Momentary Marriage, A Parable of Christ’s Permanent Love for the Church

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Aaron Shafovaloff

You can read the book for free here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

“Some people think truth is more important than loyalty to a tradition.”

Posted on February 11, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

About a year ago news headlines announced that vast numbers of Mormons were leaving the Mormon Church. While that is perhaps considered old news today, for Mormons who are struggling with their faith it is very relevant. This 9-minute video, “Leaving Mormonism,” looks at some of the struggles and triumphs of Mormons who asked themselves some hard questions and, surprisingly, found peace in the answers.

Leaving Mormonism from Andy Poland on Vimeo.

Posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , , | 18 Comments

Mormon proselytizing can be tricky

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Deseret News (online) published this cartoon by Arie Van De Graff on Jan 21, 2013.

1069881

It might come as no surprise that there actually is A Book of Mormons. Written and compiled by Latter-day Saints Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, the book was published by Signature Books in 1982. Donny and Marie are not in it, but 78 other “pivotal personalities” important to Mormonism are. From Elijah Abel to Zina D. H. Young, Van Wagoner and Walker “make accessible those elusive moments, those highlights of the lives of the people [they] met most and liked best in Mormon history” (ix).

Here are a few of the “highlights” the authors chose to include.

John M. Bernhisel: “In addition to the [10] sealings performed by Joseph Smith, and the seven wives married in Nauvoo, Bernhisel was sealed to eighty-three deceased women in the Salt Lake Endowment House in 1868, plus an additional twenty-three wives one year later.” (16)

Sam Brannan: “Mindful of Brannan’s financial success, President Brigham Young advised him, ‘If you want to continue to prosper, do not forget the Lord’s treasury, lest he forget you; for with the liberal, the Lord is liberal. And when you have settled with the treasury, I want you to remember that Brother Brigham has long been destitute of a home, and suffered heavy losses and incurred great expenses in searching out a location and planting the church in this place. He wants you to send him a present of twenty thousand dollars in gold dust, to help him in his labors.” (22)

Abraham H. Cannon: “1896. Despite the Wilford Woodruff Manifesto (1890), Cannon married Lillian Hamblin: ‘Father [President George Q. Cannon] also spoke to me about taking some good girl and raising up seed by her for my brother David…He told me to think the matter over, and speak to him later about it. Such a ceremony as this could be performed in Mexico, so Pres. Woodruff has said.’ With the assistance of Joseph F. Smith, Abraham married Lillian off the coast of California, and sired one child on behalf of his deceased brother.” (42-43)

Heber J. Grant: “During an 1883-1884 mission to the Moquis Indians in Arizona, Grant reported a vision in which he learned that he had been called to be an apostle because his natural father J.M. Grant, and the Prophet Joseph [Heber’s father by sealing], had requested it.” (Both men were deceased at this time. 101)

Anthony W. Ivins: “Officiator for Post-Manifesto Plural Marriages: 1897. Though a monogamist himself, Ivins was authorized by the First Presidency to perform plural marriage sealings, illegal under both U.S. and Mexican laws.” (133)

W.W. Phelps: “A Phelps editorial in the Star…was viewed by Missourians as an ‘invitation to free people of color to settle in Jackson County!’ Phelps tried to placate slaveholders in a special edition of the Star: ‘Our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the church.’” (206)

Orson Pratt: “When Pratt returned from a mission to Great Britain, he found that Church leaders had withdrawn his wife’s food allotment and were accusing her of adultery with John C. Bennett. She countered that Joseph Smith had proposed she become one of his ‘celestial wives,’ and that Brigham Young had urged her to say nothing, but ‘do as Joseph wished.’” (211)

Parley Pratt: “Orson [Parley’s brother], expelled from the temple, complained to Brigham Young about Parley’s alleged immorality…Orson was referring to Parley’s relations with Belinda Marden, to whom he had been secretly sealed on November 20, 1844. At the time, Belinda accompanied Pratt on a mission to New York, not even his wife, Mary Ann, was aware of the marriage. When Belinda gave birth to a son (1846), Mary Ann asked Belinda if the child were illegitimate. Told the truth, Mary Ann immediately severed her marital relationship with Pratt, though she did not divorce him until 1853, after coming to Utah.” (221)

Sidney Rigdon: “1842. May: Lasting difficulties were created between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon when Rigdon’s daughter Nancy, her brother John, and her brother-in-law George W. Robinson testified that the Prophet [Joseph Smith] had proposed ‘spiritual marriage’ to her. Joseph publicly denied the accusations.” (236)

B.H. Roberts: “Roberts…refused to sign a Church ‘political manifesto’ which stipulated that before a general authority could seek political office he must ‘apply to the proper authorities and learn from them whether he can, consistently with the obligations already entered into with the Church upon assuming his office, take upon himself the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the new position.’…Roberts felt that the political manifesto constituted an infringement on basic civil liberties. He was suspended from ecclesiastical duties and given three weeks to recant…. He walked the streets all night, wrestling with the dilemma of sacrificing principle or being stripped of his Church blessings. Just hours before the deadline, he decided to sign and was accepted back into fellowship.” (243-244)

Joseph Fielding Smith: “He was often viewed as a ‘stern and unbending judge of righteousness,’ as suggested by his views on capital punishment; ‘There are sins which cannot be forgiven, except by the guilty person paying a price by the shedding of his blood. Capital punishment was to benefit the guilty to obtain a better resurrection when the sin had been one unto death.’” (305)

Annie Clark Tanner: “Six months later [after she became a plural wife], Tanner married a third wife. ‘I had not seen the third wife, but I did wonder wherein I lacked that so soon he should take another wife. Then I remembered the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Church – that if one wanted to attain the very pinnacle of glory in the next world there must be, at least, three wives.’” (350)

David Whitmer: “According to a March, 1929, revelation, Joseph Smith was given ‘a gift to translate the [Book of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other’ (Book of Commandments 4:2). Whitmer opposed Joseph Smith as president of the Church, feeling that the Prophet’s only gift was to translate the Book of Mormon. The revelation was revised in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to read, ‘I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.’” (389)

While sharing the Book of Mormon might be tricky for LDS missionaries, sharing A Book of Mormons with investigators would probably prove to be a great deal more difficult.

Posted in Mormon History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Lying to Promote the “Interests of the Church” as an Evidence of Apostasy

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Aaron Shafovaloff

James Talmage gives an evidence of the Great Apostasy:

> “Disregard for truth. As early as the fourth century, certain pernicious doctrines embodying a disregard for truth gained currency in the Church. Thus, it was taught ‘that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by that means the interests of the church might be promoted.’—(Mosheim, ‘Eccl. Hist.,’ Cent. IV, Part II, ch. 3:16.) Needless to say, sins other than those of falsehood and deceit were justified when committed in the supposed interests of church advancement, and crime was condoned under the specious excuse that the end justifies the means. Many of the fables and fictitious stories relating to the lives of Christ and the apostles, as also the spurious accounts of supernatural visitations and wonderful miracles, in which the literature of the early centuries abound, are traceable to this infamous doctrine that lies are acceptable unto God if perpetrated in a cause that man calls good.” (James Talmage, The Great Apostasy, ch. 7)

It’s a good thing Mormonism doesn’t do that kind of thing, right? Otherwise, that’d be an evidence of apostasy.

PS It might sound like Talmage is quoting an early church father, but he’s not. He is quoting the historian Johann Lorenz von Mosheim.

Posted in Great Apostasy | Tagged , | 16 Comments

Unpaid Mormon Leaders Get a Pretty Sweet Deal

Posted on January 31, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Late last year (2012) a copy of the 2006 Mission President’s Handbook was posted on an individual’s blog site. This document, produced by the Mormon Church as a practical instruction manual for mission presidents, “contains basic policies and guidelines established by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to help you lead your missionaries and direct the work” (6). The book is not intended for general readership; “general” readers have found that it contains some things that are surprising in light of the public face that the Church puts forth.

PaycheckOne such surprise is found in Appendix B, Family Finances. It begins,

“While you are serving as mission president, the Church reimburses the necessary living expenses for you, your wife, and your dependent children. Dependent children are defined as those who are under age 26, have not been married, and are not employed full-time. Living expenses include food, clothing, household supplies, family activities, dry cleaning, personal long-distance calls to family, and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).” (80)

Additional reimbursable or paid expenses are also listed including (but not limited to) medical expenses; support for children serving full-time missions; dance lessons (and the like) for elementary and secondary school-aged children as well as their school tuition, fees and books; undergraduate college tuition; a gardener; a housekeeper; internet and other utilities; babysitters; transportation expenses including the use of a car and all fuel and maintenance expenses; and personal health and life insurance premiums.

The handbook instructs,

“The amount of any funds reimbursed to you should be kept strictly confidential and should not be discussed with missionaries, other mission presidents, friends, or family members.” (80)

One can only speculate about the reasons for this confidentiality among friends and family. But the mission president is also instructed to keep mum about these financial benefits to the taxman.

“Because you are engaged in volunteer religious service, no employer-employee relationship exists between you and the Church. As a result, any funds reimbursed to you from the Church are not considered income for tax purposes; they are not reported to the government, and taxes are not withheld with regard to these funds…

“To avoid raising unnecessary tax questions, please follow these guidelines closely:

“Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters. Any exceptions should be discussed with the Church Tax Division.

“Never represent in any way that you are paid for your service.

“If you are required to file an income-tax report for other purposes, do not list any funds you receive from the Church, regardless of where you serve or where you hold citizenship.” (82)

Eric Johnson and Bill McKeever did some calculations on a hypothetical mission president serving in the state of Utah. This imaginary Mormon Church leader ended up with benefits equaling $99,500 per year. Furthermore, Eric Johnson writes,

“It must be mentioned that tithing on these items are not supposed to be paid. Unlike other church members, this family can receive temple recommends without paying tithing on “income.” Hence, for the value of this compensation, which we list here at almost $100,000, the tithe amount would be at least $10,000. So, this particular mission president—who, remember, is considered a “volunteer”—is getting compensation for at least $110,000! Not bad for someone who is not supposedly getting a wage!”

Indeed.

—

Listen to the series of broadcasts, Mission Presidents’ Compensation parts 1-5, on MRM’s Viewpoint on Mormonism found in the podcast archives (28 January – 1 February 2013).

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Leaders | Tagged , , , | 84 Comments

Purposeful Blindness

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

Brought to our attention by Mormon Coffee friend, Spartacus, NBC’s Rock Center aired an exposé on the Church of Scientology earlier this month. In “The Defectors,” journalist Harry Smith interviewed four former Scientologists: Haydn, Lucy and Katrina James, and Paul Haggis. Mr. Smith also interviewed Lawrence Wright, author of the new book, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief.

Spartacus found this program compelling; he noticed parallels between the experiences of those who left Scientology and those who have left Mormonism. Whether or not you also see the parallels, “The Defectors” is a very interesting look at a controlling religious organization’s power over its members and the difficulty people experience in trying to break free. The first 11-minute segment is embedded below, and the second segment, focusing mainly on the experiences of the James family, can be found at the Rock Center website. I provide a brief rundown of Paul Haggis’ experience here.

Paul Haggis had been a happy Scientologist as he moved up the Scientology ladder until he reached the OT3 level, which “introduces Scientologists to key tenets of the church’s beliefs.” When he learned that Scientology holds to a doctrine that says human bodies are hosts to aliens from outer space, he was stunned. “This is madness,” he thought. Yet he didn’t leave the church.

Harry Smith asked Paul Haggis, “Why do you stay, then?” Mr. Haggis responded, “It’s a part of your life at that point. Your kids are in school. Your friends, your wife. It’s what you know.”

Harry Smith wanted to know how the Church of Scientology is able to convince people to remain loyal to the group. Mr. Haggis said, “It’s just this long, slow walk toward believing. It’s the idea of being part of a group that is ostracized and hated. It bands you together against the outside world.”

So even though Mr. Haggis couldn’t easily embrace the odd doctrines he was encountering, he remained a Scientologist for a long time, eventually reaching the highest level of OT7.

In retrospect, Mr. Haggis said he was “purposely blind.” Harry Smith suggested, “You chose to be blind,” and Mr. Haggis agreed. “Of course we choose – anybody within a group like this has to choose to be blind,” he said.

But this self-imposed blindness didn’t last for Mr. Haggis. He began really questioning Scientology when he discovered something that seemed not merely odd, but inconsistent with what he understood the church to stand for. After 30 years as a member, he decided it was time to research the Church of Scientology. What he found troubled him deeply. He resigned his church membership and, eventually, publically exposed the church’s abuses. “I was ashamed of my own stupidity,” he said, “of how I could have been purposely blind for so many years.”

Author Lawrence Wright, who included Paul Haggis’ story in his book, explained that people join Scientology for good reasons, mainly because they want help with life’s challenges. But, he said, “at the deeper levels, as you go further and further into the church, the distortions become more and more apparent.” Mr. Wright explained that Scientology abuses its own members, “shaking them down for money, wreaking vengeance on people that disagree with them, punishing its critics…”

The Church of Scientology responded to Mr. Wright’s book, saying it is an “…error-filled, unsubstantiated, bigoted anti-Scientology book…”

The church responded to Mr. Haggis in a similar way, saying his investigation was “a sham” and labeling him, “The Hypocrite of Hollywood.”

And in response to the James family, whose heartbreaking and frightening story is told in the second Rock Center segment, the Church of Scientology told NBC, “Haydn James is an unreliable source; he is bitter and has an ax to grind…”

Harry Smith asked Paul Haggis, “Is Scientology a cult?” Mr. Haggis replied, “Of course it is. It’s a system of belief that…you’ve got all these folks inside this fortress who won’t look out, and won’t look at any criticism and can’t bear any investigation and think that everyone is against them. How would you describe that? It’s a cult. Of course it is.”

What do you think? Is Scientology a cult? If yes, what makes it so?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

—

A few Mormons describe leaving the LDS Church:

Lynn Wilder: Free Indeed
Lynn Wilder Video Interview (uncut)
Michael J. Barrett – Excommunicated for Publicly Confirming LDS Teaching
Angela Haisten’s Testimony Out of Mormonism to Christianity
Dave’s Testimony Out of Mormonism into Christianity (video)

Posted in LDS Church, Mormon Culture, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

Why can’t they see?

Posted on January 24, 2013 by Eric Johnson

If you are like me, one of the most frustrating things in sharing your Christian faith is having the message rejected, sometimes even “in your face.” Recently I had a pair of Mormon missionaries come over to my house, unannounced. We had a very good one-hour conversation. The elder who had been on the field longer wanted to leave after 15 minutes, but the new elder expressed his desire of staying and engaging. It was a friendly dialogue. As they left, the junior elder (who, at 21, had admitted that he had just received his testimony earlier that year) shook my hand. He looked me in the eyes and said that no matter what anyone said, nobody was going to be able to convince him that his testimony was not true.

Talk about frustration. This missionary had no answers as to how he “knew” that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. He couldn’t explain why he “knew” the Book of Mormon was true except he had a good feeling. And how did he “know” that his testimony was valid? Well, he just did. How is it even possible to communicate in an intelligent manner with someone who holds fideism so close to his heart?

The answer to my frustration is found, very clearly I might say, in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians. Consider what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 21, 25 (NIV): “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. . . . For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him; God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. . . . For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.”

According to the original Greek text, the word for “foolishness” is where we get the English word “moron.” Interesting choice of words, wouldn’t you say? According to the Bible, people left in their natural state are “morons.” Now, I’m not saying Mormons are morons. (Have you ever slipped on your computer and written “moron” instead of “Mormon”? The spell checker just won’t catch the mistake!) However, left to the unbeliever’s natural state, the cross and the heart of Christianity’s message will be rejected 100% of the time as being foolish. It just doesn’t make sense to them. This has been confirmed by the many conversations I’ve had with dozens of missionaries and thousands of other Latter-day Saints.

Paul goes on. He says in verses 27-30 that “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”

On the surface, the cross isn’t very exciting to those who believe that, somehow, their good works must be added to the payment owed due to sin. Even though Christ has paid it all, we naturally believe that somehow we must make our contribution, even if it just ends up being 1% of the total. But desiring to make a “contribution” means that a person has not fully grasped the idea that nothing more is owed once the gift has been accepted! Notice, Christ is “our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” It’s His work, not ours, that is needed. The debt is fully paid yet there is nothing you did to earn it.

In chapter 2, Paul explains that it wasn’t through earthly wisdom that he shared the gospel with the Corinthians, but rather “with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power.” Why? In verse 5, he explains “so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.” Otherwise, the individual would have room to boast on his or her own accomplishments. (See Ephesians 2:8-9.)

Be careful, because Paul is not saying that we should walk up to Mormons, touch them with a spiritual magic—no words necessary—and all of a sudden they will grasp the true gospel. This concept is certainly not supported in how he shared the gospel in Jewish synagogues or at Mars Hill in Acts 17. Verse 7 is important here in explaining “God’s secret wisdom,” which “has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” In the Greek, the word “predestined” is used here. Translate it as you will, but understand that God’s sovereignty is the key for people to be able to know God. “God’s secret wisdom” will remain hidden unless, as verse 10 says, “God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.”

Do you grasp this? It’s hard, isn’t it? After all, if I had my way, every missionary and Latter-day Saint with whom I come into contact would comprehend the message of Truth that I’m trying to share. But Paul says I wasn’t ever supposed to understand how this all works. He said that just as no person can understand his own thoughts like the person himself, so “no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (v. 11).

For verse 13, let me quote the Contemporary English Version, for I think it grasps the concept of what Paul was communicating better than the KJV, NIV, and NASB: “Every word we speak was taught to us by God’s Spirit, not by human wisdom. And the same Spirit helps us teach spiritual things to spiritual people.” In order to be able to understand, those recipients must have wisdom—spiritual and not earthly. As verse 6 says, a person must be spiritually “mature” to understand the wisdom of God. Spiritual wisdom, not natural wisdom, is needed to fully understand this incredible message.

Finally, the killer point comes in verse 14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

How many ex-Mormons have you met who have said something like this: “For all those years, I just didn’t understand the gospel. Then (blank) happened and all of a sudden it made sense. How did I not see this before?” The answer, my friend, is found in these first two chapters of 1 Corinthians. The Holy Spirit is in charge of “secret wisdom.” The key to unlocking that secret wisdom involves more than just verbally sharing your Christian faith. Prayer on our part, both during and after the evangelistic encounter, will go a long way! After all, we’re not involved in a conflict of flesh and blood but with things involving the spiritual realm. (See Ephesians 6:12.)

I have to say, as the missionaries walked away, I silently admitted to God that I was frustrated. But as my friend Bill McKeever likes to say, “We’re only in sales. God is in production.” When presenting the gospel, some of us are involved in planting seeds and others are in charge of watering, “but God made it grow” (1 Cor. 3:6). I have been commissioned to present truth to the lost, however that might be, but I must always remember that it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to bring people to Him. I encourage you to continue sharing your faith and don’t let rejection affect you personally. You just never know who God is going to touch next, even if it’s not in your presence!

Posted in Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism | Tagged , | 95 Comments

“He probably sinned, was forgiven, and later glorified and exalted to His current state”

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Aaron Shafovaloff

Mormon Connor C. (this guy, on this YouTube thread) replies to me:

Screen Shot 2013-01-17 at 8.45.58 AM

For those of you who can’t read the image, here is the text:

“I already responded to that question Aaron. Yes I believe He [God] probably sinned, was forgiven, and later glorified and exalted to His current state. Sure that’s different from traditional Christianity, but Christianity has been wrong before. That God would help us progress in the same way, to me, highlights His overwhelming love and grace and mercy.”

Notice how Connor makes the connection between God having progressed from being a sinner to being an exalted God, and his view of God’s “love and grace and mercy.” For many Mormons, “love and grace and mercy” is God helping sinners become the kind of Gods who are worshipped by billions of their own spirit children. For Christians, “love and grace and mercy” is God forgiving and empowering us to enjoy making much of Him — the God who never sinned, the “Holy, Holy, Holy… Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.” (Revelation 4:8)

And yet some Mormons continue to be in denial about this even being a problem in Mormonism.

Posted in God the Father, Uncategorized | Tagged | 74 Comments

Changing and Correcting Mormon Scripture

Posted on January 17, 2013 by Sharon Lindbloom

The January 2013 Ensign magazine seems to reflect a new effort toward transparency in the Mormon Church. In an article by LDS historian Gerrit Dirkmaat, “Great and Marvelous are the Revelations of God,” the author discloses “Many Revelations Were Later Revised by Joseph Smith through Inspiration”:

“Over the course of the first five years of the Church, Joseph and others under his direction made changes and corrections to some of the early revelation texts in an attempt to more closely portray the intent of the revelation. Other times, especially as the revelations were being prepared for publication, Joseph was inspired to update the contents of the revelations to reflect a growing Church structure and new circumstances…

“Some of the needed changes stemmed from errors made by scribes as Joseph dictated the revelation to them. Other changes were made as later revelations incorporated more teachings that had not been a part of the initial revelation.”  (Ensign, January 2013, 46)

Dr. Dirkmaat uses D&C 27 (found in the 1833 Book of Commandments as chapter 28) as one example of a revelation later revised by Joseph Smith. He notes that Joseph Smith’s history says “the first part of the revelation was written down in August 1830 and ‘the remainder in the September following.’” The section 27 heading included in the current Doctrine and Covenants says the same thing. Dr. Dirkmaat adds,

“In the earliest manuscripts, only verses 1–5 and parts of 15 and 18 were included, but as the text of the revelation was being prepared for publication in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the second portion of the revelation was added, nearly tripling the size of the revelation.”

The impression given to Ensign readers is that Joseph Smith received this revelation in two parts over the course of a few weeks’ time: a third of it in August 1830 and two-thirds more in September 1830; then he joined the two parts together for publication in 1835. But history doesn’t bear this out.

In The Joseph Smith Revelations Text & Commentary, author H. Michael Marquardt notes that the added text found in the current verse 11 (i.e., “Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days”) indicates a later textual addition. He cites a January 1st, 1834 letter written by Apostle and “Second Elder of the Church” Oliver Cowdery. In this letter Mr. Cowdery wrote, “Since I came down I have been informed from a proper source that the Angel Michael is no less than our father Adam, and Gabriel is Noah.” According to Mr. Marquardt, “This idea was not known to Cowdery until the end of 1833.” After citing a few more anachronistic additions to Book of Commandments (BOC) 28, Mr. Marquardt concludes, “It appears that all the added material dates from after the time when the commandment was received. The additions are too developed, the product of a later stage of theological evolution.” (74-75)

These later theological thoughts have been placed into the previously existing text of the original revelation. Though readers of the Ensign article might assume that the newer two-thirds of D&C 27 were added at the end of the original –- a different text received at a different time and appended to the first revelation — this is not the case. Joseph Smith’s revisions to the revelation were not appended onto the end of the existing text, but were inserted into the middles of two complete verses from the original revelation (i.e., vv. 6 and 7 in BOC 28). These verses were split apart by new, major blocks of text that were inserted in the middle of what, up until that point, had been understood to be a full and complete revelation (to illustrate, compare BOC 28:6 with D&C 27:5-14: “I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with [insert 322 new words] all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world”). Thus, Joseph Smith’s scripture resembles the drafting of a term paper – a work in progress – rather than a direct revelation from God. Indeed, according to the Ensign article, “Joseph Smith saw the revelations as living and subject to change as the Lord revealed more of His will.”

An important aspect regarding the revised revelation that is missing from the Ensign article is the significance of the added content. Of course, since Mormons consider these revelations to be scripture, any and all content is significant. Even so, the 1835 additions to this revelation (D&C 27) speak of the alleged restoration of the Aaronic priesthood at the hands of John the Baptist (v. 8) and the Melchizedek priesthood/apostleship bestowed on Smith and Cowdery shortly thereafter via a visitation by Peter, James and John (vv. 12-13). As H. Michael Marquardt notes, “This 1835 addition is the earliest known record of Christ’s apostles being sent to visit Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery” (80). Author Grant Palmer concurs: “Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s” (An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 223-224).

The point of all this is that the basis for the authority of the Mormon Church, the restoration of the priesthood, appears to have been a bit of an afterthought. Claims of the restoration and bestowal of this divine authority did not exist in the first years of the Mormon Church. Even the scriptural references to this foundational power have been slipped in under a falsified (or at least misleading) early date.

It’s good that the Mormon Church is making an effort at historical transparency, but it still has a long way to go.

—

See the changes made to Book of Commandments Chapter 28, courtesy of Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

—

Posted in D&C and Pearl of Great Price, Early Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Mormon Scripture, Priesthood | Tagged , , , , , | 80 Comments

The Difficult Task of Mormon Honesty

Posted on January 14, 2013 by Aaron Shafovaloff

On a discussion board devoted to Mormon apologetics a non-Mormon wrote about the progressive nature of the Mormon God. He quoted the ever-so-blunt Hunter and Widtsoe:

“Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity (God) was much less powerful than He is today. Then how did He become glorified and exalted and attain His present status of godhood? In the first place, aeons ago God undoubtedly took advantage of every opportunity to learn the laws of truth and as He became acquainted with each new verity He righteously obeyed it.” – Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 114

“Therefore, if the law of progression be accepted, God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be engaged in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today.” – John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology As Taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 7th ed, p. 24

Appealing to the Bible (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) and early Mormon passages in the Book of Mormon (Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:19; 3 Nephi 24; Moroni 7:22), the non-Mormon noted that even Mormon scripture seems to refute the notion of a progressive God. God is eternal, never has changed, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Continue reading →

Posted in God the Father, Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry | 44 Comments