adam–God doctrine was taught in some LDS Church meetings, sung in church hymns, and featured as part of the church’s endowment ceremony. However, the doctrine was startling to Mormons when it was introduced and remained controversial. Other Mormons and some breakoff groups, the most notable being apostle Orson Pratt, rejected the doctrine in favor of other theological ideas. Eventually, the Adam–God doctrine fell out of favor within the LDS Church and was replaced by a theology more similar to Pratt’s, as codified by turn-of-the-century Mormon theologians James E. Talmage, B. H. Roberts, and John A. Widtsoe. In 1976, LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball stated the LDS Church does not support the doctrine. Most Mormons accept Adam as “the Ancient of Days,” “father of all,” and “Michael the Archangel” but do not recognize him as being “God the Father.”
(“Adam-God Doctrine”, Wikipedia website)

722px-God_judging_adam_blake_1795_EDITED

William Blake, “God Judging Adam” (1795)

18) The original (pre-Adam-God) Elohim/Jehovah/Adam naming distinctions
It surprises many Mormon to learn that in Early Mormonism, Elohim was identified as Jesus Christ and Jehovah as Heavenly Father – the exact opposite of today’s Mormon teachings. The following is from Boyd Kirkland’s, watershed, “Jehovah As Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine”, Sunstone Magazine essay on this subject:

Today in Mormon theology, Jesus Christ is considered to be Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets.

Elohim is considered to be God the Father, the father of Jehovah (or Jesus Christ) and of the human race. The Church promotes this point of view in all of its current lesson manuals, periodicals and literature.1 While there is a natural tendency to assume that this current theology has been the position of Mormonism from 1830 to the present, actually several divergent views have been held…

Other Mormon writers during the 1830s followed this same pattern. They most often used Jehovah as the name of God the Father, and only occasionally used the name Elohim. They evidently also considered the Father to be the god who appeared in the Old Testament. For example, the following was published in the Times and Seasons as the Mormon belief in 1841: “We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father.” [Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841): 578.]

During the Nauvoo period of Church history (1839-44), Joseph Smith’s theology of the Godhead once again changed dramatically. He began to denounce and reject the notion of the trinity. He emphasized that God the Father, as well as the Son, both had tangible bodies of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22). He also began to teach the plurality of gods and the related concept that men could become gods. God himself had a father upon whom he depended for his existence and authority. The Father had acted under the direction of a “head god” and a “council of gods in the creation of the worlds.” The plurality of creation gods is dramatically depicted in the Book of Abraham, chapters 2-5, which Joseph translated in 1842. All of these ideas were summed up by Joseph in April, 1844, in perhaps his most famous sermon: The King Follett Discourse.

In connection with these ideas, the Prophet began to use the title Elohim as the proper name for the head god who presided at the creation of the world. He also taught that Elohim in the creation accounts of Genesis should be understood in a plural sense as referring to the council of the gods, who, under the direction of the head god, organized the heaven and the earth. Once the earth had been organized, “the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” From the context of Joseph’s discussions of this head god, it is apparent that the Prophet considered this being to be a patriarchal superior to the father of Jesus.

The gods involved in the creation were designated in Joseph’s temple endowment ceremony as Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Joseph had previously identified Michael as “Adam the ancient of days” (D&C 27:11). Whether he identified either this Elohim or Jehovah to be God the Father as he had previously used these titles is unclear. We have seen that he used the title Elohim in various modes, none of which included Jesus, and he also used the name Jehovah to refer to the Father. Given all of these possibilities, to Joseph’s endowment ceremony, then, did not seem to include Jesus among the creation gods. This is a curious situation, since many scriptural passages previously produced through Joseph, as well as the Bible, attribute a major role in the creation to Jesus. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith was killed before he was able to elaborate further on these newer, more esoteric ideas…

The theological problems concerning the Book of Mormon’s identification of Jesus as the Father, the identity of Jehovah, the God of Israel, and the roles and identities of the temple creation gods as connected with the Adam-God doctrine were all finally “resolved” in a carefully worked out statement written by James E. Talmage. This statement was submitted to the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve for their approval on 29 June 1916. It was corrected and then issued the following day as “A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the is Twelve” on “The Father and the Son.” This exposition minimized the sense in which Jesus is called the Father in the Book of Mormon through harmonizing techniques. These same techniques were used to support the position that Jesus Christ was Jehovah, the God of Israel, and that Elohim was his father. Little biblical support for these ideas could be given, as the exposition was mainly dealing with problems inherent in the early LDS scriptures and the theology of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Achieving harmony was the chief goal of the 1916 doctrinal exposition. It therefore contains no historical, critical analysis and understanding of the problems it addresses. Its definitions of Elohim and Jehovah still remain the official position of Mormonism.

Today, Mormons who are aware of the various teachings of LDS scriptures and prophets are faced with a number of doctrinal possibilities. They can choose to accept the Book of Mormon theology, which varies from biblical theology, as well as from Joseph Smith’s later plurality-of-gods theology. Adding to this confusion is Brigham Young’s Adam-God theology with its various divine gods using the names Elohim and Jehovah interchangeably. Finally, they are left to resolve the teachings of current General Authorities who identify Jesus as Jehovah with former-day General Authorities who spoke of Jehovah as the Father. While most are blithely unaware of the diversity that abounds in the history of Mormon doctrine, many Latter-day Saints since 1916 have, despite the risk of heresy, continued to believe privately or promote publicly many of the alternative Godhead theologies from Mormonism’s past.
(Boyd Kirkland, “Jehovah As Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine”, Sunstone Magazine, Vol.9, No.2, Autumn 1984

Jesus-takes-the-scroll_JWs_EDITED

“Jesus Takes the Scroll”, an image from The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Online Library. Unlike Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus Christ is God – be it Jehovah, Elohim, or otherwise.

19) The First President’s 1916 doctrinal statement “The Father and The Son,” as authored and defined by James E. Talmage
Yes, the doctrinal content of this watershed statement is most certainly taught, but without ever referencing its origin – this doctrinal statement. Thus, Mormons wrongly assume that the teaching of that relationship is given by revelation, when it was, in fact, authored by Talmage, then approved by the First Presidency. This treatise had to be written to remediate the confusion and infighting that Brigham Young’s aforementioned disastrous Adam-God doctrine had wrought, as well as other problematic theologies that had crept into Mormonism over the years. This exposition was published as a “Gospel Classic” in the official LdS Church periodical Ensign in 2002. Here is the link.

The Father and the Son (Ensign, April 2002)

While this watershed doctrinal exposition itself is rarely discussed today, at the time it represented a seismic shift in Mormon Theology, this as one commentator on a Mormon Studies board explained, using the Third Century Council of Nicaea as a point of comparison:

One way the 1916 [vote to sustain the “The Father and the Son” as official LdS Church doctrine] event was all the more worse than the actual Council of Nicaea is that soon after it the Mormon Church removed a part of its own scripture, the Lectures on/of Faith.

So they reversed prior Mormon theology, they rejected the teaching of their founding prophet, they voted on their own Mormon theology, and then they subsequently removed some of their own Mormon scripture. And it wasn’t ~292 years after the death of Christ. It was 1,883+ years after the death of Christ. And members or representatives from wards or stakes didn’t even get to practically participate in any meaningful public debate with higher leaders at their Conference. Like other Conferences members voted to accept the statement largely out of submission to and trust of the leadership, not through any helpful, serious member-driven scrutiny or vetting.

All that within a theological framework that traditionally teaches we sinners can become Almighty Eternal Everlasting Most High Gods of our own 40 billion spirit children expecting our own prayer and worship.

That makes the Council of Nicaea look relatively angelic. Even more so once you learn that many of the LDS assumptions about Nicaea are false.
(Aaron Shafovaloff, “2009 Gospel Principles criticizes the “pagan beliefs” of those “called Christians” in “false Christianity”’, comments section February 15, 2019, Mormon Coffee, blog site)

1899 Edition of The Articles of Faith by Talmage_EDITED

An 1899 First Edition of Talmage’s, “The Articles of Faith”.

20)  The original 1899 version of James E. Talmage’s “The Articles of Faith”
The reach and scope of Mormon Apostle James E. Talmage’s book, “The Articles of Faith”, is hard to overstate. As the Encyclopedia of Mormon explains:

The canonization of the Wentworth Letter as part of the Pearl of Great Price in 1880 reflected and assured its undisputed priority. And when James E. Talmage was asked by the First Presidency in 1891 to prepare a work on theology for use as a textbook in Church schools, it was to these Articles of Faith that he turned for the outline of his volume. First published in 1899 and still in use today, Talmage’s Articles of Faith greatly elaborate on the themes of Joseph Smith’s Wentworth list. In twenty-four chapters, Talmage provides extensive commentary and scriptural references regarding each of the concepts mentioned in the thirteen articles, plus sections on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and resurrection (as in Flanigan’s listing), and finally a section on practical religion (benevolence, tithes and offerings, consecration, social order within the Church, eternal marriage, sanctity of the body, and keeping the Sabbath day holy).
(David J. Whittaker, “Articles of Faith”, The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1992) 

But today if you went down to Deseret Book or onto the official LdS Church website and started reading Mormon Apostle, Jame E. Talmage’s classic book, “The Articles of Faith” you would no longer be reading the same book that Mr. Talmage wrote and published in 1899. The current edition was heavily edited and abridged by unknown parties (the correlation committee at work perhaps?) in 2009. And earlier editions were modified by Talmage during his lifetime and unknown parties afterward. Here is one of many examples that one with find if you take the time to look:

1899 Original Edition
It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.
(pp.420-421)

1919 Edition
It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation, by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement within each of the three specified kingdoms will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.
(pp.420-421)

1990 Edition
It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation, by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement within each of the three specified kingdoms will be provided for; though as to possible progress from one kingdom to another the scriptures make no positive affirmation. Eternal advancement along different lines is conceivable. We may conclude that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.
(p.371)

By the way, special thanks to Latter-day Saint Scholar, Scott Woodward, for the above example, which the reader can find here in its original form and format on Mr. Woodward’s website.  That said, please notice how not only have Talmage’s words changed here, the doctrine has changed too. We’ve gone from being able to progress within and between the three posthumous Mormon Kingdoms of Glory in the original edition, to only limited progression within the Kingdoms in later editions. No doubt, the 1919 change was done by Talmage himself for the 1919 edition as near the end of his life his position was aligned with that view:

The Lord has told us of places prepared for those entitled to salvation. He has told us that those who will keep all the laws and commandments of God can come where he is and shall be heirs of celestial glory and power. And he has told us of lesser degrees unto which others who have failed to rise to the occasion of laying hold on the blessing of eternal life, in its fulness, shall come; and concerning the last of these kingdoms of glories, known to us as the Telestial, the Lord has said that it excels all that the human mind can conceive in glory, and yet the one in the Telestial Kingdom is condemned so far as his actions have rendered him incapable of attaining to the higher glories and blessings which mean power and advancement.
(Elder James E. Talmage, “Conference Report, April 1930″, p.96, underlining added for emphasis)

However, the author of the change in the 1990 edition is unknown.

Now Talmage’s 1899 original is still available if you look for it, but the only one being published by the LdS Church today in paper and its website is the “annotated” version with the abridgments and changes. But not to worry, here’s a link to the eBook edition of the original 1899 edition back from the dustbin (click here). And here’s where you can buy a paper edition of the same (click here). And you really, really, really want to read the paper edition of the most current edited and abridged “annotated” version you can buy a copy here (click here).

And with that, Mr. Talmage’s classic is now dustbin fodder, along with all the other items listed in this article, the ones that preceded it, and the ones that will soon follow. Happy sweeping LdS Church – if you keep sweeping, we’ll just keep growing the list!

sweep

Yeah . . . it’s kinda like that, ain’t it?

 

A painting by C.C.A. Christensen of the original Nauvoo Temple burning after being set to flame by an unknown arsonist on October 9, 1848.

“If history has shown us one thing, it’s that today’s Mormonism is tomorrow’s dustbin fodder”

compiled by Fred W. Anson
The Church of Jesus Christ claims, “The gospel has been known throughout eternity, and its principles have been preached among men and women from their beginnings on this earth.” (Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel”, Ensign, July 1996) and “The gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine and perfect plan. It is composed of eternal, unchanging Mormon Doctrine on the Dustbin (Part Three)principles, laws, and ordinances which are universally applicable to every individual regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Gospel principles never change.” (Ronald E. Poelman, “The Gospel and the Church”, Ensign, November 1984).

But history tells a different tale: The Mormon gospel is temporal and constantly changing. Here’s a partial list of Mormon Doctrine, scripture, and bits and various pieces that have been left on the dustbin of history. This is the third in this ongoing, intermittent series of articles.

10) The original 1835 D&C 101
The following is an excerpt from the LDS periodical, Times and Seasons dated Saturday, October 1, 1842 (3:939). This edition included section 101 (CI) from the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, plus an addendum denouncing John C. Bennett’s “secret wife system.” The date is significant because by October 1, 1842, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was already “married” secretly to several women.

ON MARRIAGE.
According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil [fulfill] your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.”

The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch.

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

[This is where D&C 101 ends]

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.

S. Bennett, N. K. Whitney,
George Miller, Albert Pettey,
Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,
Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,
Wilson Law, E. Robinson,
W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson.

We the undersigned members of the ladies’ relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised [practiced] in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a disclosure of his own make.

Emma Smith, President,
Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor [Counselor],
Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor [Counselor],
Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,
Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,
Lois Cutler, Sarah Higbee,
Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff
Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,
Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,
Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks

(the above write up and analysis is courtesy of our friends at Mormonism Research Ministry)

11) Pre-1990 Temple Endowment Blood Oaths
On May 4, 1842, Joseph Smith instituted the endowment ritual in Nauvoo, Illinois. At three different stages of the endowment, participants were asked to take an oath of secrecy regarding the gestures of the ceremony (Kearns 1906, p. 8). The participants promised that if they were ever to reveal the gestures of the ceremony, would be subject to the following:

  • Stage 1: “my throat … be cut from ear to ear, and my tongue torn out by its roots;”
  • Stage 2: “our breasts … be torn open, our hearts and vitals torn out and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field;”
  • Stage 3: “our body … be cut asunder and all your bowels gush out.”

Each of the penalties was accompanied by gestures known as the “execution of the penalty” which simulated the actions described in the oath (Kearns 1906, p. 8).

  • Stage 1: The participant placed his or her right hand palm-down with the thumb extended and the tip of the thumb just under the left ear. The execution of the gesture was made by drawing the tip of the thumb swiftly across the throat until the thumb was just under the right ear, then dropping the hand and arm quickly to the side of the participant’s body.
  • Stage 2: The participant placed his or her hand in a cup form over the left breast. The execution of the gesture was made by pulling the hand-cup swiftly across the breast, then quickly dropping the hand and arm to the side of the participant’s body.
  • Stage 3: The participant placed his or her right hand palm-down with the thumb extended and the tip of the thumb on the left of the torso, just above the left hip. The execution of the gesture was made by drawing the thumb swiftly across the stomach until the thumb was just above the right hip, and the hand and arm were quickly dropped to the side of the participant’s body.
    (source: “Penalty (Mormonism)”, Wikipedia website)

A side-by-side comparison of the pre and post-1990 ceremonies can be found by clicking here.

12) Pre-1927’s Temple Endowment Oath of Vengeance
The Oath of Vengeance that was used in the in the Temple Endowment Ceremony until 1927 went as follows:

You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

The Oath of Vengeance against the American people and the Government for the death of Joseph Smith was a very important part of the temple ceremony for many years. Because of this temple ceremony vow of vengeance upon this nation, a protest was filed in 1903 in the United States Senate to have Reed Smoot, a Mormon Apostle who had been elected a Senator from Utah, removed from office on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment ritual. It became the subject of a United States Senate Investigation.

The complete record of this episode was published in U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat. 4 vols. [1 vol. index] Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906).

John Hawley, a former Mormon, made these statements in his Congressional testimony concerning the Smoot investigation:

I went to Salt Lake City in 1856. They gave the endowments of washing and anointing, and then there was an oath taken in Utah to avenge the blood of the prophet… In taking the endowments at Salt Lake there was the oath required, and the oath that was required was to ‘avenge the death or blood of the prophet.’ We were made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith the Martyr, together with that of his brother Hyrum, on this American nation, and that we should teach our children and children’s children to do so. ‘The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment,’ I would not have discussed the method of these endowments when I was a member of the Utah Church. The penalty for revealing or disclosing these secrets was disembowelment. The grips and tokens of the priesthood were what we were not to disclose… I kept the obligation while living in Salt Lake City.

The complete record of this episode was published in U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to hold his Seat. 4 vols. [1 vol. index] Washington: Government Printing Office, 1906)

However, and bizarrely, despite this seditious oath being publicly exposed during the Reed Smoot hearing the LdS Church still continued to use the vow of vengeance in the Temple Endowment Ceremony until 1927 after which it was dropped.

13)  Blood Atonement
In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine that taught that some crimes are so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Instead, to atone for these sins the perpetrators should be killed in a way that would allow their blood to be shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering.

The doctrine is no longer accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), but it was significantly promoted during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Sins that Young and other members of his First Presidency mentioned as meriting blood atonement included miscegenation [the mixing of different racial groups through marriage], apostasy, theft, murder, fornication, and adultery.

Young taught that the doctrine was to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, and only to be practiced under a complete theocracy (which has not existed in modern times). Young considered it more charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, the practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.

The blood atonement doctrine was the impetus behind laws in the territory and state of Utah allowing capital punishment by firing squad or decapitation. Though people in Utah were executed by firing squad for capital crimes under the assumption that this would aid their salvation, there is no clear evidence that Young or other top theocratic Mormon leaders enforced blood atonement for apostasy or non-capital crimes like miscegenation. There is, however, some evidence that the doctrine was enforced a few times at the local church level without regard to secular judicial procedure. The rhetoric of blood atonement may have contributed to a culture of violence leading to the Mountain Meadows massacre.
(source: “Blood Atonement”, Wikipedia website, bracketed text added for clarity.) 

14) Pre-1978 OD-2 Black Priesthood Ban
Beginning in the late 1840s, individuals of black African descent were prohibited from ordination to the LDS Church’s priesthood—normally held by all male members who meet church standards of spiritual “worthiness”—and from receiving temple ordinances such as the endowment and celestial marriage (sealing). The origins of the policy are still unclear: during the 20th century, most church members and leaders believed the policy had originated during founding prophet Joseph Smith’s time, but church research in the 1960s and 1970s found no evidence of the prohibition before the presidency of Brigham Young

On September 30, 1978, during the church’s 148th Semiannual General Conference, the following was presented by N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously. [Official Declaration 2Doctrine and Covenants, a standard work of the LDS Church]

On that day, the general conference unanimously voted to accept the revelation “as the word and will of the Lord.”

Following the revelation, black male members were allowed to be ordained to the priesthood. Black members and their spouses regardless of race were allowed to enter the temple and undergo the temple rituals, including celestial marriages. Black members could be adopted into a tribe of Israel through a patriarchal blessing. Black members were also allowed to serve missions and hold leadership positions. Proselytization restrictions were removed, so missionaries no longer needed special permission to teach black people, converts were no longer asked about African heritage, and marks were no longer made on membership records indicating African heritage.
(source: “1978 Revelation on Priesthood”, Wikipedia website) 

The 1978 Official Declaration 2 revelation also sent the 1949 and 1969 First President’s statements on race to the dustbin. Here they are in full:

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)
August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

(Statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City)

First Presidency statement (President David O. McKay)
December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

(source: FAIRMormon website)

15) Male-to-Male Adoptive Sealings per “The Law of Adoption
The law of adoption was a ritual practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1846 and 1894 in which men who held the priesthood were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family…

Brigham Young had been sealed by the law of adoption to Joseph Smith, and in January and early February 1846 (before leaving for the Rocky Mountains on 15 February 1846), Young was sealed to 38 young men by the law of adoption in the Nauvoo Temple.[Brooks, Juanita (1992) [1961], John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat, Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, p. 73, ISBN 0-87421-162-XOCLC 42329435] On 23 February 1847, Young “went to see Joseph” in a dream and Young said that he spoke with Smith about the law of adoption.[Manuscript History of Brigham Young, February 23, 1847]

On April 6, 1862, Young said of the law of adoption: “By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the priesthood from this day to the winding up scene.”[ Journal of Discourses, volume 9, page 269.] It is reported by Young’s grandson, Kimball Young (chairman of the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University) that Brigham Young stated in a letter that there will be a future time “when men would be sealed to men in the priesthood in a more solemn ordinance than that by which women were sealed to men, and in a room over that in which women were sealed to man.”[Young, Kimball (1954), Isn’t One Wife Enough?, New York: Holt, pp. 278–280, OCLC837920]…

In a church general conference address on 8 April 1894, Wilford Woodruff stated that “I have not felt satisfied, nor has any man since the Prophet Joseph Smith who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt there was more to be revealed on this subject than we have received … and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is let every man be adopted to his father.”[Irving, Gordon (Spring 1974), “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation”, BYU Studies, 14 (3), p.312]

Thus, as of 1894, the practice of the law of adoption ceased in the LDS Church.
(source: “Law of Adoption (Mormonism)”, Wikipedia website) 

(click to view full image)

16) Polyandry: The Practice of One Woman Being Married to More Than One Husband
The gospel/church sealing ordinance of polyandry created and practiced by Joseph Smith was discontinued after the Nauvoo Illinois period according to Mormon apostle John Widstoe (“Evidences And Reconciliations”, p. 343).

Mormon researcher and apologist Brian Hales claims that fourteen of Joseph Smith’s known polygamous wives were still married to living husbands:

My research supports that fourteen of Joseph Smith’s plural wives had legal husbands. It could be that in Joseph Smith’s history, polygamy is the most difficult thing to understand. Within polygamy, Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women, is the most difficult. So we’re talking about a pretty tough subject today. And I can tell you already, that if it were easy, someone would have already explained it decades ago. But I think we’ve got it figured out.

Now there are two questions: “Why did he do it”, and “Did the women really have two husbands?” Answering the question of why he did it requires us to introduce some new topics. Joseph taught that marriage can be eternal and that everyone must be sealed to be exalted. These are not new to us, we’ve all heard these. But outside of Mormondom, these are kind of new ideas. Emmanuel Swedenborg had talked about eternal marriage and he died in 1772. But really, nobody talked about eternal marriage. The idea that you had to be married to get the highest salvation, that’s still a really new and somewhat different teaching.
(Brian C. Hales, “Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?”, Proceedings of the 2012 FAIR Conference”, August 2012)

Why polyandry was practiced in Nauvoo is a mystery just as much as to why it was discontinued after the Saints left Illinois. It is an odd and unusual anomaly that now lays in the dustbin.

The charred remains of the Provo Tabernacle after it was gutted by a fire on December 17, 2010.

 

Lt. General Joseph Smith, Command in Chief of the Nauvoo Legion

compiled by Fred W. Anson
Controversy still swirls around if Joseph Smith sent an order to Nauvoo Legion acting General Jonathan Dunham to march on Carthage Jail and free him from what would ultimately be his assassination by an Anti-Mormon mob. FAIRMormon weighs with a resounding negative in this rather lengthy article: “Question: Did Joseph order Jonathan Dunham, head of the Nauvoo Legion, to rescue him?” (please click on link to read and consider this article) 

However, that hardly settles the matter. Below is evidence that counters FAIRMormon’s claims. It’s mentioned in their article but they discount and attempt to explain it away. So I will leave it to you, dear reader, to consider both sides and make up your own mind.

Allen J. Stout 
(December 5, 1815, December 18, 1889. A former Danite and member of the Nauvoo Legion, Joseph Smith’s private militia)
Now, there began to be excitement in the regions round about, so that the [Nauvoo] Legion was called out, which occupied my time as I had command of one company of footmen. The mob was determined to have the Prophet and we were determined they should not, so we kept under arms day and night for many weeks, but finally Joseph and Hyrum gave themselves up to be tried by the persuasion of false brethren and were taken out to Carthage.

And while they were in jail, Brother Joseph wrote an official order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the Legion and reserve him from being killed, but Dunham did not let a single man or mortal know that he had received such orders, and we were kept in the city under arms, not knowing but all was well, until the mob came and forced the prison and slew Joseph and Hyrum Smith and wounded John Taylor severely.
(Allen J. Stout, “Manuscript Journal, 1815-89”, p. 13)

T.B.H. Stenhouse
(21 February 1825 – 7 March 1882. Early Mormon convert, pioneer, and Missionary)
As the shadows on the prison walls, announced the receding day, the approach of death was sensibly felt by the Prophet and his friends. Dr. Richards, one of the apostles, proposed to Joseph that if his life might be accepted in the Prophet’s stead, he would freely give it. The apostle Taylor asked only permission, and “in five hours he would take him from his prison.” These were no idle offers. Life and deliverance were his for half a word; but at this critical moment Joseph seemed to forget all thoughts of life and of the world. It is claimed by the believing Saints that he had premonitions of his approaching end, and that on some occasions previous to the Expositor difficulty, he had spoken of the termination of his mission. So long had his bow been strung to its utmost tension, that this feeling of indifference can readily be appreciated without either miracle or divine manifestation; but to him and his, impressions had special interpretations. Add to this the galling humiliation of being chided by some brethren as a “coward” when he attempted to escape on the presentation of the sheriff’s writ, and then the weariness of earthly things is easy to comprehend. Life at last had lost its charm; the charge of cowardice had stung him, and he was ready to die. It was neither want of friends nor want of ability to secure his escape. He was weary, and with his fertile faith it was easy to listen to the suggestion of those ever-ready words – “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Besides, a “prophet” never dies. The portals of another world hail him as the advancing conqueror, and the field of his labours becomes more extended. Joseph was ready for the change.* It is stated that on leaving Nauvoo for Carthage he said: “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter, but I am calm as a summer morning. I have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me He was murdered in cold blood.”’**

*Notwithstanding this apparent readiness to meet death, and the deep and clear divine impressions claimed to have been imparted to the Prophet of his forthcoming end, it is understood that he managed to send from prison a communication to the Mormon officer in military command at Nauvoo, to bring with all possible dispatch a portion of the Legion to protect him from treachery, and from that assassination which he had then so much cause to apprehend. This military commander put the Prophet’s communication into his pocket and gave no heed to the call for help. No one was acquainted with the contents of the paper, and the officer was, therefore, he presumed, safe in disregarding it.

After the Prophet’s death, by some accident or other, this communication was lost and was picked up on the street and read. The intelligence that Joseph had called for aid and none had been rendered him was soon bruited among the Saints, and excited their deepest indignation, as they were not only ready to march at a moment’s notice, but were eager for the opportunity.

Some time afterwards, when all was quiet, this coward and traitor as some of the Mormons called him, or “fool and idiot” as others said, was sent on a mission to the Western frontiers, accompanied by a faithful elder. While travelling alone with his companion, he fell ill and died, it is said of dysentery. His companion buried him.

**“Doctrine and Covenants,” p. 335.
(Thoma B.H. Stenhouse, “The Rocky Mountain Saints [1887]: A Full & Complete History of the Mormons from First Vision of Joseph Smith to the Last Courtship of Brigham Young & Development of the Great Mineral Wealth of Utah”, Kindle Locations 2698-2725. D. Appleton and Company. Kindle Edition)

Fawn Brodie
(September 15, 1915-January 10, 1981. Mormon Historian, infamous Biographer of Joseph Smith, and niece of 9th LdS President, David O. McKay)
Dull and heavy-spirited, the prisoners finally sent for some wine, and all except Hyrum sipped a little.* When Richards handed the bottle to the guard, he started down the stairs. At that moment there was a noise at the outer door, followed by shouts to surrender and the sound of shots.

It was not the Nauvoo Legion galloping up for a dramatic rescue. For some reason never divulged, Jonathan Dunham had pocketed the order and neglected to act upon it**, and no other man in Nauvoo knew of his prophet’s peril. It was the men of the Warsaw militia, who had marched out of the town as a token to the Governor, waited until he was well on his way to Nauvoo, and then come roaring back to join the Carthage Greys.

* According to John Taylor’s account. History of the Church, Vol. VII, p.101.

** This story is told by Allen J. Stout in his manuscript journal, 1815-89, a transcript of which may be seen in the Utah State Historical Society Library. See p. 13. It is confirmed by T. B. H. Stenhouse in his Rocky Mountain Saints (New York, 1873), p. 164.
(Fawn M. Brodie, “No Man Knows My History (Illustrated): The Life of Joseph Smith”, Kindle Locations 8842-8854. Barvas Books. Kindle Edition)

General Joseph Smith reviewing the Nauvoo Legion – which at the time was larger than the Illinois State Militia.

nephi_EDITED

Nephi writing.

compiled by Fred W. Anson
Latter-day Saints like to describe the Lord’s restoration and/or continuing revelation as “line upon line, precept upon precept”. Here’s how this phrase appears in the Book of Mormon (italics added for emphasis):

2 Nephi 28
29
Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!
30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Like the Book of Mormon, this phrase only appears in one place in the Bible – twice in Isaiah chapter 28. Here’s the passage for your reference (again italics added for emphasis):

Isaiah 28 KJV
5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,
6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.
7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

So you see, in that biblical passage, “line upon line, precept upon precept” Isaiah is saying that God’s people are under His judgment and His curse rather than under His blessing and favor. Paraphrasing, it means, “Your hearts and minds and the minds of your leaders are so dull and slow that I have to teach you like a small child or like a drunken, irrational fool who must be spoken to slowly and distinctly so that you ‘get it’ – that is, word-by-word and guideline-by-guideline.”

And then the Lord goes on to declare judgment on these dim-witted people who are rejecting His clear warning. Again paraphrasing, “And since I can’t seem to get through to you all doing this, maybe the foreign-tongued invaders that I’m sending in judgment upon you will get my words and requirements through your thick skulls after you’ve been captured and conquered!”

This, friends is a mocking and pointed declaration of judgment on Isaiah’s audience, it is not a nice sweet little sermon about the Lord’s will unfolding via continuing revelation. God is expressing His frustration with His covenant people in the harshest, most direct, and graphic terms possible. He is calling them immature, idiotic fools publicly, right out loud, and to their face. This is even clearer in the NIV translation of the Bible (yet again, italics added for emphasis):

Isaiah 28 NIV
5 In that day the Lord Almighty will be a glorious crown, a beautiful wreath for the remnant of his people. 6 He will be a spirit of justice to the one who sits in judgment, a source of strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.
7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. 8 All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth.
9 “Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? 10 For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.”
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, 12 to whom he said, “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen. 13 So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there— so that as they go they will fall backward; they will be injured and snared and captured.

As well-known Bible Expositor, John MacArthur observes regarding the key points in this passage:

28:6 spirit of justice. In that day of Messiah’s reign, the empowering Spirit will prevail in bringing justice to the world (cf. 11: 2).
28: 7 priest… prophet… err. Drunkenness had infected even the religious leadership of the nation, resulting in false spiritual guidance of the people.
28: 8 no place is clean. When leaders wallowed in filth, what hope did the nation have?
28: 9 weaned from milk. The drunken leaders resented it when Isaiah and other true prophets treated them as toddlers, by reminding them of elementary truths of right and wrong.
28:10 precept upon precept… there a little. This is the drunkard’s sarcastically mocking response to corrective advice from the prophet. Transliterated, the Hebrew monosyllables are Sav lasav, sav lasav, Kav lakav, kav lakav, Ze’er sham, ze’er sham. These imitations of a young child’s babbling ridicule Isaiah’s preaching.
28:11 another tongue. Since the drunkards would not listen to God’s prophet, he responded to them by predicting their subservience to Assyrian taskmasters, who would give them instructions in a foreign language. The NT divulges an additional meaning of this verse that anticipates God’s use of the miraculous gift of tongues as a credential of His NT messengers (see notes on 1 Cor. 14: 21, 22; cf. Deut. 28: 49; Jer. 5: 15; 1 Cor. 14: 21).
28:12 the rest… the refreshing… not hear. In simple language they could understand, God offered them relief from their oppressors, but they would not listen.
28: 13 Precept upon precept… there a little. In light of their rejection, the Lord imitated the mockery of the drunkards in jabber they could not understand (see v.10).
(NKJV, The MacArthur Study Bible, eBook: Revised and Updated Edition (Kindle Locations 107516-107537). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition)

And renowned Bible Scholar, D.A. Carson and the team of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible confirm, validate and agree with Mr. MacArthur’s analysis in their own award-winning Study Bible:

28:5– 6 Chs. 28– 33 alternate between representing the false leadership of humans and the true leadership of God. It begins here briefly and continues with larger and larger segments. Ephraim’s (and Judah’s) true “wreath” is “the LORD Almighty” (see notes on 1: 9, 24). He can inspire both civil and military leaders.
28:5 remnant. … The drunkenness described here is probably both metaphoric and literal. Because these leaders are selfishly motivated, they are blind to the truth of God’s revelation (29: 9), but they are also prone to the kind of self-indulgence that results in the abuse of alcohol.
28:9– 10 Having no real experience or understanding of God, all the leaders can offer the people are prescriptions from the law to be learned by rote. The Hebrew of v. 10 may well be a mockery of the rote repetitions the leaders offer…
28:11– 13 Since the people “would not listen” (v. 12) to the words of their true leaders, God would turn them over to the Assyrians, who spoke with “foreign lips” (v. 11).
(The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 161305-161318). Zondervan. Kindle Edition)

Clearly, there is a consensus here on what the term, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little,” meant during Isaiah’s day.

So based on all this expert witness testimony, here’s the question for our Mormon friends: Could you please explain to us how Nephi’s use of the phrase “line upon line, precept upon precept” in 2 Nephi 28:30 isn’t indicative of a people under God’s curse rather than His blessing? Given this what does this say about the state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is it possible that it too is under God’s judgment and/or curse?

I can’t help but wonder if Latter-day Saints and their church should rethink using this plagiarized and misused biblical phrase, let alone base any doctrine on it given its real and intention and meaning.

It does tend to make one ponderize, doesn’t it?

A mosaic featuring Isaiah.

How Mormons Abuse Paul’s Use of Pagan Sources in Acts 17:28

A marble bust of Cleanthes

compiled by Fred W. Anson
The Gospel According to St. Cleanthes
One of favorite responses when a Mormon cites Acts 17:28 (“For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”) is to simply ask, “Oh, and since you think that Paul was endorsing Cleanthes’ ‘Hymn to Zeus’ by citing from it in the latter citation (“ For we are also his offspring“)1 are you also suggesting that he was endorsing it as divinely inspired scripture?” Then I give them the entire poem. Here it is, with the text that Paul cited italicized for emphasis:

Hymn to Zeus
by Cleanthes (c. 300 – 220 B.C.)
O God most glorious, called by many a name,
Nature’s great King, through endless years the same;
Omnipotence, who by your just decree
Controls all, hail, Zeus, for unto you
Must your creatures in all lands call.

We are your children, we alone, of all
On earth’s broad ways that wander to and fro,
Bearing your image wheresoever we go.
Wherefore with songs of praise your power I will proclaim.

Look! yonder Heaven, that round the earth is wheeled,
Follows your guidance, still to you does yield.

Glad homage; your unconquerable hand
Such flaming minister, the heftless brand,
Wields, a sword two-edged, whose deathless might
Pulsates through all that
Nature brings to light;
Vehicle of the universal word, that flows
Through all, and in the light celestial glows
Of stars both great and small.

A King of Kings
Through ceaseless ages,
God, whose purpose brings
To birth, whatever on land or in the sea
Is wrought, or in high heaven’s immensity;
Save what the sinner works infatuate.

No, but you know how to make the crooked straight:
Chaos to you is order; in your eyes
The unloved is lovely, who did harmonize
Things evil with things good, that there should be
One word through all things everlastingly.

One word – whose voice alas! the wicked spurn;
Insatiate for the good their spirits yearn:
Yet seeing see not, neither hearing hear
God’s universal law, which those revere,
by reason guided, happiness who win.

The rest, unreasoning, diverse shapes of sin
Self-prompted follow: for an idle name
Vainly they wrestle in the contests of fame:
Others inordinately riches court,
Or dissolute, the joys of flesh pursue.

Now here, now there they wander, fruitless still,
Forever seeking good and finding ill.

Zeus the all-bountiful, whom darkness shrouds,
Whose lightning lightens in the thunder-clouds;
Your children save from error’s deadly sway;
Turn you the darkness from their souls away:
Vouchsafe that unto knowledge they attain;
For you by knowledge are made strong to reign
Overall, and all things rule righteously.

So by you honored, we will honor thee,
Praising your works continually with songs,
As mortals should; nor higher reward belongs
Even to the gods, than justly to adore
The universal law for evermore.

A bust of Epimenides.

The Gospel According to St. Epimenides
The first pagan source cited in Acts 17:28 (“For in him we live and move and have our being.’”) is Epimenides (c. 7th or 6th century BC). The passage is from Epimenides’ “Minos and Rhadamanthus”. Unfortunately, none of Epimenides’ works have survived, but thankfully a passage has been found cited in the Syrian lectionary Garden of Delights and in a 9th-century commentary on Acts by Isho’dad of Merv. Translated into English, it reads like this. And again I have italicized the text that Paul used for emphasis:

A grave has been fashioned for thee, O holy and high One,
The lying Cretans, who are all the time liars, evil beasts, idle bellies;
But thou diest not, for to eternity thou livest and standest,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

By the way, the “O holy and high One” being referred to is Zeus, just so that there’s no misunderstanding. Clearly, this provenance is too complex to use effectively with Mormons in short, conversational discussions. However, you can refer them to the following article (which I used as my primary source for this section on Epimenides) for a full explanation if you wish to: “Lying Cretans and Unknown Gods: Allusions to Epimenides in the New Testament” on the “Is That in the Bible?” blog site.

The Gospel According to St. Paul
So with that background let’s consider how Paul actually used these pagan sources on Mars Hills, with the text discussed above italicized for emphasis:

Acts 17 (KJV)
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
33 So Paul departed from among them.
34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

As the text clearly states, Paul’s audience was wholly pagan. Therefore, given the underlying nature of the citations combined with the nature of his audience, he clearly was simply using a common point of reference to make his point. As William MacDonald notes in his commentary:

17:28b To further emphasize the relationship of the creature to the Creator, Paul quoted from some of their Greek poets, who said, “For we are also His offspring.” This is not to be interpreted as teaching the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. We are the offspring of God in the sense that He created us, but we only become sons of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

17:29 But Paul’s argument continues. If men are the offspring of God, then it is impossible to think of God as a gold or silver or stone idol. These are shaped by art and man’s devising, and therefore are not as great as men. These idols are, in a sense, the offspring of human beings, whereas the truth is that human beings are the creation of God.
(MacDonald, William. Believer’s Bible Commentary (p. 1625). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition)

To use a modern equivalent it was like when Billy Graham cited the secular song lyrics “What the world needs now is love, sweet love” (from a Dione Warwick song) and “The answer is blowing in the wind” (from a Bob Dylan song) to make his point in sermons during his 1969 Anaheim, California Crusades.2 In both cases, the intention wasn’t to endorse the sources, simply to establish a rhetorical connection with the listening audience from their cultural vantage point. To suggest anything more than that is exegetically unsustainable.

“Saint Paul delivering the Areopagus Sermon in Athens” by Raphael, 1515

NOTE
1 The other pagan work that’s often cited as a source for this latter citation is Aratus’ (c. 310-245 B.C.), Phaenomena from the opening lines which are as follows:

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring…
(Phaenomena 1-5)

That poetic text is, in my opinion, is too long and complex to use effectively with Mormons in a conversational type discussion, but if you would like to refer them to it, they will find a good English translation here (click on link).

Further, since it’s generally believed that Aratus and the other pagan sources that use the “we are indeed his offspring” were glossing on Cleanthes. Therefore, and in my opinion, it’s better to just go to the short and simple original source rather than those who quoted from him later.

2 I was at these crusades and I recall him using the lyrics something like this in his sermons, “Popular culture tells us that what the world needs now is love, sweet love. I couldn’t agree more because what we need now more than ever is the sweet love of the Savior.” He used the lyrics of the Dylan song something like this, “I agree with the singer who said that the answer is blowing in the wind. That wind is God’s Spirit. And if you’re listening, really listening, you will hear Him calling you to come to Him.” I’ve paraphrased both from memory, but to the best of my recollection that’s how I heard them used back in the day.

BACK TO TOP

“If history has shown us one thing, it’s that today’s Mormonism is tomorrow’s dustbin fodder”

by Fred W. Anson
The Church of Jesus Christ claims, “The gospel has been known throughout eternity, and its principles have been preached among men and women from their beginnings on this earth.” (Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel”, Ensign, July 1996) and “The gospel of Jesus Christ is a divine and perfect plan. It is composed of eternal, unchanging principles, laws, and ordinances which are universally applicable to every individual regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Gospel principles never change.” (Ronald E. Poelman, “The Gospel and the Church”, Ensign, November 1984).

But history tells a different tale: The Mormon gospel is temporal and constantly changing. Here’s a partial list of Mormon Doctrine, scripture, and bits and various pieces that have been left on the dustbin of history. This is the second in this ongoing, intermittent series of articles.

7) The United Order
Joseph Smith’s February 1831, Book of Commandments Chapter XLIV revelation established the United Order as “a covenant and a deed which can not be broken” (BoC 44:26). Mormon Historian, Fawn Brodie (the niece of LdS President, David O. McKay) explains the backstory and history:

Joseph Smith set up an economic order in his church which followed with a certain fidelity the life history of the typical communistic society of his time. When he first arrived in Kirtland, he found Rigdon’s tiny “community” in chaos. “The disciples had all things in common,” wrote John Whitmer, “and were going to destruction very fast as to temporal things; for they considered from reading the Scriptures that what belonged to a brother belonged to any of the brethren; therefore, they would take each other’s clothes and other property and use it without leave, which brought on confusion and disappointment. . . .”

Before long Joseph issued a revelation setting up the United Order of Enoch. “Behold,” said the Lord, “thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken, and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church.” Private property became church property, and private profit a community spoil.

Production was kept on an individual basis. Each convert, after “consecrating” his all to the church, was given back certain property “sufficient for himself and family,” over which he acted as a foreman or “steward.” The system was thus more akin to farm tenancy than to the true communal agriculture practiced by the Shakers and New Harmonists. Upon the death or disaffection of the steward, the land reverted to the church, which permanently held the title.

Whatever surplus the steward exacted from the land, or whatever profit the mechanic derived from his shop, was contributed to the church storehouse and treasury, the convert keeping only what was “needful for the support and comfort” of himself and family. The spirit of true Marxian communism — “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — was implicit in the whole system.”
(Fawn M. Brodie, “No Man Knows My History (Illustrated): The Life of Joseph Smith”, Arkosh Publishing, Kindle Locations 2410-2426)

Brodie also describes the demise of the United Order:

On April 10, 1834 the Kirtland council dissolved the Order. Dividing the community property was a thorny business. Tired of quibbling and recrimination, Joseph finally resorted to a revelation to parcel out the real estate, deeding himself the temple lot, Rigdon the tannery, Cowdery the printing shop, and most of the other leaders the lots on which they were then living. In 1835, when the time came tor print this curious document in the Doctrine and Covenants, he substituted fictitious names to avoid any unpleasantness — Ahashdah for Whitney, Olihah for Cowdery, Pelagoram for Rigdon, Mahemson for Harris, and Gazelam for himself. He even used code names for the industries — Laneshine house for the printing shop and Ozondah for the store. Except for a few leaders who knew better, the Mormons believed these to be the names of people living in the days of Enoch.

From this moment Joseph began to efface the communistic rubric in his young theology. Since most copies of the Book of Commandments had been burned, it was easy for him to revise drastically the revelation on the United Order when it was republished in the enlarged Doctrine and Covenants in 1835. The Lord no longer demanded consecration of a man’s total property, but only a donation of his “surplus” over and above living expenses. In reprinting the first twelve issues of the Evening and Morning Star, Joseph revised most, though not all, of the descriptions of the original Order and commanded his missionaries to destroy the notion abroad that the church had ever been a common-stock concern.

Although Rigdon repeatedly urged a restoration, Joseph made only one effort to revive the Order after 1834. This was a greatly revised consecration program that he launched in Missouri in 1838. It collapsed at the end of the year when the Mormons were driven out of the state altogether. Thereafter the prophet was content to let the United Order be translated to the plane of abstract ideals, where it was destined to remain. Years after his death, experiments with communal living were tried in the desert isolation of the Great Basin, but these also disintegrated because, it was said, the Mormons proved as yet unworthy to live the higher law of God.”
(Fawn M. Brodie, “No Man Knows My History (Illustrated): The Life of Joseph Smith”, Arkosh Publishing, Kindle Locations 3184-3206)

So despite the fact that D&C 104:1 claims that the United Order is supposed to be, “an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come” the United Order no longer exists in the LdS Church.

8) The Original Law of Consecration
Those members who might feel that the 10% mandatory tithe of the modern LdS Church is high should consider themselves lucky. In Early Mormonism, you were encouraged to give 100% of your estate to the Church. From Wikipedia:

As practiced by the Latter Day Saints in Smith’s day, the law of consecration was for the support of the poor and to ensure that all members would be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs”. Adherents were asked to voluntarily deed, or consecrate, their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a “stewardship” of property “as much as is sufficient for himself and family”. If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the “residue” was “to be consecrated unto the bishop” kept for the benefit of “those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.”

Under Smith, members attempted to implement the law of consecration through the establishment of the United Order, but it was never fully instituted due to conflict and disagreements.
(Wikipedia, “Law of consecration”

An echo of the original Law of Consecration can still be found in the Temple Endowment Ceremony which contains the following rite:

THE LAW OF CONSECRATION
[Peter, James, and John return to the Terrestrial Room.]

PETER: A couple will now come to the altar.

We are instructed to give unto you the law of consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the law of the gospel and the law of sacrifice, which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise.

Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say, “Yes.”

That will do.
(“The Terrestrial World”, LDS Endowment website) 

Each of the 10 companies of Mormon handcart pioneers was accompanied by a wagon train that carried supplies, and sometimes had room for an ill, injured or simply worn-out walker to ride along the trail for a short distance. Painting by William Henry Jackson. – Courtesy NPS.gov, William Henry Jackson Collection, Scotts Bluff National Monument.

9) Gathering to Zion
Just as it’s very name implies, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was originally an apocalyptic cult. As is the case with all such cults, the idea was that the Lord was gathering the faithful together in anticipation of Christ’s return to set up His Kingdom on earth. So if you’ve ever wondered why the Early Mormons moved en masse from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, to Utah, now you know. If you’ve ever wondered why an estimated 85,000 people immigrated from Europe to America to join the “saints in Zion” during the 19th Century now you know. If you ever wondered how the culture of food hoarding and Mormon triumphalism developed, now you know. As then Apostle (later to become LdS President) Joseph F. Smith explained in 1877:

In this dispensation there is a principle or commandment peculiar to it. What is that? It is the gathering the people into one place. The gathering of the people is as necessary to be observed by believers, as faith, repentance, baptism, or any other ordinance. It is an essential part of the Gospel of this dispensation, as much so, as the necessity of building an ark by Noah, for his deliverance, was a part of the Gospel of his dispensation. Then the world was destroyed by a flood, now it is to be destroyed by war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, storms, and tempests, the sea rolling beyond its bounds, malarious vapors, vermin, disease, and fire by the lightnings of God’s wrath poured out for destruction upon Babylon.
(Joseph F. Smith, ‘Arrival in Salt Lake City—The First Principles—The Question of Authority—The Ordinances—Education of Our Youth—Plural Marriage, Etc.—“Mormonism” Immortal’, September 3o, 1877, Journal of Discourses 19:192)

Just consider the Apostle’s words above in light of the fact that this was imperative not just a nice idea or some type of nebulous ideal that one could choose or not choose. The Gathering to Zion wasn’t to be taken lightly, it was a requirement of joining the Latter Day Saint faith back then, not an option. You got baptized, you started tithing, and you gathered you and yours to Zion as soon as you could. Period.

So what happened? Why has the Gathering been quietly been swept into the dustbin? Mormon Scholar Kathleen Flake explains that around the turn of the 20th Century there was a subtle but significant shift in Mormonism:

Instead of being admonished to do the works and receive the blessings of Abraham, the Latter-day Saints were encouraged aged to manifest Yankee virtues and Progressive Era values. Exhortations to missionary work overtook the other elements of nineteenth-century millennialism; growth, not gathering to Zion, became the rallying cry. During Joseph F. Smith’s tenure, immigration to Utah was officially ended, and the church began to build centers of membership abroad.
(Kathleen Flake, “The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle”, Kindle Locations 1690-1693, Kindle Edition)

Then in the mid-Twentieth Century, the Gathering to Zion was quietly phased out during the David O. McKay administration. As Greg Prince, the biographer of David O. McKay explains:

David O. McKay brought this church into the 20th century, even though he got started halfway through that century. We were a church that still was insular. We brought people to Salt Lake. He said, “Let’s reverse that. Stay where you are. Grow where you’re planted. Make the church a vital force throughout the world.”
(Greg Prince interviewed in the PBS Documentary “The Mormons”, Part Two. Quote from official show transcript.) 

Thus, today, having someone immigrate to Zion as part of the Gathering to Zion is the exception, not the rule. The Gathering to Zion doctrine is now, it’s explained, a spiritual, not a physical gathering. And the LdS Church is trying to send the original Gathering to Zion doctrine down the Memory Hole by rewriting its own history so that it reads like this:

Why did so many faithful members leave their home countries in those early days of the Church? Many reasons can be named: to escape persecution, to help build the Church in America, to improve their economic circumstances, to be close to a temple, and many more.
(Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “First Presidency Message: Developing Christlike Attributes”, Ensign, October 2008, p.7)

So down the Orwellian memory hole goes real history! It’s 1984 all over again, “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.” (George Orville,“1984”, Kindle Locations 1053-1054, Pandora’s Box. Kindle Edition) And thus, modern Mormons are given misinformation to cover up the hard reality that the only constant when it comes to Mormon Doctrine is constant change.  Tomorrow’s LdS Church will be very different from today’s church. Tomorrow’s “eternal gospel” will be very different than the Mormon gospel that’s taught today. And, as it has always been, Mormon Leaders will have to lie in order to give members the illusion that nothing has changed, all is well in Zion, and the gospel is as it has always been.

But this is the problem with dust-binned, man-contrived, bad theology, isn’t it? It still leaves carnage in its wake. It leaves a mess. And by forcing good men to lie to cover up the truth it has left a trail of incriminated dust behind Mormon Leaders since Joseph Smith onward, hasn’t it?

By their fruit, you shall know them indeed.

Bales and bales of shredded paper and cardboard waiting to be converted into paper-mash and then reformed into new paper products. The original will then, of course, be lost to the Memory Hole.

BACK TO TOP

A playful take on the "I'm A Mormon" website that introduced in 2011 and taken down in 2018.

“‘Mormonism’ is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed.”
(Joseph Smith, “Letter to James Arlington…”, September 8, 1842, “History of The Church”, 5:156)

by Fred W. Anson
If you’re still scratching your head over current LdS President, Russell M. Nelson’s public denunciation of the words “Mormon”, “LDS” and all their various variations and derivations as it relates to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you’re not alone. In case you missed it, here’s what he said:

The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.
(LdS President, Russell M. Nelson quoted in Sarah Jane Weaver, ‘“Mormon” Is Out: Church Releases Statement on How to Refer to the Organization’, Official LdS Church News website, August 16, 2018)  

The same article then goes on to offer new style guide directives including the following:

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

  • In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
  • When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.
  • While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation “LDS” or the nickname “Mormon” as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “Church of the Latter-day Saints.”
  • When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used.
  • “Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as “Mormon Trail.”
  • The term “Mormonism” is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture, and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” is accurate and preferred.
  • When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, it should be stated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups.
    (ibid)

In my 40+ years in Mormon Studies, I thought that I had seen some real head-scratchers from the Mormon side of the divide, but this one absolutely tops the list. And then when President Nelson doubled now on this absurdity in the Fall 2018 General Conference, things went from, “What is he thinking?” to eye rolling and facepalming. After all, how can you help it when you’re hearing over the top public rhetoric like this:

The name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.
(President Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church”, Fall General Conference, October 2018, italics in original) 

And, yes, President Nelson was correct when he said, “In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms—designed to obliterate God’s hand in restoring the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.” (ibid, italics in original), but so what? As Easton’s Bible Dictionary explains, the word “Christian” was also originally an epithet that was used by the enemies of the primitive Christians too:

Christian the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were “brethren,” “the faithful,” “elect,” “saints,” “believers.” But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name “Christian” came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).
(“Christian”, Easton’s Bible Dictionary) 

And like the word “Christian”, the word “Mormon” has become nothing more than shorthand for the ridiculously long (43-digit to be exact), “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and its various derivations. This directive makes no sense from any perspective. There’s no nice way to say it, it is both inane and insane! I mean, does President Nelson, or anyone else for that matter, really think that outsiders are going to start referring to Mormons as “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? Or Mormon Missionaries as “Missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? And if he really thinks that he’s going to get mainstream Christians and journalists to replace the word “Mormonism” with the term “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” when they’re  “referring to the combination of doctrine, culture, and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, then he needs to wake up and smell the Postum. As Mormon author Jana Riess correctly observed:

This is problematic for reporters and writers. It is not the job of a religion-neutral media to adopt or validate the truth claims of whatever religions they’re writing about. Some denominational names do have truth claims already baked in—is Roman Catholic really catholic, meaning universal? Is Orthodox really orthodox, meaning doctrinally pure? Have Reformed Christians and Reform Jews actually changed from the traditions that preceded them? Etc.—but in those cases, the truth claims have been part of the religion’s name for centuries.
(Jana Riess, “The name ‘Mormon’: Why all the fuss, and why now?”, Religion News Service website, October 20, 2018)  

Friends, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the words “Mormon”, “Mormonism”, or the abbreviation “LDS” (or more accurately “LdS”) any more than there is anything wrong with the words “Presbyterian”, “Baptist”, “Methodist”, “Lutheran”, “Calvinist”, “Catholic”, or whatever. Using those terms doesn’t offend the Savior, it doesn’t disregard all that Jesus Christ did for us (even His Atonement), and it doesn’t give Satan a victory of any kind. The suggestion that it does any of that is utter and complete madness! They’re just words that encapsulate much bigger, more complex social constructs, cultures, and systems of theology – nothing more. As the aforementioned Jana Riess noted elsewhere:

Given that the LDS Church has not suggested any substitute that is actually workable when referring to its members, the name “Mormon” is here to stay. Rather than fighting it, why doesn’t the Church just embrace it? Its own powerful and often delightful “I’m a Mormon” campaign is not going to have nearly the same descriptive power when it becomes the “I’m Affiliated with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” campaign, or somesuch silliness.
(Jana Riess, “I’m a Mormon! But I’m not supposed to call myself that anymore.”, Religion News Service website, August 17, 2018)  

Think about it. Are we really to believe that Christ is so thin-skinned that He gets his nose out of joint if folks don’t constantly and explicitly drop His Name – like some kind of ego-driven, self-absorbed prima donna? Is He like a small child in a sandbox angrily shaking His fist at the world while shouting, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me!” Doesn’t that image of an immature, divaish Christ seem utterly foreign to the implacable, down-to-earth, “velvet-covered brick” that we see in the New Testament gospels? Is it anything like the no-nonsense, sword-wielding, take no prisoners, all-powerful, overcoming Sovereign that we see in the Book of Revelation?

The strong, steadfast, faithful and transcendent Jesus of the Bible is the Lord and Savior that I know and love. And He’s not someone, who with everything else that’s going on in the world, gnat-strains over what people call His Church like some petty, persnickety, Pharisee getting more and more incensed with every  “mint, dill, and cumin” uptick of the tally.

So, given all that, Beggar’s Bread has exactly no (that is, zero) intention of joining President Nelson in his bizarre Escher’s world of unreality. To coin a phrase, he’s not our President. And if for some reason you consider that stance harsh, inflexible, or unreasonable, I would just point you to the pages of history and consider that fact that not only did Mormon Leaders prior to Mr. Nelson have no problem with the words, they made them their own and took ownership of them. The rest of this article is nothing more than examples of this. And to make the point even clearer for the reader, I have bolded every instance of “Mormon” or “Mormonism” in the text.

And if Mr. Nelson takes issue with anyone calling him on his folly I would suggest that he take it up with these guys – especially the first one.

And You're A Mormon 05

“Joseph Smith Receives the Gold Plates” by Kenneth Riley

Joseph Smith: Great Prophet of the Restoration (of Mormonism)
‘“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’”
(Joseph Smith, “Correspondence”, Times and Seasons, May 15, 1843, 4:194; also see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300)

“The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul—civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race.”
(Joseph Smith, “History of the Church”, 5:498–99; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 9, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Willard Richards)

“The inquiry is frequently made of me, “Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?” In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of “Mormonism” is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”
(Joseph Smith, “Sunday , July 9, 1843 – Meeting in the Grove”, “History of The Church”, 5:499)

Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”‘
(Joseph Smith, “Discourse — Burden of the Prophet’s Ministry — Friendship”, “History of the Church”, 5:517); also see “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p.316)

“Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of “Mormonism“; [it is designed] to revolutionize and civilize the world, and cause wars and contentions to cease and men to become friends and brothers. Even the wolf and the lamb shall dwell together; the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf, the young lion and the fatling; and a little child shall lead them; the bear and the cow shall lie down together, and the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall play on the cockatrice’s den; and they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountains, saith the Lord of hosts. (Isaiah.)”
(Joseph Smith, “Discourse — Burden of the Prophet’s Ministry — Friendship”, “History of the Church”, 5:517)

Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraced it felt himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, falls at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth…

Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth…. [Y]ou may think that it is a broad assertion that it is truth; but … the first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same; we feel ourselves bound by the laws of God, to observe and do strictly, with all our hearts, all things whatsoever is manifest unto us by the highest degree of testimony that God has committed us, as written in the old and new Testament, or any where else, by any manifestation, whereof we know that it has come from God: and has application to us, being adapted to our situation and circumstances; age, and generation of life; and that we have a perfect, and indefeasible right, to embrace all such commandments, and do them…. And again, we believe that it is our privilege to reject all things, whatsoever is clearly manifested to us that they do not have a bearing upon us.
(Joseph Smith, “To Isaac Galland, March 22, 1839,” Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p.420-421, ellipses mine)

“Hell may pour forth its rage like the burning lava of mount Vesuvius, or of Etna, or of the most terrible of the burning mountains; and yet shall “Mormonism” stand. Water, fire, truth and God are all realities. Truth is “Mormonism.” God is the author of it. He is our shield. It is by Him we received our birth.”
(Joseph Smith, “The Prophet’s Epistle to the Church, Written in Liberty Prison, Liberty Jail, Clay County, Missouri, March 25, 1839”, History of the Church, 3:297)

“Peace and prosperity attend us; and we have favor in the sight of God and virtuous men. The time was, when we were looked upon as deceivers, and that “Mormonism” would soon pass away, come to nought, and be forgotten. But the time has gone by when it is looked upon as a transient matter, or a bubble on the wave, and it is now taking a deep hold in the hearts and affections of all those who are nobleminded enough to lay aside the prejudice of education, and investigate the subject with candor and honesty. The truth, like the sturdy oak, has stood unhurt amid the contending elements, which have beat upon it with tremendous force. The floods have rolled, wave after wave, in quick succession, and have not swallowed it up.”
(Joseph Smith, “Report of the First Presidency”, General Conference, April 7, 1841, History of the Church 4:337)

And I'm A Mormon 01

Close up of a bronze sculpture in Temple Square depicting Joseph Smith receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of the ancient apostles, Peter, James and John.

The Baton is Passed: The Mormon Leaders Who Followed
“They [Joseph Smith the Prophet and his brother, Hyrum Smith] were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.”
(Doctrine & Covenants 135:7, Bracketed text derived from context.) 

“Do you belong to the Methodist’s society? And have you got the truth? It is right, that truth is ‘Mormonism,’ it is my property. Are you a Quaker? It is no matter, if you have the truth, that same truth is mine. Are you a Catholic, and have got the truth? That is my doctrine, and I will not quarrel about it”
(Brigham Young, July 24, 1853, “Journal of Discourses”, 1:243-244)

“The Universalists say that we are all going to heaven in a heap together, and if they believe their religion they do not trouble themselves about ‘Mormonism.’ Though I confess that I think the most of them are like the old man who was a strong believer in Universalism, and, while walking among his cattle, and musing over his doctrine, stepped up to a favorite ox, and said to him­self, ‘I believe the doctrine of the Universalists, but, old Bright, as well as I love you, I would willingly give you if I knew it was true.’ You find a man who does not believe in any religious doctrines, who does not believe in a future existence, and what does he care about ‘Mormonism?’ Nothing at all”
(Brigham Young, February 18, 1855, “Journal of Discourses”, 2:180)

“‘Mormonism,’ so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to ‘Mormonism.’ The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. ‘Mormon­ism’ includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods”
(Brigham Young, “Discourses of Brigham Young”, p.3)

“A Duty to Listen to the Truth-Do not say, ‘You are Mormons, and we do not want to hear anything about you.’ Wait until you have searched and researched and have obtained wisdom to under­stand what we preach, or to prove it to be untrue. If you cannot prove it untrue and are not disposed to receive it, let it alone. If it is the work of God, it will stand. What do you say, outsiders? What do you say, Christian world and heathen world? If we have the truth to present to you, which will do you good here and hereaf­ter, which will save you today and tomorrow and every day, until it saves you in the Kingdom of God and brings you to a perfect state of felicity and happiness in the presence of the Father, will you have it?”
(Brigham Young, “Discourses of Brigham Young”, p.435)

“Brethren and sisters, our friends wish to know our feelings to­wards the Government. I answer, they are first-rate, and we will prove it too, as you will see if you only live long enough, for that we shall live to prove it is certain; and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the ‘Mormon’ Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it”
(Brigham Young, February 18, 1855, “Journal of Discourses”, 2:182)

The “Eyes Westward” Statue. This is a bronze statue of LdS Presidents Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. This bronze sculpture is located in Nauvoo, Illinois along the bank of the Mississippi River and in Salt Lake City, Utah at Heritage Park. It signifies the plans of the LdS Church’s move to the west, ultimately settling along the Rocky Mountains in what’s now known as The State of Utah.

“Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we Mormons are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young, to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world”
(B.H. Roberts, “Mormon Doctrine of Deity”, pp.42-43)

“Now I come to us, Mormons. We are the only true Church, so we say. We have the only true faith, so we say and believe. I believe we have many great and true principles revealed from the heavens. I will tell you how I feel about it, and what I have said many times when I have been abroad among the priests, people, and philoso­phers. If any man under the heavens can show me one principle of error that I have entertained, I will lay it aside forthwith, and be thankful for the information”
(John Taylor, “The Gospel Kingdom”, p.50)

“WE HAVE frequently said that perhaps the grandest thought that has ever been brought forth to the children of men is the Mormon truism, namely: ‘As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.’ The foundation of that truism is in this revelation and these words we have just read”
(Melvin J. Ballard, “Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard”, p.238)

“It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
(Bernard p.Brockbank, “The Living Christ,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1977, p.26)

“…Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp… It teaches men that they can become divine, that man is God in embryo, that God was once man in mortality, and that the only difference between Gods, angels and men is a difference in education and develop­ment. Is such a religion to be sneered at? It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are king­doms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same prin­ciples that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet”
(Orson F. Whitney, June 9, 1895, “Collected Discourses”, 4:336-337. Ellipses mine)

Mormonism teaches that God was once just like ourselves; that the eternal part of Him was enshrined in mortal flesh, subject to mortal ills and earthly pains and toils. I do not now refer to the experience of the Savior in the meridian of time. I mean that in the far away aeons of the past God once dwelt upon an earth like this, and that through its trials and vicissitudes and the experience they afforded He became a more intelligent being than before, ascending finally by obedience to certain principles, ennobling and exalting in their nature, to the plane which He now occupies. These truths, forming the ladder up which He climbed to celes­tial heights, up which we too are expected to climb from earth to heaven, from mortality to immortality, from a world where grief and sorrow reign, to a better and brighter sphere where sorrow and suffering are unknown—these truths are self-existent and eternal. God did not create them”
(Orson F. Whitney, May 6, 1892, “Collected Discourses” 3:45)

William W. Major captures details in this oil on canvas painting of the faces of this group of Mormon leaders: Hyrum Smith, Willard Richards, Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Parley Parker Pratt, Orson Hyde, Heber Chase Kimball, and Brigham Young.

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, “Doctrines of Salvation”, 1:188. Italics in original)

“And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest broth­er, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God: and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!”
(W.W. Phelps, December 25, 1844, “Times and Seasons”, 5:758)

“I thank God for ‘Mormonism,’ so-called; it is the power of God unto salvation”
(Joseph F. Smith, “Gospel Doctrine”, 1986 edition, p.97)

“Time and time again my heart has been melted, my eyes have wept tears of gratitude for the knowledge that He lives and that this gospel called Mormonism is in very deed the plan of life and salvation, that it is the only true gospel upon the face of the earth, that it is in very deed the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ”
(Heber J. Grant, “Gospel Standards”, p.197-198; Given in General Conference October 1918)

“Seven hundred years before the birth of our Savior, a prophet of God upon the eastern hemisphere predicted the coming forth of ‘a marvelous work and a wonder.’ ‘Mormonism,’ so called, ac­cording the faith of its adherents, is the fulfilment of that ancient prediction”
(Orson F. Whitney, “Conference Reports”, October 1916, p.51)

“However, a more important question for us today is this: ‘Are the so-called ‘Mormons’ true Christians and does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contain the elements of a world-wide Christian religion?’ It is my sincere belief and testimony that the Latter-day Saints commonly called ‘Mormons,’ are Christians in the truest and fullest sense of the term, and that this Church is world-wide in its comprehensiveness, in organization, and in its blessing and salvation of the human family. As true Christianity should and as it did in the days of the Savior, ‘Mormonism’ com­bines the essential elements in the teachings of Israel’s prophets, priests and sages; and in accepting the Jehovah of the Old Testa­ment as the Savior of mankind, it fulfils the noblest aspirations of the Hebrew race, thereby indicating a world-wide scope so far as Israel’s people and Israel’s God are concerned”
(David O. McKay, “Conference Reports”, April 1927, pp.104-105)

“To us, and to all the world to whom ‘Mormonism’ has been pro­claimed, has come the law by which the people of the world are to be judged. I want to say to the world to whom ‘Mormonism’ has come, or may come in the future, that it is unto them the savour of life unto life, or of death unto death, according as they receive it and live it, or as they reject it”
(George F. Richards, “Conference Reports”, April 1908, p.40)

Satan gaining a major victory via the 2014 Thomas S. Monson era feature film, “Meet the Mormons”.

Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail”
(Bruce R. McConkie, “Mormon Doc­trine”, 1966, p.513)

Mormonism is the wonder of this world, and the great leveling machine of creeds, constitutions, kingdoms, countries, divisions, notions, notorieties and novelties; and praise it, talk about it, lie about it, exalt it, degrade it, blow at it, sneer at it, fear it, love it, hate it, persecute it, or laugh at it, still it is Mormonism, true as heaven, powerful as Jesus, eternal as element, going on conquer­ing and to conquer!”
(W.W. Phelps, “Times and Seasons”, 5:758)

Mormonism’ is not exclu­sive. It does not claim that all who have failed to accept and obey the gospel of eternal life shall be eternally and forever damned”
(James E. Talmage, “Articles of Faith”, 1984, p.468)

“You might as well deny ‘Mormonism,’ and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned”
(Heber C. Kimball, October 12, 1856, “Journal of Discourses”, 5:203)

“…Mormonism be it true or false, holds out to men the greatest inducements that the human mind can grasp…It teaches that the worlds on high, the stars that glitter in the blue vault of heaven, are kingdoms of God, that they were once earths like this, that they have been redeemed and glorified by the same laws, the same principles that are applied to this planet, and by which it will ascend to a perfected and glorified state. It teaches that these worlds are peopled with human beings, God’s sons and daughters, and that every husband and father, may become an Adam, and every wife and mother an Eve, to some future planet”
(Orson F. Whitney, June 9, 1895, “Collected Discourses”, 4:336. Ellipses mine)

First Counselor, soon to be LdS President, Gordon B. Hinckley (1995-2008) offending the Savior and giving Satan a major victory in Fall General Conference 1990.

“There is no predestination in Mormon theology. Free agency is a sacred gift, divinely bestowed. Here is the answer to the old question, ‘If God loves his children, why does he permit war and strife and kindred evils?’ Because he holds inviolable the right given man to choose his own way, between good and evil, between life and destruction. (What of the Mormons? pamphlet, 1982, pp.6-7.)”
(Gordon B. Hinckley, “Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley”, p.55)

“Well done for Mor­monism; one hundred and forty four thousand GODS, among the tribes of Israel, and, two living Gods and the Holy Ghost, for this world! Such knowledge is too wonderful for men, unless they pos­sess the spirit of Gods”
(John Taylor, “The Gospel Kingdom”, p.29)

“Oppose it in this way, and teach your children to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight their is no truth in Mormonism
(Orson Pratt, October 7, 1874, “Journal of Discourses”, 17:225. Ellipses mine)

“They [Mormons] are generally classed as Protestants, since they are not Catholic. Actually they are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism. Neither historically nor on the basis of modern association, theology, or practice can they be grouped with either. …Suffice it to say that its theology, its organization, and its practices are in many respects entirely unique among today’s Christian denominations”
(Gordon B. Hinckley, What of the Mormons? a non-paginated tract, 1976. Brackets and ellipses mine. Bracketed word choice derived from context.)

Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadul­terated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p.513)

“The Mormons believe that all men were born in the spirit world of the union of the sexes, having a literal father and a literal moth­er before coming to this world, that the spirits are just the same in appearance as the body, that God is a married Being, has a wife at least, as Jeremiah said the angels were offering incense to the queen of heaven. The Latter-day Saints believe that God is an ex­alted Man, and that we are the offspring of Him and His wife.
(George Q. Cannon, “Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of Presi­dent George Q. Cannon”, 1:129)

Mormonism does not tend to debase God to the level of man, but to exalt man to the perfection of God”
(Charles Penrose, cited in “The Gospel Through the Ages”, p.107)

“How did this state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view”
(John Taylor, “The Gospel King­dom”, p.6)

“The Mormons believe that all men were born in the spirit world of the union of the sexes, having a literal father and a literal moth­er before coming to this world… The Latter-day Saints believe that God is an exalted Man, and that we are the offspring of Him and His wife.
(George Q. Cannon, “Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon”, 1:129)

“All men, regardless of the degree of their guilt or innocence, will be resurrected from the dead, and this belief also becomes a foun­dation stone in the structure of the Mormon Church. But in ad­dition to this general salvation through the atonement, every soul that lives in mortality to the age of responsibility may place himself within the reach of divine mercy and may obtain a remission of sin”
(Hugh B. Brown, “Conference Reports”, April 1965, p.43)

“We Latter-day Saints have that new revelation. We have a new prophet and new scriptures also, which, added to the Bible, now point the way. This new revelation brought with it the true under­standing of the nature of God and a restoration of primitive Chris­tianity. That restoration is Mormonism. It came about through the ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun. He saw God and com­muned with him, even as did Moses”
(Mark E. Petersen, “Conference Reports”, April 1964, p.19)

“What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young will be the head. God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it”
(Orson Hyde, “Journal of Discourses”, 7:53)

Man’s destiny is a God-like one. We do not worry about evolution. We have the true doctrine. The ‘Mormon’ Prophet set forth the eter­nal law of progression”
(John A. Widtsoe, “The Divine Mission of Joseph Smith”, “Handbook of the Restoration: A Selection of Gospel Themes Discussed by Various Authors”, pp.35-36)

“Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (D&C 115:4).”
(Marion G. Romney, “We, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, General Conference, April 1979)

“The term Mormon can be appropriately used in some contexts to refer to members of the Church, such as Mormon pioneers, or to institutions, such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Church members are widely known as Mormons, and in interactions with those not of our faith, we may fittingly refer to ourselves as Mormons, provided we couple this with the full name of the Church.”
(M. Russell Ballard, “Following Up,” General Conference, April 2014)

“CHRISTIANITY WILL BEAR HONEST INVESTIGATION.— We call ourselves Christians, that is, we Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Mormons, we all call ourselves Christians. Well, perhaps we are, and then, perhaps we are not”
(John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p.75, caps in original)

“The Latter-day Saints, so commonly called “Mormons,” have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an ‘inferior race’”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 4:170)

“Enemies of the Church, or stupid people, reading also that Adam is ‘our father and our God’ have heralded far and wide that the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was begotten of Adam”
(John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.56)

The President Thomas S. Monson administration (2008-2018) giving Satan a worldwide major victory with the 2011 “I’m a Mormon” media campaign – which also included the 2014 “Meet the Mormons” feature film.

(The author would like to thank the “Preaching From an Asbestos Suit: Reasoning With Mormons on the Internet” Facebook group for their assistance in helping me research and harvest the historical quotes used in this article) 

BACK TO TOP