The Undergrad Heretic

Sarah Palin and Historical Revisionsim

2011-06-07T17:44:00.000-06:00

I have on occasion, posted on issues of relevant political interest to the public at large. Sarah Palin's latest bout of historical revisionism has caused a number of debates on online forums including Wikipedia.

Conservapedia, a website I often view for entertainment purposes, had a distinctly different story about Paul Revere just a few weeks ago than the one purported by Palin. Nevertheless, rather than willing to admit Palin was off her rocker, Conservapedians have defied history (and logic) by coming to her defense.

The following images contain the before and after images of Conservapedia's page on Paul Revere in light of Palin's recent comments.

Nibley's D-Day Elephant Epiphany

2011-06-06T02:16:00.001-06:00

I make no apology when I say I love the work of the late LDS scholar Hugh Nibley. Though I have a number of points upon which Nibley and I might disagree, his work has impacted my life in a number of remarkable ways. Many a late night has found me pouring over thousands of pages of groundbreaking material that remains foundational to Mormon scholarship. In addition, two Nibley biographies are also available to the inquiring reader which are invaluable when investigating the life of a man who was never short of words.

It's June 6, 2011 - the 67th anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, in which Nibley participated as a member of the 101st Airborne' Division's "Screaming Eagles." The following is to me, what epitomized Nibley. In what should have been one of the most nerve-wracking moments of his life (and I'm sure it may have been), Nibley recounts a short story of what he was actually thinking about for a portion of that fateful day in 1944. It remains an anecdote I've always enjoyed, and one I hope to never forget.

"[June 6, 1944] They had just lowered my jeep into the landing craft, and I was going down the rope ladder into the jeep when I had a thought that troubled me. I thought, "Joseph Smith slipped up when he had elephants in the Book of Mormon. The Americas didn't have any elephants." Then it suddenly occurred to me: "The elephants are only mentioned in the book of Ether. That's the archaic period. That could have been around then very well. They're not mentioned in the Nephite story at all." I had this thought as I was coming down the ladder into the landing craft and that suddenly corrected my perspective on the problem, and I said, "That's just the thing! That's just right! How very happy I feel!" (Sergeant Nibley PhD: Memories of An Unlikely Screaming Eagle, Hugh Nibley, Alex Nibley ed., Salt Lake City, Shadow Mountain, 2006, pg. 109)

*Image from HistoryNet.com

Mormonism, Polygamy, and the Age of Consent

2011-02-07T22:51:00.002-07:00

Nearly two years ago I was asked by a friend to compile a summary thesis on Joseph Smith's involvement in plural marriage, particularly with reference to the age of consent. The interest in this subject is only heightened when factions with roots stemming back to Mormonism continue polygamous marriages, as well as the ongoing prosecution of former FLDS leader Warren Jeffs.

Since originally posting this information, I have received numerous e-mails from complete strangers expressing gratitude for the material. Yet I cannot take credit for something I did on my own. Since Mormon Fundamentalism is something that has intrigued me for years, the best thing I can do is recommend a few sources that shed a great deal of light on the extent of Mormon polygamy.

First and foremost, Todd Compton's work In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith is the most thorough biographical sketch of the wives of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. Mormons and non-Mormons alike would do themselves a great service by acquainting themselves with this material.

Another valuable resource documenting the history of Mormon polygamy is still hot off the press. The Persistence of Polygamy, edited by Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster is arguably the most impressive book published on the subject to date. If there is a course manual outlining the role of polygamy within Mormonism, this is it.

I also highly recommend works published by Brian C. Hales, Richard L. Bushman, Don Bradley, and for the ever-faithful skeptic, D. Michael Quinn, if further inquiry is necessary.

The following work on the age of consent in Mormon polygamy appears on pages 21-23 of Brian C. Hales' Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism. (This is by far the most affordable summary of Mormon polygamy).

"It is true that Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders were sealed to women as young to women as young as fourteen. However, historical evidence demonstrates that sexual relations were not a part of the relationships until the women were older. Eugene E. Campbell described Brigham Young's standard which undoubtedly began in Nauvoo, regarding young plural brides:

"One of the more distressing developments was the number of men asking Young for permission to marry girls too young to bear children. To one man at Fort Supply, Young explained, (I don't object to your taking sisters named in your letter to wife if they are not too young and their parents and your president and all connected are satisfied, but I do not want children to be married to men before an age which their mothers can generally best determine.) Writing to another man in Spanish Fork, he said, "Go ahead and marry them, but leave the children to grow.) A third man in Alpine City was instructed, (It is your privelege to take more wives, but set a good example to the people, and leave the children long enough with their parents to get their growth, strength, and maturity.) To Louis Robinson, head of the church at Fort Bridger, Young advised, (Take good women, but let the children grow, they they will be able to bear children after a few years without injury.) Another man in Santa Clara was told that it would be wise to marry an Indian girl, but only if she were mature."

"Perhaps President Young's counsel is why one study showed the average age for plural wives married in one area of Utah during the nineteenth century was around twenty.
Future President of the Church Wilford Woodruff married a fifteen-year-old girl named Emma Smith on November 11, 1843. Concerning that marriage, historian Thomas G. Alexander surmised: (He probably refrained from sexual relations with Emma until she became older, since she did not bear her first child, Hyrum Smith Woodruff, until October 4, 1857, seven months after she turned nineteen.

Similarly, another apostle, Lorenzo Snow, waited until his future wife was older, rather than marrying her at age fourteen.

(While the Houtz family were still living in Nauvoo, on a Sunday, Elenor and her parents were leaving church when Lorenzo Snow joined them. As they walked along, Lorenzo asked Elenor if she would promise one day to become his wife. Though, at the time she was only fourteen, she did make that promise. It has been erroneously written that she married at fourteen but church records and a letter written by Elenor to her Uncle Jacob Houtz, state her marriage date as 19 January, 1848 [when she was eighteen]. She was married at Mt. Pisgah by Brigham Young.)

"It is significant that the Nauvoo City Council passed an ordinance on February 17, 1842, raising the minimum ages for marriage: (All male persons over the age of seventeen years, and females over the age of fourteen years, may contract and be joined in marriage, provided, in all cases where either party is a minor, the consent of parents or guardians be first had.) Attorney Melina McTigue observed that concerning the cultural norms of that era: (Early English law set the age of consent at ten, the age was gradually raised over the years. In the nineteenth century, most states had set the age of consent at ten. A few states began by using twelve as the cutoff; Delaware set the age of consent at seven.)"

"The Mormon fundamentalist practice of marrying and having children by young teenagers greatly contrasts the practice of early Church pluralists, who were counseled to wait until their younger wives had matured before initiating physical relations that could result in pregnancy."*

* Selected from Brian C. Hales, Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism. Millenial Press, (2008) pgs 21-23.

Russell M. Nelson on the Historicity of the Book of Mormon

2011-02-03T19:22:00.002-07:00

In recent months I've moved away from a strictly "apologetic" perspective on how I view Mormonism. However, there are times when I feel objections deserve reasonable answers, and something happened today that illustrated my point.

I attend a university owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where 99.3% of the student body shares my faith (one-fourth of whom are married). Today was like most days, though I opted to bring my laptop to campus for a group project later in the day. In a few brief moments between classes I got on Facebook (seriously, who doesn't check their Facebook at least five times a day?) to see a few updates from friends and family.

Not all of my friends share my faith; in fact most of them don't. Some are Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, or atheists, and several hail from Evangelical, fundamentalist, or Reformed Protestant churches. Some love talking about Mormonism, which comes as no surprise to me, especially when they don't shy away about their contempt for it.

As I sat on a cushioned bench outside the Jacob Spori Art Gallery, a Calvinist friend of mine posted a link to a YouTube video he described as "Very Interesting" alleging that Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was denying that the Book of Mormon was a "historical book." Intrigued, I checked it out.

McCraney: I thought you would find this quote from M. Russell Nelson (sic) in the Priesthood Session quite ironic. Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.' You can find that on lds.org. You see, you know what they're doing now, is they're going to get away. Because evidence is going to show more and more that it is not a historical book. The Bible--a historical book that you can trust. God works through reality, not through dreams and fanciful visions. They are more and more finding that that Book of Mormon is going to be under scrutiny, so you have an Apostle saying 'share the Book of Mormon, but make sure you tell them--not a novel, and it's not a historical book.' What would that make it? It would make it fiction, or a revelation? And they're probably going to rely more and more on the idea that Joseph Smith received revelation about this book, rather than it actually being a literal, historical event, which is what they taught me, and showed me, and actually you know showed me maps and stuff of where everything happened. Not anymore.

The video features ex-Mormon Shawn McCraney, a self-proclaimed "born-again Mormon" talking about Elder Nelson's supposed denial of the Book of Mormon making any sort of historical claims. This, on the other hand, did come as a surprise to me. It wasn't as though I'd never heard of the talk. I watched it live as it was being given. I read the printed copy of it the month after it was broadcast and never noticed the alleged claim. In fact, it would have been monumental, if only it was true.

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book. It is another testament of Jesus Christ. Its very purpose is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” There is a power in this book that can touch the hearts and lift the lives of honest seekers of truth. Invite your friend to read the book prayerfully.The Prophet Joseph Smith said “that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”The Book of Mormon teaches of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and is the instrument by which God will fulfill His ancient promise to gather scattered Israel in these latter days.

It's easy to see, McCraney is simply reading something into the text that isn't there, or at least in this segment, whether knowingly or unknowingly, altering the wording of Elder Nelson's address to suit what he would have preferred Nelson to say. Elder Nelson wasn't denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon, he simply outlined the fact that the Book of Mormon is not formatted like a novel or history book. It reads as scripture, for the purpose of convincing all people that Jesus is the Christ.

I believe the Book of Mormon is reflective of various events that actually happened. I believe there was a man named Lehi, and that his environment described in the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon fits remarkably well into a preexilic, Israelite setting. I believe King Benjamin's address in Mosiah 2-5 ties in wonderfully to the ancient patterns and rituals found to be connected with the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). I could easily go on, but I'll suffice with this.

If an LDS apostle were to claim outright that the Book of Mormon was fiction, that it was all figurative revelation given to the prophet Joseph Smith, then I'm quite confident that we'd know about it. However, the LDS Church maintains rather emphatically, that the Book of Mormon is describing historical events.

McCraney believes that the historical validity of the Bible proves its truthfulness. He couldn't be more wrong. I think my friend Kerry Shirts sums it up best.

After commenting on my friend's video, he removed the entire link from his profile later in the day. Perhaps the issue isn't as "interesting" as it was touted to be.

Moving Past Mormon Racism

2011-01-17T20:53:00.003-07:00

I’ve always been intrigued by the Book of Mormon. From an early age I found myself repetitively drawn to the stories of Lehi and Nephi, of Enos and Alma, through the final verses of Moroni.

Fundamentalism exists in every faith. It demands a literalistic and sometimes simplistic interpretation that is easy to accept, but easily criticized. It is difficult to move beyond fundamentalist views on scripture as a child. I moved on.

I began to examine the Book of Mormon from an academic perspective shortly before serving as a missionary. Several months of work in the neighborhoods of East Fort Worth led me to reconsider my worldviews on race, gender, and ethics and general. I came away as a very different person than who I was prior to my mission.

I always had an appreciation for the Civil Rights movement, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As a child I had friends from every race. As far as I was concerned, “all [were] alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33, Moroni 8:17). I remember well as a teen fresh out of high school reading the words of the late LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley:

“There is strength in our diversity. But there is greater strength in the God-given mandate to each of us to work for the uplifting and blessing of all His sons and daughters, regardless of their ethnic or national origin or other differences.

“We are sons and daughters of God, each a member of the divine family. As surely as He is our father, we are all brothers and sisters. We simply must work unitedly to remove from our hearts and to drive from our society all elements of hatred, bigotry, racism, and other divisive actions and words that limit a person’s ability to progress, learn, and be fully accepted. Snide remarks or racial slurs, hateful epithets, malicious gossip, and mean and vicious rumormongering have no place among us.” (Standing for Something, 55-56)

As is the case with many Mormon intellectuals, I was troubled by statements made by previous Church leaders in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that by today’s standards would be considered racist. To those unfamiliar with the examination and dissemination of Victorian-era racial sympathies, their statements can be difficult to move past.

I was aware of the Church’s ban on black Africans from receiving the priesthood prior to June, 1978. I had known about it since I was in grade school, but never examined it. As a missionary (like many missionaries do), I tried to look at the ban from a doctrinal perspective, even going so far as to hold the belief that blacks must have somehow been “less valiant” in the pre-existence than others. I spoke with other Mormons who agreed with me, but one in particular changed my perspective completely.

Sister Hamblin was middle-aged businesswoman, a returned missionary, and newly married. When the subject of the priesthood ban came up during a dinner appointment, she stood firm about the fact that while church leaders had speculated about the origin and purpose of the ban, she extended the invitation to me to become more cautious about what statements I believed as authoritative, and what statements were speculative. She stopped short of telling me that as an official representative of the LDS Church, I was speaking out of line. I got the hint.

I began a journey examining why I believed certain things. I rationalized different reasons why there was a ban in the first place. Could Latter-day prophets and apostles really be “inspired” and yet make racist comments? After my mission I found a speech given by the late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in which he discussed the very issue that troubled me. Even more surprising to me was the way in which Elder McConkie poignantly addressed the subject. “There are statements,” McConkie noted:

“…in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, ‘You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?’ And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

It was an amazing concept for me. They spoke with limited understanding. Contrary to a very fundamentalist assumption held by many Latter-day Saints (and most critics), not everything said by a General Authority constitutes the doctrine of the Church. A fundamental tenet of the Church is the concept of continuing revelation; that God speaks to His prophets “line upon line, precept upon precept” (D&C 98:12, 128: 21, 2 Nephi 28:30, Isaiah 28:13).

As a Latter-day Saint I accept the fact that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (A of F 9). In this sense, I view Mormonism as philosophically “progressive” in theory, though I find this less evident in actual practice among lay membership. From this viewpoint, I accept that the Church instituted the priesthood ban based on a limited understanding. As paradoxical as it may seem for some, I try to remember that it was the early Apostle Paul who noted that we “see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Paul, probably more than most people who have passed through mortality, understood the nuances of living in a world with limited understanding. It was Paul’s letters in the New Testament that allude so much to the unknown, to the mysteries which were withheld from mankind. While I will not venture to say that Paul forbade giving the priesthood to black Africans, I believe the concept of the “mysteries of Godliness” can be applied to issues such the institution of the ban itself.

Equally valid criticisms of Mormonism rest not in the statements of General Authorities, but in Mormon scripture. Just today (MLK Jr. Day) an Evangelical associate of mine quipped:

“In honor of MLK day, here's a unifying passage from the Book of Mormon: "And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites" (3 Nephi 2:14-15).”

He related further:

“I don't think the fact that the LDS church has a history of discrimination is what's so alarming - that in itself would be hypocritical on an evangelical's part. However, there are verses in the Book of Mormon which very clearly say that white skin is superior to dark skin. Some of these verses have changed "white" to "pure", but examples such as this verse in 3 Nephi still remain. Why doesn't the LDS church take them out? What is an African American to think upon reading this?

The problem with this ordeal is not that it is proving men in LDS history to be racist - they are human, after all. The problem here is that it is indicating that God prefers white skin, which just simply is not the case. Jesus himself was Jewish, obviously. This is just another nail in the coffin proving to me that the Book of Mormon cannot not (sic) possibly be true.”

My associate’s comments stirred up a number of replies from those with views sympathetic to his own. While accusations of racism are valid, they need to be understood in their proper context. Mormon historian Richard Bushman of Claremont Graduate University had this to say regarding racism and its relation to the Book of Mormon:

“Despite the absences in the text, the Book of Mormon has been universally thought of as an attempted history of the American Indians. One of the evidences, in the critics’ view, is its blatant racism. Not far into the story, the Lamanites, the presumed ancestors of the Indians, are marked with a dark skin: “The Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” This act resembles the curse of God on Cain in Genesis, the beginning, according to later Christian readings, of the black race. In the Book of Mormon, the curse comes because of the Lamanites’ stubborn adherence to a false tradition about Nephi’s usurpation of authority. These troublesome ideas about skin color are followed with stereotypical descriptions of Lamanite savagery. The Lamanites are “an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.” Ferocious and blood-thirsty, half-naked and garbed in skins, they launch unprovoked attacks on civilized Nephite cities. These passages sound like the Jacksonian view of Indians common to most Americans in 1830.

"But the fact that these wild people are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians’ place in world history, assigning them a more glorious future than modern American whites. All the derogatory descriptions of Lamanites notwithstanding, the Indians emerge as God’s chosen people. They are not viewed as a pathetic civilization moving inevitably toward their doom, as sympathetic observers in Joseph’s time depicted them. According to the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are destined to be restored to favor with God and given this land, just as the Jews are to be restored to the Holy Land. A similar ambivalence about Indians runs through all Christian missionary efforts in these years, but the Book of Mormon carries it to an extreme. While the Lamanites are cursed and degraded, they are also at times the most righteous of all the Book of Mormon peoples. In one episode, as the Lamanites bury their weapons and refuse to fight, a narrator asks, “Has there been so great love in all the land? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, there has not even among the Nephites.” At one point the Nephites become so wicked, a Lamanite prophet calls them to repentance. Lamanite degradation in not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, “they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them.” In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish and the dark Lamanites remain.

"In its very nature, the Book of Mormon overturns conventional American racism. The book makes Indians the founders of civilization in the New World. The master history of America’s origins is not about Columbus or the Puritans but about native peoples. History is imagined from the ancient inhabitants’ point of view. European migrants are called “Gentiles” in the Book of Mormon and come onstage as interlopers. They appear late in the narrative and remain secondary to the end. The land belongs to the Indians.

"The primary role of the Gentiles is to serve the natives, to build them up by bringing them the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If the Gentiles fail to help Israel, they are doomed. After nourishing the remnant of Jacob, they must join Israel or perish. If they don’t choose Israel, the native peoples will terrorize the Gentiles. Christ tells the Book of Mormon people that “ye shall be among them, as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through, both treadeth down and teareth in pieces.” One might expect predictions of violent retribution against whites in the writings of a black abolitionist like David Walker, who predicted the vengeance of God on slaveholders for their abuse of African slaves, but it is extraordinary coming from a white northern farmer speaking about Indians. As one scholar puts it, the Book of Mormon is a “ruthlessly tragic narrative that chronicles the destruction of the white race and foresees the fruition of the dark race.” The Book of Mormon is not just sympathetic to Indians; it grants them dominance—in history, in God’s esteem, and in future ownership of the American continent.” (Rough Stone Rolling 97-99)

Of deeper interest to me, and to readers of this post, might be the alleged "softening" of certain passages in the Book of Mormon text in which accusations of racism often stem. Failing to acknowledge the historical and cultural motifs of these passages often leave us scratching our heads. Hugh Nibley, a pioneer in Mormon scholarship and the Church Educational System, addressed the issue for his Book of Mormon class:

"Well, I just picked up one from de Buck's Reading Book (pp. 73–74). It's called The Autobiography of Kai. He lived a short time before Nephi. He was an important man, and he gave his titles. He started out by saying, "I, Kai was the son of a man who was neḫet and s^cḥ [who was worthy and wise]." And Nephi started out saying, "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents." Then Kai goes on to talk about himself here. Incidentally, I notice he referred to himself down here as ḥd-ḥr (white of countenance), nfr bi•t (excellent of character), pḫ3 h•t (clean of body and in moral habits). And he shunned everything that was snk•wt. The word is very interesting. It means "black of countenance," and it also means "greed or anything that is evil." Notice, in the Book of Mormon, that peculiar thing: "a white and delightsome people" and "a dark and loathsome people." It doesn't refer to skin color at all, but there's a lot about race in the Book of Mormon. That comes in here already; we can see that. But here, you notice he used those peculiar terms. He was ḥd-ḥr. He has a picture of a white face (white of countenance). And he was clean of body, and he eschewed snk•wt (what is greedy or what is dark of countenance)."

In recent years I have come to the conclusion that simplistic explanations and charges of racism in the Book of Mormon narrative fail to grasp the deeper complexities and context of racial issues. From an Evangelical standpoint, accusations of Mormon racism are dwarfed in comparison to the accounts of Israelites committing genocide on Canaanite peoples, very racially motivated acts contained in what are believed to be infallibly-written historical accounts of the ancient Near East. In short, it is always wise to avoid throwing stones in glass houses.

While I could further elaborate, I feel I’ve made my point. With limited understanding we can see the world as very small. Divisive fundamentalism, as exhibited in my previous views about race and its relation to Mormonism, and further illustrated through the charges of my Evangelical associate, do not stand the tests of academia or time. Of this myopic fundamentalism, Newsweek’s Andrew Romano notes:

“…they seek refuge from the complexity and confusion of modern life in the comforting embrace of an authoritarian scripture and the imagined past it supposedly represents. Like other fundamentalists, they see in their good book only what they want to see: confirmation of their preexisting beliefs. Like other fundamentalists, they don’t sweat the details, and they ignore all ambiguities. And like other fundamentalists, they make enemies or evildoers of those who disagree with their doctrine.”

I realize my perspectives may not be accepted by all Latter-day Saints. Opposition is something I’m used to. But scholastic and theological illiteracy is never an excuse to stop seeking further light and knowledge. I’m not content with being a “Green Jell-O Mormon.” Nor should anyone else. The best thing I can do as a Latter-day Saint is further progress.

"Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come" (D&C 130:18-19).

Sister Wives: Are they Mormons?

2010-09-26T21:13:00.009-06:00

What's with polygamy and Mormonism anyway?

The questions surrounding polygamy are virtually endless. One term that has become almost synonymous with the word “polygamy” is the word “Mormon.” Any person with an elementary understanding about the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) will tell you, “Mormons don’t practice polygamy.” But what about those who claim to be Mormons, and yet still practice it? Better yet, why?

A brief history of Mormon polygamy

As early as 1831, Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement was asking questions about plural marriage. Latter-day Saints consider themselves to be “Restorationists”; that is, restoring the beliefs and practices of the early Christian church and the Bible through modern theological applications. Plural marriage was believed to be a part of the practices of the ancient prophets, as illustrated through such Biblical passages as Genesis 16: 1-11; 25:1; 29:8; 30:4, 9, 26; Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 17:15-17; 21:15; 2 Samuel 2:2; 5:13; 12:7-9; 1 Kings 11:1-4; 2 Chronicles 13:21; 24:3; and Isaiah 4:1.

Joseph Smith began practicing plural marriage as early as 1833 to 1835 by marrying Fanny Alger; a relationship that quickly dissolved without much notice from lay members of the Church initially, though Oliver Cowdery, a major figure in Mormon history would later refer to the relationship as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” In 1843, a revelation to Joseph concerning certain aspects of plural marriage in relation to Mormon temple practices and theology was received. Joseph would be killed within a year by a mob of critics and dissenters who counted plural marriage among their list of grievances against him.

The "Principle"

Even after Joseph’s death, plural marriage was not set up as a commandment among practicing Mormons. In 1852, Brigham Young, Joseph’s successor, would make the practice known to the Church as a whole. Within ten years, the first legislation banning plural marriage was passed in Congress. Most Mormons never practiced polygamy, as only 15-25% were ever involved in it. While the Territory of Utah had several thousand emigrants arriving each year, statehood was not possible as long as plural marriage was being practiced among the Mormons. Utah had also granted women the right to vote, which angered anti-polygamy lawmakers in the east. In 1890, an Official Proclamation to the Church was read by Mormon Church President Wilford Woodruff, setting in stone a system of policies that would eventually prohibit polygamy among the Mormons.

Why did it end?

Eventually, questions would arise concerning the validity of Joseph Smith’s first revelation. If Joseph was told by God to practice polygamy, why would God prohibit it later? There are a number of factors that must be applied in properly answering this question. It may surprise some readers of this blog to know that the Book of Mormon, the “keystone” of the Mormon religion, relatively frowns on polygamy. Jacob, an ancient prophet in the Book of Mormon narrative condemned the unauthorized practice of plural marriage; that is, those who felt they were justified in taking additional wives without a revelation or approval from God. Said Jacob:

“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2: 27-30)

Thus the feasible reason to justify plural marriage according to the Book of Mormon was for the purpose of “raising up seed,” otherwise, monogamy was always the commandment. What then, about the revelation? Was it meant to be eternal? Was it temporal? Aren’t the laws of God higher than the laws of men? Why did polygamy stop? A revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants answers this question completely.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.” (D&C 124:49)

As far as plural marriage was concerned, all that had been required among the Mormons had been complete. They had fought legislation for over 30 years. Church leaders were forced to go into hiding, many of whom spent time in prison for the practice. Church property was being confiscated and the Church was being disenfranchised. Wilford Woodruff’s Official Declaration reconciled the demands of the United States’ Government and the freedom of worship among Latter-day Saints. Those who practiced the principle were no longer required to live in plural marriages.

The rise of Mormon fundamentalism

Polygamy still continued among the Mormons after the 1890 manifesto. In 1904, LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith (himself a polygamist) ended the practice completely by releasing a second manifesto. Soon, all those who entered into plural marriages after the second manifesto were excommunicated. The new policy did not sit well with a small number of Mormons, particularly those who were already living the principle.

Eventually, splinter groups formed in spite of the new policies. All Mormons who were found participating in these groups were excommunicated. Those who joined these splinter groups are known as fundamentalists, or “Mormon fundamentalists.” The two largest fundamentalist splinter groups are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Apostolic United Brethren, also referred to as “The Work,” “The Priesthood,” or “The Group.” The AUB is much more open to media outlets than the FLDS and are much less oppressive, not typically wearing “prairie burkas” that have been associated with other fundamentalist groups. The group forbids underage marriage, assimilates relatively well into surrounding communities and allows children to attend public schools due in large part to the late Owen Allred, a former leader of the sect.

Where do the Brown’s fit into this picture?

Sister Wives - First Sneak Peek
Kody, the family patriarch was raised in Northern Wyoming. His father in turn, joined the Apostolic United Brethren while Kody was a teenager. Kody subsequently joined the sect and married Meri (raised in a polygamist home) Janelle (formerly LDS raised in a monogamous home) and Christine (raised in a polygamist home). From the first episode, Kody has done a good job at distinguishing the differences between his own sect and that of the mainstream LDS Church which prohibited plural marriage over a hundred years ago, a comparison he likens to “Catholics and Protestants.”

The only other mention of the LDS Church was made by Janelle, who of course was raised in an LDS home, became friends with Kody and Meri, and subsequently joined the sect and married Kody after she experienced what she called a “spiritual witness.” The family has daily prayers, formatted similarly to prayers said in typical Latter-day Saint homes. The children kneel and “fold their arms” like typical LDS families, which may be an influence from Janelle’s LDS upbringing. The Brown family policy is that “love should be multiplied, not divided.”

Sister Wives chronicles the Brown family’s adjustment to Kody taking a fourth wife, Robyn, who was raised in a polygamous home and is a divorced mother of three. As a side note her home featured a painting of Christ by the popular Latter-day Saint artist Greg Olsen. Given the fact that Olsen’s paintings can be found in homes of those of virtually any faith, the existence of such a painting is not conclusive evidence that Robyn is a member of the LDS faith.

What does this all mean?

In my opinion, members of the LDS Church should not be concerned with Sister Wives or the misconceptions and caricatures that are often associated with polygamy and the LDS Church. While I do not support the practice of plural marriage by fundamentalist sects, as a Latter-day Saint I feel that as long as proper clarifications are made between the groups, there should be no relative repercussions from inquiring minds as future episodes of Sister Wives continue to unfold. Latter-day Saints and inquiring minds need only know that plural marriage, as it was practiced from 1852-1904 is no longer practiced by the Church today. There is no relationship whatsoever between the LDS Church and the Apostolic United Brethren.

Further Reading

Setting the Record Straight: Mormon Fundamentalism, Brian C. Hales, Orem, UT. Millennial Press. 2008

Setting the Record Straight: Mormons & Polygamy, Jessie L. Embry, Orem, UT. Millennial Press. 2007

In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Todd M. Compton, Salt Lake City UT. Signature Books. 1997

www.mormonfundamentalism.com

Lifetime's "The 19th Wife:" Responding to Inaccuracies

2010-09-14T11:24:00.010-06:00

I decided to watch it on Lifetime with my laptop open. Below, are a few preliminary thoughts on the movie itself. There are several *Spoiler Alerts* in what I’ve compiled, so if you plan on seeing the film and don’t want to know what happens, don’t continue any further. Summarily, my wife told me afterwards, “That movie was so bad that it made me sick.” While I agree with her that the movie was bad, this was not an epic fail on the same scale as “September Dawn,” given the fact that the “real” LDS Church is portrayed in the film as an organization willing to help those who leave the fictional polygamous sect based in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona. However, the historical “flashbacks” recounting the story of Ann Eliza Young ARE problematic for a number of reasons, and these, among other issues, will be discussed here. As a disclaimer, I only saw the movie once, and at times I struggled to keep up with typing some of the things I was hearing. If there are mistakes in transcription, they are my own and I take full responsibility for them.
The Lifetime-produced film is an adaptation of a book written by David Ebershoff entitled “The 19th Wife.” From Lifetime’s website:

“The 19th Wife” book connects a modern-day murder mystery in a polygamous community with authentic work written by Ann Eliza Young over a century ago. Ann Eliza was formerly a plural wife, married to the leader of the Mormon Church in 1875. She rejected polygamy and became an outspoken critic, aiming to expose her views about the evils of plural-marriage arrangements. In the present-day story, Jordan Scott is a young man who was expelled from his polygamous community in his early teen years. After struggling to adjust to an unknown world, he creates a new life and moves on from his traumatizing upbringing. When he discovers that his mother is being charged in the murder of his father, Jordan reluctantly returns to face his past, and ultimately risk his safety to uncover the truth. The true tale of Ann Eliza Young and the fictional drama of Jordan Scott make for a page-turning story.”

The film begins with Crime Scene Investigators busily photographing and bagging evidence. A murder has happened in the fictional Northern Arizona town of Mesadale, a few miles south of St. George. Red rocked cliffs and buttes are absent. Southern Utah/Northern Arizona isn’t a desert in this film, just as it wasn’t in September Dawn. If anything, it looks like Northwest Montana during a wet spring with glacier-capped mountains surrounding a lush, green valley.

A suspect, BeckyLyn Scott is taken into custody, the murdered man’s 19th of at least 25 wives. She’s shown her prison quarters and forced to cut her long hair which we learn is a sin, because women are supposed to use it to “wash their husband’s feet” in heaven. That’s right; forget the resurrection boys and girls, the Book of Mormon promise that no hair would be lost doesn’t apply to this group. The women of the Mesadale cringe at the thought that their sister-wife is sitting in jail with “Gentiles.” The women at the “compound” are dressed in long sleeved and modest pastel dresses, typical of many current Fundamentalist sects. Their hair is worn up or in braids, one of the few things the producers of the film wanted to portray accurately.

As police continue their investigation, the “Prophet” appears on the crime scene in usual, anti-authoritarian fashion. Ominous music plays in each scene he enters throughout the film as sect members refer to him as “Prophet” or “THE Prophet.” The film soon changes scenes to sunny Southern California to the home of Jordan Scott, an excommunicated sect member and son of the woman suspected of killing “Elder Scott,” the murdered man and father of Jordan. Jordan opens his mailbox to find a letter with no return address containing a newspaper clipping with the headline reading that a murder had took place in a “Renegade Mormon Sect.” He immediately drives to Utah to speak with his accused mother. Unlike the film version, the book version reveals that Jordan was excommunicated from the sect because he was gay. The film version does not state that Jordan was gay. If anything, he was "competition" for other males, and was thus eliminated, a practice utilized by current Fundamentalists today. In response to Lifetime's "De-Gaying" of Ebershoff's original version, Ebershoff was disappointed. According to AfterElton.com Ebershoff stated:

I had no role in the adaptation. A few weeks before filming began I learned that Jordan had been rewritten as straight. I was told that this was a network decision. Obviously I was offended, disappointed, and baffled. I hope that the movie sends people to the book so that they can meet my Jordan, along with his boyfriend, Tom, and their dogs, Elektra and Joey.

The “Gentile-dressed” Jordan returns to Mesadale to find Queenie, a former (and predictably attractive) girlfriend from his youth whom he consults on the goings-on in the community. Queenie is married to Hiram, the local Mesadale policeman and resident Danite, though the term “Danite” does not appear in the film. As expected, the “apostate” Jordan and Hiram don’t get along. Jordan and Queenie recount their experiences at school together, listening to catechismic recorded sermons from the Prophet who oft repeated the phrases “A righteous boy will populate the earth…A righteous boy will kill his enemies.” An impending apocalyptic war between the “righteous” and the “apostates” fills the minds of sect members. Jordan recounts the story of his abandonment, presumably because he was “competing” for the attention of Queenie. He is told, among other things, to change out of his “sacred freaking underwear” and is dropped off as a teenage “lost boy” on a lonely road somewhere in Southern Utah.

The book version states that Jordan eventually finds his way to Salt Lake City to the "Ann Eliza House," a safehouse for former sect members. From one book reviewer:

Jordan is saved by Kelly, now running the Ann Eliza Young House in modern day Salt Lake City. There she helps abandoned and shattered Mormon kids victimized by the Fundamentalists’ polygamy and the LDS homophobia. According to Jordan, Kelly saves him because “….she wasn’t just helping, assisting, offering a hand. No, she was researching, reading, learning, talking, understanding. Working hard to understand, wanting to understand, telling herself that’s the most important thing she can do. And it meant more to me than anything else. She got it… She got me. She knew I had been completely totally royally screwed.”

Jordan encourages Queenie to leave, telling her that people from the “real Mormon Church” can help people who leave the sect. Queenie is shown in possession of a book by Ann Eliza Young entitled “Wife No. 19.” She’s already having doubts about plural marriage and her faith. The book only serves to solidify those doubts, as well as acting as a “parallel history” to her own life. Historical “flashbacks” tell the story of Ann Eliza in addition to that of the modern murder-mystery. Queenie’s husband eventually finds the book and is furious that she would bring in a book “from the outside.”

Eventually Jordan is chased out of town via the resident Danite, Hiram. Jordan drives into St. George to consult with his mother’s lawyer, a sect member named Heber. Though she’s only being charged with 2nd degree murder, blood atonement is in store for her via the Utah Department of Corrections if BeckyLyn doesn’t “confess” to murdering her husband. BeckyLyn proclaims her innocence from the beginning. Jordan visits a bustling St. George coffeehouse where he meets one of his “sisters” through one of his father’s wives. Her name is Sarah, who is apparently the fifth daughter named Sarah, thus earning her the nickname “Five.” Five left the sect a month earlier and has lost her faith. Five takes a “liking” to Jordan, though they are related through marriage. How she is able to thrive on the “outside” without any documentation and no previous vocational or educational experience outside the home is questionable.

Meanwhile back in Mesadale, Hiram confronts Queenie about Jordan’s visit. Queenie is told to “follow the commandments of the Church by obeying your husband,” further solidifying a strict, male-only authoritarianism that prevails in the community. Women aren’t allowed to leave Mesadale, though Hiram allows his only wife Queenie to occasionally drive into St. George. Those who have visited grocery stores in St. George on any given day will typically find FLDS women driving around and shopping with their children…but the filmmakers are trying to prove a point. This group is oppressive! Women have no freedom in any form of polygamy!

Jordan and Queenie eventually meet up and make a visit to Heber’s law office. They steal court documents with evidence related to the murder behind the sect-friendly Heber’s back. It is discovered that the murdered Elder Scott was involved in several online chat rooms, convincing women to join his sect and become his wives. He was also having an affair with a woman from Mesquite, who shared a love for gambling with Scott. Upon returning to Mesadale, the Prophet “honors” the home of Hiram and Queenie and removes the jacket of their only daughter. The music ominously plays in the background as though it is a horror film. The girl looks terrified, as does her mother. Hiram is told that he is to take another wife, this time a 14 year old girl. After the Prophet leaves, Queenie expresses her reservations about her husband receiving a girl so young. Hiram also seems reluctant, though he appeals to
“prophetic counsel” in his defense.

At various points, the historical “flashbacks” to Ann Eliza’s account find their way into the film. The first scene shows Ann Eliza on the prairie road alone, whereupon Brigham Young picks her up in his carriage and to Ann Eliza’s discomfort “escorts” her home, asking her about the truthfulness of the rumors that she had refused marriage proposals from previous suitors. She confirms the rumors, to which Brigham responds “It is the duty of all the saints in Zion (pronounced in the film ‘Zeye-ahwn’) to marry.”

Further scenes show Ann Eliza’s parents consulting with her on the subject of marriage. It is made clear that Mr. Webb will be “paid” for his daughter’s hand, and Mrs. Webb assures her daughter that “plural marriage is not a choice. It is God’s will.” Later we learn from Ann Eliza’s brother that “the prophet can do as he pleases. His power is absolute.” Ann is married to Brigham because her brother needs money to build a telegraph line.

Returning to the main story, the interior of the polygamous Scott home is shown. Towering on the wall overlooking the room are three picture frames resembling a First Presidency. The Prophet of the sect is featured prominently in the center, while two lower-tiered frames on both sides feature paintings of Brigham Young at his right hand, and Joseph Smith on his left. Latter-day Saints would easily recognize both pictures. The Prophet of the sect is featured with a white tie, looking suspiciously like the “official” portraits of previous FLDS leaders.

Queenie finds her way to the basement, sneaking Jordan into the house as well. They find Elder Scott’s office in the same condition it was when he was murdered. An adult magazine sits atop a copy of the Book of Mormon, the holy book which Jordan believes his father “never read.” Flipping through the pages of the book, a section has been carved out wherein a leather-bound daily log book is found known as a “Marriage Management book.” The text of the book is written in code using terminology associated with gambling so that only Elder Scott can understand. Later on, it is revealed that the book contains a record of birthdays and each time Scott is “intimate” with one of his wives. The log also reveals plans for Scott to get rid of his older wives and replace them with newer, younger wives. Ed Decker couldn’t write a more sensationalized script for a movie lampooning Mormonism.

Eventually we’re brought back to Ann Eliza’s story, who recounts her experience leading up to her “Wedding Night” with Brigham. In a typical, nineteenth-century anti-Mormon polemic fashion, Ann Eliza is told that she’s “coincidentally” the new 19th wife of Brigham Young. Of course, Brigham has had many more wives than that according to the story; Ann Eliza is only serving as a replacement wife for those who have grown too old. These old wives are “no longer wives in the biblical sense” because the older wives have “stepped aside for the potency of youth.” The “potency of youth” we learn from this sensationalized account, “is of the utmost importance to ‘Zeye-ahwn.’” The scene ends as a terrified Ann Eliza looks on as Brigham Young feverishly blows out the dark room’s only candle.

In the film she’s shown as someone who was previously unmarried. The fact was however, that she was a 24 year old divorcee with two children already. Records suggest that she was not Brigham’s 19th wife, but rather his 52nd. She was married to Brigham sometime around 1868-69. The movie portrays Brigham Young as a reckless libertine. While Ann Eliza enjoys the monetary rewards of being “the Prophet’s wife,” these luxuries would soon end for her. The only reason he would bother to visit Ann Eliza according to her own account was for his own self-gratification. After one such visit, Brigham crawls out of bed and boastfully informs her that she would be “cut off entirely” from all monetary support. She describes herself as “completely at the mercy” of Brigham Young and as “helpless as my mother.”

She eventually takes in “Gentile” boarders to make ends meet. Brigham refers to the Territory of Utah as “Desir-it” (Deseret), further complicating an already grossly distorted movie. The boarders counsel Ann Eliza to divorce Brigham, which she promptly does. The fact is however, she filed for divorce in January, 1873. Two years later, the divorce was finalized. Ann Eliza demanded a large amount of alimony. The court however, did not grant the alimony on account that plural marriages were not considered legal, thus invalidating her claims and potentially indicting herself and Brigham Young for unlawful cohabitation. The film portrays Ann Eliza as an innocent, persecuted victim who was driven from her home with her family in the middle of the night by an armed, torch-lit mob of Danites. Historical facts speak otherwise. She abandoned her children and lectured across the United States for years against the “evils of polygamy” which she regarded as “a system of bondage that is more cruel than African slavery ever was, since it claims to hold body and soul alike.” Ultimately, she would remarry and divorce years later.

The main story of the film later features the “apostate” Jordan being beaten by the sects own Danites. The Prophet appears at the home of the slain Elder Scott, assuring his widows that he would “marry each of them personally” the next day. The women worshipfully flock around him crying “oh Prophet, oh Prophet” as he surrounds himself with an ever-expanding marital group, assuring them that the “gates of heaven will be opened to them” because they are the Prophet’s wives. Ultimately, it is learned from the marriage log that BeckyLyn was “taken off the list” of her murdered husband’s wives because she’d grown “too old” and was “no longer useful.”

Eventually we learn the story of Five and her escape from Mesadale. As Church leaders counseled with her beneath the portraits of the sect leader, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith, they told her that she must marry an older member of the sect. She refuses, while the Prophet threatens her that he would kill her mother if she didn’t comply. “If you don’t marry Brother Scott as I have ordained,” he shouts as he presses her against a wall, “you’re going to find your Mother’s head in a bag.”
Later that night, Queenie lies in bed with her husband, assuming he is asleep. She confesses to her husband that she cannot “believe in plural marriage” not just for her, but for anyone. Hiram is pretending to be asleep as she does this, though the camera pans down to his insatiable rage. She eventually confesses to the “Prophet” that she doesn’t believe in plural marriage. He asks her about her love life and counsels that they shouldn’t use any form of birth control. “Womanhood” will provide an army as their “glory” to fight the battle between the righteous and the apostates in the last days. Jordan comes to her rescue and is warned by the Prophet that he’ll one day open his door “and find Miss Queenie’s head in a bag.” Seems like it’s a common threat.

Scenes soon return to BeckyLyn in prison, who proclaims “more than anything I want to believe that our prophet is infallible…my worst fear is that our prophet had something to do with your father’s death.” Her confession would indict him, hence the reason why she does not want to speak out against him. Queenie responds, “He can do anything that he wants to us.”

Five soon leaves St. George for family members on the outside. Jordan gives her a kiss on the mouth…something she awkwardly wanted from her polygamous brother in his late 20’s. This was surprisingly off-putting for both myself and my wife. DesertMissy, the code named woman who was having an affair with Elder Scott, acts as the Rosetta Stone for interpreting the code book which she “invented.” From this book, the intentions of Scott are soon known. He had been given the “Queen of Hearts,” his code name for the already married Queenie, as his future wife by the sect leader. Knowing that his wife would eventually become the wife of another, Hiram retaliated in his typical, Danite fashion by killing Elder Scott in his basement. Thus the crime is solved and Hiram is sent to prison.

Eventually Queenie vows to her now imprisoned husband that she will run as far away as she can “just like Ann Eliza did.” The formerly imprisoned mother of Jordan returns to her polygamous sister wives claiming “it’s too late now” to leave the faith. Queenie and her daughter change out of their oppressive "prairie burkas" and get cosmetic "makeovers." The film ends with Jordan and Queenie driving triumphantly out of Mesadale and a message detailing the future of Ann Eliza Young, who “disappeared in 1908” undoubtedly because she’d been “blood atoned” by Mormons who opposed her national crusade against polygamy. The fact is, she moved into relative obscurity after her revised edition of “Wife No. 19” failed to attract the readership that it had before. She simply had nothing new to say that hadn’t already been said. At least one historical record suggests that she died in Rochester, New York in 1925. Her divorce from her third husband may well have played a factor in her ultimate move into obscurity.

“The 19th Wife” is problematic for a number of reasons. For one, it presents the story of Ann Eliza Young as a historical fact. Not only was it a demonstrably false historical narrative, it also undermines the efforts of those who seek to accurately portray history. There will always be a demand for anti-Mormon propaganda. Given the heavy reliance on Ann Eliza’s sensationalized account of her experiences with plural marriage and exit from Mormonism, I cannot recommend this film to anyone legitimately interested in understanding the history of Mormonism, Brigham Young, or the various splinter groups that have formed in the last century from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Perhaps the film might be viewed solely for entertainment purposes, but not as an “authentic work” or “true tale of Ann Eliza Young.”

Summertime Anti(cs)

2010-08-01T22:22:00.013-06:00

I have to admit, I've been amused by some summertime antics employed by more than a few critics of the Church. The picture above shows MRM founder Bill McKeever (dark blue shirt) and Matt Slick of CARM (white shirt) challenging attendees of the Manti Pageant to feel how much the plates (if they were made of PURE GOLD) actually weighed, which according to McKeever and Slick, would have weighed around 100 lbs. It seems to be a favorite for the "professional" counter-cultists, who seem to take joy in watching young teenage boys unsuccessfully heave the "dumb" bell. Nevertheless, a great deal has been written on this subject that Latter-day Saints would do well to read. In what can only be described as complete ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation (I suspect it is the latter of the two), McKeever and Slick have only shown how literally desperate they are to find ANYTHING to disprove the Latter-day Saint faith. Want to engage them in your own Hug an anti at Manti* trip? Here's their cheat sheet if you're interested.

*Special thanks to Bob Vukich for coining this phrase.

Is the Mormon Jesus of Christmas the same Jesus of Christianity? Yes!

2009-12-05T20:04:00.005-07:00

December, 2009

The Christmas season brings joyous memories for me, as well as those who may or may not share the same beliefs as me. I love the spirit of Christmas being shown in the lives of many around me as we seek to commemorate the birth of the Savior. Christianity as a body has various traditions and dogmas surrounding this event, which sometimes conflict with the Biblical accounts of the Nativity.1 Some fundamentalist Christians have sought to exclude Latter-day Saints from the body of Christendom and their belief in Christmas because as they put it, “no greater contrast exists between Christianity and Mormonism.”2

Often we see music used as a means of incorporating the spirit of Christmas and other doctrines associated with it, though at times even these hymns or carols, written by Christians, contradict the Word of God.3 One particularly vocal critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rocky Hulse, has taken it upon himself to exclude the Latter-day Saints from Christianity based upon his own research concluding that “the [d]octrines (sic) of the Mormon Church concerning the birth of Jesus and who He was are as far apart as the east is from the west, when compared to the foundational teachings of Christianity!”4 Hulse uses the following straw-man 5 propositions in an effort to convince fellow Christians that Latter-day Saints believe in a different Jesus than the historical figure worshipped by nearly 2.1 billion people around the globe. 6 According to Hulse, Latter-day Saints believe that:

1. Jesus was not born of a virgin
2. Jesus’ birth was not a miracle
3. Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
4. Jesus was married at the wedding in Cana
5. Jesus was a polygamist and fathered children
6. Jesus was persecuted and crucified because he was a polygamist.

My objective as a student and instructor of LDS history and doctrine is to provide sufficient analysis of the above mentioned claims and others in defense of what are well-established and conclusive beliefs about Christ’s birth and ministry in Latter-day Saint thought.

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS NOT BORN OF A VIRGIN

Hulse uses statements from Brigham Young and others who use terms such as the “normal and natural course of events” regarding the conception and birth of the Savior to support this claim. Had no other information from these important figures in Church history existed then such claims are convincing. However, Hulse and his fellow critics conveniently ignore all other information that proves that such an interpretation of these statements is in fact incorrect.

From President Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doctrines of Salvation, it is said:

“Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because He is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, His mother, “was carried away in the Spirit” (1 Nephi 11:13-21), was “overshadowed” by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place “by the power of the Holy Ghost” resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10, 2 Nephi 17:14, Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38.)” 7

Further his son-in-law Elder Bruce R. McConkie states in Mormon Doctrine:

“Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.” 8

While Hulse seeks to convince readers that his sources reveal “that the Mormon Church does not believe in the Christian Foundational belief of the Virgin Birth,” the reality is that these quotes emphasize the eternal truth that Christ was both the spiritual and physical Son of God, and that His birth occurred in a normal course of events. There is no indication in any source cited by Hulse that God had “sexual relations with Mary” as Hulse and his fellow critics have intended. LDS scripture affirms that Mary gave birth to the Lord Jesus as a virgin.

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS’ BIRTH WAS NOT A MIRACLE

It is important to clarify that while Christ’s miraculous incarnation, atonement, and resurrection are central to Latter-day Saint belief, it does not support the extra-biblical notion of Immaculate Conception. This belief never set forth in scripture, states that Mary herself was conceived in her mother’s womb without the stain of original sin, and that she remained a virgin in latter life. Biblically speaking, Christ was born naturally as are all children. Luke’s Gospel states that Mary required purification after Jesus’ natural birth in accordance with Mosaic law,9 as well as other New Testament writings supporting that Mary gave birth to other children fathered by her husband Joseph.10

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS WAS NOT BORN IN BETHLEHEM

Alma 7:10 in the Book of Mormon states:

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the LAND OF OUR FOREFATHERS, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.” (Emphasis mine)

In response to this scripture, Hulse states,

“well folks that dog don’t hunt! The Book of Mormon, ‘The most correct book on the face of the earth,’ gets it wrong when it comes to the birthplace of the Savior. OOPS!!” 11

In a pattern of clear deception Hulse ignores the full text of the scripture conveniently leaving out the phrase “land of our forefathers” to prove to his audience that Mormons believe Jesus was born in the “city of Jerusalem.” He also disregards the fact that the term “land of Jerusalem,” though not appearing in the Bible, is attributed to the Prophet Jeremiah (a contemporary of Lehi) in the Dead Sea Scrolls in text 4Q385. 12 Alma’s reference was directed to individuals who had neither seen nor heard of Bethlehem, though they were somewhat familiar with the land of Jerusalem from which their ancestors had come. As such, Alma deemed the land of Jerusalem as the area in which the forthcoming Messiah would be born. It isn’t a matter of apologetics in explaining this. The text speaks for itself.

Hulse also speaks nothing of the fact that the term “city of David,” described in Luke 2:4 as Bethlehem, is also intimately used to describe the much larger and well-established city of Jerusalem just five meager miles to the north in 2 Kings 14:20 which states:
“And they brought him on horses: and he was buried AT JERUSALEM with his fathers IN THE CITY OF DAVID.” (Emphasis mine)
This is consistent with the usage of the ancient Middle East. El Amarna letter #287 reports that "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah." 13 I guess Alma was right after all Mr. Hulse. “Oops!”

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS MARRIED AT THE WEDDING IN CANA
Hulse argues that in order for Jesus to truly be the Christ, He could not have possibly been married. In doing so, Hulse has ignored some of the research of His own fellow Christian researchers who have dismissed this idea, including C.J De Catanzaro who refers to Mary of Magdala as “Jesus’ spouse. 14 Further, William E. Phipps expounded stating “[t]his authentic tradition would outweigh the late speculation and dogma in Gentile Christianity that Jesus was unmarried.” 15

There remains no official position in the Church as to whether Jesus was married. Hulse never responds to the original speculative question posed by Orson Hyde in which he proclaims: “Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and IF JESUS WAS NOT THE BRIDEGROOM ON THAT OCCASION, PLEASE TELL WHO WAS[?] (sic] If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified…I shall say here, that before our Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours;…” 16 (Emphasis mine)

Thus Hulse ignores the question posed by Orson Hyde rather than answering him to “acknowledge that he (Orson Hyde) is in error.” Contemporary scholarship continues to reveal more light on this subject, much to the unrelenting dismay of Mr. Hulse and his fellow fundamentalists.

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS WAS A POLYGAMIST AND FATHERED CHILDREN

As mentioned before, no official doctrine of the Church states that Christ was married to one or more wives, or that He had children. Members of the Church, as well as Church leaders both past and present are free to speculate on this matter, thus leaving the question open until further light and knowledge is revealed on the doctrine. If Jedediah M. Grant, Orson Hyde, and Orson Pratt speculated that the Lord was married while on the earth, they did not do so blindly. It is clear these men based their opinions on research contemporary to their day conducted by non-Mormon Christians including M. Clermont Gannaeu’s discovery of sarchephagi in 1873 that supports this idea. 17 One tombstone inscribes the name “SIMEON, SON OF JESUS” with others inscribing the biblical names of others in Bethany, prompting Dr. M. Zvi Udley to conclude that “[i]n all probability Simeon WAS A SON OF JESUS AND MARTHA and was that child who appeared at the crucifixion. 18

CRITICAL CLAIM: JESUS WAS PERSECUTED AND CRUCIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS A POLYGAMIST

I think Harold B. Lee summarized statements of other Church leaders on this subject quite clearly.

“All over the Church you're being asked this: "What does the Church think about this or that?" Have you ever heard anybody ask that question? "What does the Church think about the civil rights legislation?" "What do they think about the war?" "What do they think about drinking Coca-Cola or Sanka coffee?" Did you ever hear that? "What do they think about the Democratic Party or ticket or the Republican ticket?" Did you ever hear that? "How should we vote in this forthcoming election?" Now, with most all of those questions, if you answer them, you're going to be in trouble. Most all of them. Now, it's the smart man that will say, "There's only one man in this church that speaks for the Church, and I'm not that one man."

“I think nothing could get you into deep water quicker than to answer people on these things, when they say, "What does the Church think?" and you want to be smart, so you try to answer what the Church's policy is. Well, you're not the one to make the policies for the Church. You just remember what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. He said, "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). Well now, as teachers of our youth, you're not supposed to know anything except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. On that subject you're expected to be an expert. You're expected to know your subject. You're expected to have a testimony. And in that you'll have great strength. If the President of the Church has not declared the position of the Church, then you shouldn't go shopping for the answer.” 19

CONCLUSION: AN HONEST ANSWER

Mr. Hulse concluded his Christmas-related message of proclaiming what he believes to be the true God of Christianity by posing this question:

"ARE THE ABOVE TWO PAGES OF QUOTES THE BIBLICAL JESUS OF CHRISTIANITY, WHOSE BIRTH WE CELEBRATE DURING THIS CHRISTMAS SEASON; OR ARE THE ABOVE QUOTES THE FANTASY OF A FALSE RELIGION?" 20

I’ll allow my readers to draw their own conclusions, rather than implying that any other conclusion would be a “fantasy of a false religion.”

I am particularly reminded of something said by Dr. Daniel C. Peterson in response to a question posed much like that of Mr. Hulse. Is the Jesus of Mormonism the same as the Jesus of Christianity?

“An analogy with Walter Martin is indeed useful -- but not in the way you intend. Even though some persist in believing that he had legitimate academic credentials, their believing so does not -- fortunately --create a second Walter Martin, distinct from the historical one with the bogus degrees, the phony descent from Brigham Young, the fraudulent claim of being an ordained Southern Baptist minister, etc. Those who hold the true view of the charlatan Walter Martin and those who insist on another (false) view of him are still talking about the same Walter Martin. Their dispute about his character and some details of his biography does not yield two distinct Martins.” 21

Thus we see that even in various Christian denominations, different attributes and beliefs are applied to Christ which may or may not be true, yet these churches still refer to one another as Christians, whether they are Calvinists or Catholics.

May the spirit of Christmas be felt among ALL who seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ how, where, or what they may. Merry Christmas!

Tyler Andersen
Brigham Young University-Idaho

FOOTNOTES
1 Christmas Contradictions, Richard T. Ritenbaugh, Bible Tools, from: http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ESSAY/k/2213/Christmas-Contradictions.htm See also:
2 See Is the Mormon Jesus of Christmas the same Jesus of Christianity? No!, Rocky Hulse, Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, Jan. 2003, from: http://www.mormonoutreach.org/topics/Is%20the%20Mormon%20Jesus%20of%20Christmas%20the%20same%20Jesus%20of%20Christianity.htm
3 Unbiblical Christmas Carols?, Walter Snyder, Ask the Pastor, 16 December 2005, from http://xrysostom.blogspot.com/2005/12/unbiblical-christmas-carols.html
4 Ibid., Hulse
5 From Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
6 The 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia, compiled by David B. Barrett stated there were 2.1 billion Christians in the world, or 33% of the total population.
7 Doctrines of Salvation, Volume 1, pgs. 18-20, Joseph Fielding Smith
8 Mormon Doctrine, pg. 822, Bruce R. McConkie
9 See Luke 2:22-23, as well as its original citing in Leviticus 12:2-6
10 See Matthew 1:25, 12:46, 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19
11 Ibid., Hulse
12 The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, pgs. 57-58, Robert H. Eisenmann and Michael Wise
13 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament pg. 489, James B. Prichtard editor, translation by W.F. Albright and George E. Mendenhall
14 Was Jesus Married?, pg. 136, Ogden Kraut
15 Ibid., pg. 137
16 Journal of Discourses Volume 2, pg. 82
17 Ibid., Kraut, pg. 24
18 Ibid., pg. 92
19 Teachings of Harold B. Lee, pg. 445, Harold B. Lee
20 Ibid., Hulse pg. 2
21 A Different Jesus?, E-mail in possession of the author dated 18, September, 1998, Daniel C. Peterson

Evangelical/LDS Dialogue Part 4: The Virgin Birth

2009-11-30T20:35:00.003-07:00

Unquestionably the Virgin Birth is central to Biblical Christianity. To believe that God, a resurrected man, now God, came to earth and had sex with his own daughter to create Jesus is blasphemous to Christianity. I’m only going to give a few of numerous quotes from Mormon Prophets on down. Space won’t allow me to fully develop this. If you want a thorough review, in Chapter Two and Appendix Two of my book “When Salt Lake City Calls,” I give many more quotes and much more detail. -Rocky Hulse, Mormon Outreach

My own research has concluded the following:

Members of the LDS Church may be surprised to learn that many Christians teach that Christ was begotten of the Holy Ghost. The Apostles Creed, a doctrinal statement which is nearly universally accepted among Catholics and Protestants, states that "Jesus Christ... was conceived by the Holy Ghost" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 52; see also Mormon Doctrine, pp. 47-48,535-537). The creed sung in conjunction with the Holy Communion of the Church of England says: "Jesus Christ... Begotten not made, was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" (Ibid., pp. 291-292).

Although Matthew states that Mary was "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (1:18) and "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (1:20), Luke provides us a more detailed and clear account. While Matthew describes the visit of an unnamed angel to Joseph in only two verses, Luke takes ten verses to describe the visit of the angel Gabriel to Mary. The additional insight provided by Luke's account helps clarify Matthew's statement in this instance. He tells us initially that Jesus "shall be called the Son of the Highest" (1:32) and thereafter affirms Christ's divine sonship by informing us that the angel told Mary: "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (1:35), not the Holy Ghost. Luke and other inspired writers clearly used the titles "highest" and "most high" to refer to God the Father (Ps. 77:10; Luke 6:35-36; Rom. 8:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3; 1 Jn. 3:1, 10; 5:2, 5, 10-12). They also unmistakably believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God the Father (2 Jn. 3; see also Ps. 2:7, John 20:17; Acts 13:33; Rom. 15:6; 2
Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3,12-14; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; 1 Pet. 1:3). Three of the four Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus Christ also testify that Jesus Christ is Son of God the Father. Luke, for example, tells us that "the Holy Ghost descended in bodily shape like a dove upon him [Christ], and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22). It is clear that the Holy Ghost was present at the baptism while God the Father spoke from heaven declaring Jesus Christ to be his Son (see also Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; Mark 1:10-11; John 12:26-30).

Irenaeus (ca. 190 A.D.) in his exposition "Against Heresies" confirmed "that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, and so what was born (of her) is holy and the Son of God Most High, the Father of all..."(v. 3 as quoted in Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p. 388).

The Book of Mormon also clearly identifies God the Father as Christ's Father. 1 Nephi 11:18-21 reads:

... Behold the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the
Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

Alma testified that he knew "that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father..." (Alma 5:48). This statement is not unique to the Book of Mormon, New Testament authors as well used the phrase "only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9). It is interesting to note that Isaac was similarly referred to as Abraham's "only begotten son" (Heb. 11:17; see also Gen. 22:2, 16; Jacob 4:5). The
scriptural witness is clear, Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God the Father and Mary and of none else (Matt. 3:17; 16:16, 27; 17:5; 26:63-64; John 3:13-17; 5:18?20; 8:19; 20:17, 31; Heb. 1:1-3; 1 Pet. 1:3; 1 Jn. 1:3;
5:11; 2 Jn. 3; Rev. 1:6; 1 Nephi 13:40; 2 Nephi 25:12; Alma 13:9; 3 Nephi
11:7; D&C 20:21; 93:11; Moses 1:6, 33; 2:1, 26-27; 5:7).

The second part of this question asks by what means Christ was conceived. Although this would seem a delicate subject to most of us, the writers of the gospels apparently felt it was very important. The previously cited verses from Matthew, for example, are quite explicit concerning Mary's conception. Matthew and Luke clearly believed that this information was proof of the fulfillment of prophecy (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22-23) and crucial to the establishment of Christ's divinity (Isa. 9:6-7; Luke 1:35). Unfortunately, despite these scriptural accounts, Christians are highly divided on the facts concerning this event. In discussing this issue, other Christians often introduce misleading terms such as virgin birth and immaculate conception, which can cause further confusion and misunderstanding.

Although most of Christianity agrees that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary, there is ample disagreement as to what this actually means. Catholics, for example, believe that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ and for the rest of her life while Protestant scholars are largely divided on whether only the conception was miraculous or whether virginity was retained after both conception and birth.

LDS apostles and prophets affirm the virgin conception of Mary but also make it clear that the birth of the Savior was "as natural as the births of our children" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 8:211; see also Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Religious Truths Defined, p. 44; Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, pp. 741-742, 822). Mormons, therefore, do not believe in a miraculous birth nor that Mary remained a virgin in latter life. Luke confirms this view since Mary had to accomplish the required purification, following Mosaic law, after the opening of her womb at birth (Luke 2:22-23; see also Lev. 12:2-6). The fact that Mary later had other children is also made abundantly clear in Bible scripture (Matt. 1:25; 12:46; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).

The term immaculate conception, mentioned earlier, is defined as the view that Mary herself was conceived in her mother's womb without the stain of original sin. This false belief has no basis in scripture and is not accepted by the LDS Church (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 375). The "original" sin of Adam brought death into the world (1 Cor. 21?22) but it is our own sins that spiritually separate us from God. Jesus Christ atoned unconditionally for Adam's transgression (Rom. 5:11-18; Moses 6:54) and conditionally atoned for our own personal sins (Heb. 5:9).

Enemies of the Church have, through the years, made attempts to portray LDS doctrine as radically anti-Christian. Some, for example, have tried to use the above-cited words of our apostles and prophets and others to show that Mormons believe that God had "sexual intercourse with the virgin Mary". Quotes from Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine on the topic "Son of God" (pp. 741-742) and others by Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses; 1:51) and Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18) are misconstrued to convey a false concept of the truth. These quotes emphasize the fact that Christ was both the spiritual and physical Son of God and that Christ's birth took place in the normal course of events. None of the above statements indicates that God had "sexual relations with Mary" as some critics so shockingly contend. Indeed, even LDS scripture refutes this false doctrine and affirms our belief in a virgin conception (1 Nephi 11:13-21). While we do believe that Christ is the "only begotten Son" of God in the flesh (Ezra Taft Benson, Come Unto Christ, pp. 2-4, 128), I find no speculation by LDS leaders as to how this was accomplished. On the other hand, the importance of Christ's divine Sonship as the "only begotten" is
found throughout our scriptures and other LDS writings (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb. 5:5; 1 Jn. 4:9; 1 Nephi 11:18-21; Jacob 4:5, 11; Alma 12:33-34; 13:5; D&C 20:21; 29:42; 49:5; 76:13, 23-25; Moses 1:6, 33; 2:1, 26-27; 3:18; 4:1; 5:9; Jesus the Christ, p. 81; Mormon Doctrine, p. 546-547; Mortal
Messiah, 1:313-315). The only satisfactory interpretation of Christ's Sonship is a physical one since all men may be spiritually "begotten of God" by being born again (1 Jn. 5:18; Mosiah 5:7). Christ alone is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh (John 1:14). An understanding of this concept is critical since those who are not unified in the faith and of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13) and who deny his divine Sonship will not be among
those who overcome (1 Jn. 5:5).

Evangelical/LDS Dialogue Part 3 Deification

2009-11-27T18:36:00.003-07:00

3.Biblically, Jesus is God; Jesus was not a man who progressed to Godhood.

Joseph Smith, the 1st Prophet of Mormonism, said on April 6, 1844, just two months before his death:

“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, pg 3)

THAT BLASPHEMOUS STATEMENT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE!!

We’ve already seen John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Let’s put John 1:1 together with Psalm 90:2:

2. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalm, 90:2)

JESUS IS GOD, AND GOD ALWAYS HAS BEEN GOD! Instead of the man Christ climbing the ladder of achievement to Godhood (instead of man becoming God), GOD BECAME MAN! MORMONISM HAS IT EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF CHRISTIANITY! IN CHRISITIANITY, JESUS BECAME THE GOD-MAN: (PHILLIPIANS 2:5-8)

“5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

You see in Mormonism, man becomes god; in Christianity, God became man, to save us all.

POLYTHEISM: Poly = many, Theism = God; Polytheism = many Gods. Mormonism is Polytheistic. Mormonism believes the goal of every Mormon male is to become a God himself. What does the Bible say about Polytheism?

“5. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10) -Rocky Hulse, Mormon Outreach

You mention a score of issues with the above posting, once again using the illogical tactic of a "shotgun" approach by jamming various inconsistencies into one post hoping one claim hits a soft spot.

You assert that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus somehow needed to "progress" toward Godhood while on the earth. The problem with this statement is that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ was also the pre-existent Jehovah, and thus was deified before coming to earth as the "Only Begotten of the Father." You also fail to acknowledge the various quotes FROM THE BIBLE Joseph Smith uses in the King Follet discourse and in his rebuttal to the Nauvoo Expositor just days before his own death in regards to a plurality of deity. For your convenience, I'll use them now.

Rev. 1:6, 1 Cor. 8:4-6, 15:46-48, John 5:19, 10:33-34, 17:9-11, 1 John 5:7-8, Ex. 3:16, Rom. 8:15-17.

Latter-day Saints may not be accurately called Polytheists, though Henotheist is a more accurate definition. Henotheism, is a belief in and possible worship of, multiple gods of which One is supreme. The New Testament Christians were henotheists when they acknowledged other deity, yet worshiped the Father through His Son Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 8:4-6, John 5:18, Philip. 2:6)

If Christ can do nothing of himself but what he saw the Father do also, then why is it so blasphemous to say that Jesus Christ was once as we are now, who lived and breathed on this earth, remaining sinless. No statement or twisting of context can account for the fact that Latter-day Saints have never professed a belief that Christ was a sinner as you and I are. Even Christ said His Father was greater than himself (John 14:28). Thus Christ returned to His God, who is our God. (John 20:17) and became equal with His Father.

Also, very interesting that you bring up Isa. 43:10 which mentions that before Jehovah was no God formed. This is accurate as Christ was the Only begotten of the Father and the "Firstborn." This also has reference to Jehovah being created, in the statement "before me was no God formed" refuting the mainstream creedal Christian doctrine of creatio ex Nihilo. There could be no other who could be the Savior, as the next verse indicates "beside me there is no Savior." In context, Isaiah does not refute plural deity, but focuses Israel's worship toward their God as the Savior.

Evangelical/LDS Dialogue Part 2 Jesus the Only Begotten

2009-11-27T18:32:00.003-07:00

2. Biblically, Jesus is not the “first” of a long-line of spirit-children.

“If Christians everywhere only knew and believed that Christ was the Firstborn Son of a personal God in a pre-existent eternity,…” (What the MORMONS think of CHRIST, L.D.S. booklet, pg 36)

The Bible clearly teaches us that Jesus was from the beginning God.

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 -Rocky Hulse, Mormon Outreach

The New Testament does indeed identify Jesus as God the Father’s “only begotten Son.” While attempting to understand exactly what this phrase meant, however, it is important to note that the title was not always intended to be taken literally in antiquity. We know this by considering Paul’s statement regarding Isaac’s relationship to his father Abraham. In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is titled as Abraham’s “only begotten son,” despite the fact that Abraham also had a son named Ishmael.

Additionally, the great first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, used this same terminology when describing the son of Monobazus (the king of Adiabene). Josephus recorded, “[Monobazus] had other sons by other wives besides [Helena]. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son Izates.”
So, what does “only begotten” mean when speaking of sonship in this kind of context? The Greek term mon-og-en-ace’ (commonly translated as “only begotten”) was intended to denote that a son was unique, special, and of particular endearment—which would set him apart from other sons.

Given these facts, we can ask the question, “Could this meaning also apply to Jesus’ relationship to God the Father, being unique, special, and of particular endearment, thereby allowing a belief which includes Jesus having siblings?” Certainly.

Evangelical/ LDS Dialogue Part 1 Jesus and Lucifer Brothers

2009-11-27T18:12:00.003-07:00

1. Biblically, Jesus and Lucifer are not spirit-brothers. “The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind. (The Gospel Through the Ages, pg 15)

How can Jesus be the spirit brother of Lucifer when Colossians 1:16-17 tells us this:
“16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

The Creator cannot be brother of what He created. -Rocky Hulse, Mormon Outreach

The objection raised here concerning the so-called "uniquely unChristian" doctrine concerning the role of the Father and Son in the Divine Council, Lucifer, one of the creations of the Jehovah under the direction of Elohim.

The term "firstborn" implies that there are others born in the same family.
Since Jesus is the firstborn of God, one may infer that there were other
children of God in the premortal world. This is also suggested in Hebrews
12:9, which speaks of God as "the Father of spirits," in contrast with
"fathers of our flesh." Paul told the Athenians, "Forasmuch then as we are
the offspring [Greek genos, "race, kin"] 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" (Acts 17:29). That we all existed as spirits in the premortal world.
In a fifth-century Coptic Christian text, the Savior's mother speaks to the
resurrected Jesus about an incident that happened when he was but a boy.
While Jesus and Joseph were in the vineyard, a "spirit came out of the
height and came to me in my house, like unto thee . . . And the spirit said
unto me: 'Where is Jesus, my brother, that I meet with him?'" (Pistis Sophia
61). Though Christians would generally find it strange that a spirit would
call Jesus his "brother," it is perfectly in line with the teachings of the
restored Church.

One of the Christian Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in
1945 supports the concept of Christ being the brother of the premortal
spirits who came to earth. The text has the resurrected Savior saying, "I
came forth to reveal the glory to my kindred and my fellow spirits" (Second
Treatise of the Great Seth VII,2 50.22-24). At the end of the document, he
says, "I have been in the bosom of the father from the beginning, in the
place of the sons of the truth, and the Greatness. Rest then with me, my
fellow spirits and my brothers, for ever" (Second Treatise of the Great Seth
VII,2 70.5-10).

In Letter 108 to Eustochium, St. Jerome, writing of Jesus' birth, said,
"For in thee was born the prince begotten before Lucifer. Whose birth from
the Father is before all time." This suggests that even the devil and those
spirits who followed him were, in the premortal world, children of God.

Rosh Hashanah, the Book of Mormon, and Latter-day Temples

2009-11-24T18:19:00.011-07:00

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. -Revelation 14:6-7

WHAT IS ROSH HASHANAH?
In commemoration of the redemption of Israel from bondage, the LORD commanded Moses to:

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. -Leviticus 23:24

In rabbinic literature Rosh Hashanah is often referred to as The Day of the Blowing of the Shofar or in Hebrew, Yom Terua. Other traditional Hebrew texts surrounding the Tanakh describe Rosh Hashanah as The Day of Judgment-Yom ha-Din and The Day of Remembrance-Yom ha-Zikkaron.
Yom Terua signifies that #1, Israel has entered its final harvest, #2, the day God had set to remember His ancient promises to regather Israel, #3, the time when new revelation would lead to Israel's New Covenant, and #4, the time to prepare for the Millennial Reign of Israel's God.

The name Rosh Hashanah replaced the former names regarding this holy day, commemorating the Jewish New Year. Traditionally the blowing of the trumpet was implemented atop Mount Sinai, Moses' natural Temple declared by the LORD as Holy Ground (Exodus 3:5, Acts 7:33) and the Mountain of the Lord. (Isaiah 2:2-3) The trumpet or shofar, was an instrument described by both early Jewish and Christian writers as a symbol of revelation.

Current rituals surrounding Rosh Hashanah include the aforementioned blowing of the trumpets, as well as prayers to Yahweh petitioning Him to rebuild His Temple wherein the promises between Israel and their God are the focal point.

WHAT DOES ROSH HASHANAH HAVE TO DO WITH THE BOOK OF MORMON?

In 1827, Rosh Hashanah's date fell on the 22 of September. History students of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will recall that it was on this day that the angel Moroni delivered unto Joseph Smith the untranslated record comprising the Book of Mormon. Thus began God's promised plan to regather Israel, to rebuild His Holy House, and to convince both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is indeed the Christ, and to prepare Israel for the coming of the Messiah.

Today the trumpet of God sits atop many of His houses, symbolically declaring to all this inhabitants of the earth to:

Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. -Revelation 14:7

A LATTER-DAY HOUSE OF THE LORD

Some objectors to Temples in these last days have cited early disciples Stephen and Paul concerning their statements about God not dwelling in "temples made with hands." Yet it is not man who made heaven and earth, nor was it man who directed the building of God's House, but God Himself.

Contextually one refers to Paul's sermon on the "Unknown God" preached on Mars Hill, whereupon the Athenians were condemned for their worship of idols. Even more telling, is the fact that the disciples continued to worship in the Temple after Christ's ascension. Dr. William Hamblin,one of the world's leading experts on Temple theology has commented:

… it is quite clear that the New Testament apostles continued to worship in the Jerusalem temple after Christ’s ascension (Acts 2:46, Acts 3:1–10, Acts 5:20–42). Even Paul worshipped there (Acts 21:26–30, Acts 22:17, Acts 24:6–18, Acts 25:8, Acts 26:21). Paul is explicitly said to have performed purification rituals (Acts 21:26, Acts 24:18), and prayed in the temple (Acts 22:17, cf. Acts 3:1); he claims that he has not offended “against the temple,” implying he accepts its sanctity (Acts 25:8). Indeed, Paul also offered sacrifice (prosfora) in the temple (Acts 21:26, cf. Numbers 6:14–18), a very odd thing for him to do if the temple had been completely superceded after Christ’s ascension. Finally, and most importantly, Paul had a vision of Christ (”The Just One” ton dikaion) in the temple (Acts 22:14–21), paralleling Old Testament temple theophanies, and strongly implying a special sanctity in the temple, where God still appears to men even after Christ’s ascension. (Bill Hamblin, “Temple Obsolete After Christ,”)

Of particular strong support to Temples being built in the last days is the prophecy of Isaiah stating:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the flaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. -Isaiah 2:2-3

Thus we see the works of God in all their majesty. In covenant with Israel the LORD promised He would remember her,(Exodus 6:5, 32:13) gather her back together into one fold through the coming forth of new revelation (Ezekiel 37:15-20, John 10:16) and restore His Holy Mountain upon the earth. (Micah 4:1-3)

2009-02-16T12:12:00.001-07:00

Original Lyrics of Praise to the Man

Several Latter-day Saints may be surprised to find out what the original wording of the Hymn "Praise to the Man" actually was. To the left is an older copy of the hymn with the words "long shall his blood which was shed by assassins, STAIN ILLINOIS...." The former has been replaced by a more toned-down version. Time heals wounds.