FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Detailed response to CES Letter, Other: Difference between revisions
(→Church Finances: m) |
|||
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
{{CESLetterItem | {{CESLetterItem | ||
|claim=The author states, "Estimated $5 billion megamall City Creek Center: Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011: $1.4 billion | |claim=The author states, "Estimated $5 billion megamall City Creek Center: Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011: $1.4 billion | ||
Something is fundamentally wrong with 'the one true Church' spending more on a multi-billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 25 years of humanitarian aid." | Something is fundamentally wrong with 'the one true Church' spending more on a multi-billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 25 years of humanitarian aid." (Note: In a later version of his letter, the author corrects his erroneous "$5 billion" estimate.) | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{:Mormonism and church integrity/City Creek Center Mall in Salt Lake City}} | |||
==Tithing== | ==Tithing== | ||
Revision as of 02:11, 10 May 2014
|
Response to "Other Concerns & Questions"
| [[../Scriptures Concerns & Questions|Scriptures Concerns & Questions]] | A FAIR Analysis of:
[[../|Letter to a CES Director]] |
[[../Conclusion|Conclusion]] |
- Response to section: 2013 Official Declaration 2 Header Update Dishonesty
- Response to section: "Zina Diantha Huntington Young"
- Response to section: "Brigham Young Sunday School Manual"
- Response to section: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
- Response to section: "Church Finances"
- Response to section: "Tithing"
- Response to section: "Names of the Church"
- Response to section: "Some things that are true are not very useful"
- Response to section: "Criticizing leaders"
- Response to section: "the scary internet"
- Response to section: "Going after members who publish or share their questions, concerns, and doubts"
- Response to section: Strengthening the Church Members Committee
- Response to section: "When the prophet speaks the debate is over"
Response Section
2013 Official Declaration 2 Header Update Dishonesty
"Zina Diantha Huntington Young"
"Brigham Young Sunday School Manual"
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Teachings |
|
History |
|
Race |
|
Critics |
Did Brigham Young and Joseph Smith say that polygamists were allowed to go beyond normal bounds of social interaction?
Joseph’s point is clear—men, like Brigham, who have reached a certain degree of faithfulness may be asked to do even more difficult things
It is claimed that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young admitted that the practice of polygamy meant they were "free to go beyond the normal 'bounds'" and "the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to" Joseph.[1]
"Sometimes Joseph phrased the matter [of polygamy] in terms of being free to go beyond normal ‘bounds,’" G. D. Smith announces. As evidence, he presents Brigham Young’s account of being taught plural marriage. Brigham worried out loud that he might marry a second wife but then apostatize, leaving his plural family "worse off." In Brigham’s account, Joseph replied, "‘There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation.’ But Brigham indicated that he never had any fears of not being saved" (p. 364).[2]
Joseph’s point is clear—men, like Brigham, who have reached a certain degree of faithfulness may be asked to do even more difficult things. They need not fear that they will lose their eternal reward if they falter in these Abrahamic tasks, for God "will take him to himself" before they reap damnation. But G. D. Smith seems to be reading "bounds" in the sense "a limit by which any excursion is restrained; the limit of indulgence or desire."[3] This is why he conceives of it as being "free to go beyond normal bounds"—that is, beyond normal limits or restrictions. This is clearly not Brigham’s meaning. Bounds should be understood as "the line which comprehends the whole of any given object or space. It differs from boundary."[4] These bounds are not a limit beyond which one may not go—they encircle and enclose all that one must do. Before polygamy, Brigham had already striven to be faithful to the whole of his duty to God. Having done so, he would not be damned. But he was now being asked to fulfill a task not asked of most. The circumference of his bounds—or duties—was enlarged.
Brigham was thus past the bounds because he had done all that God required and more, not because he would violate moral limits
Unfortunately for G. D. Smith’s reading, polygamy cannot be "the bounds" referred to since Joseph told Brigham that he was already (before practicing polygamy) "past these bounds"—that is, the duties required of all men by God—and thus "you have this consolation." Brigham was thus past the bounds because he had done all that God required and more, not because he would violate moral limits. He had crossed the finish line; he had not gone "out of bounds" or offside.
G. D. Smith argues that Brigham gave "a telling concession that the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to [Joseph] Smith as he set about instigating polygamy." But Brigham is not conceding anything like this. His "bounds" are not limits beyond which one may not go, but duties that one must fulfill before anything else might be asked. The bounds are divine duties, not social rules. G. D. Smith caps his argument by citing Brigham’s belief that Joseph "passed certain bounds . . . before certain revelations were given" (p. 365). Thus G. D. Smith wants to paint Brigham as admitting that polygamy required one to transgress social or moral boundaries.
Brigham was clearly making the same claim about Joseph that Joseph made about Brigham. In Brigham’s view, Joseph had not been challenged by the command to practice plural marriage until he had proved sufficiently faithful to guarantee his salvation. For its first practitioners, the challenge of plural marriage was such that a merciful God would not, in Brigham’s mind, require it of those whose salvation would be at risk in the event of their failure.
Brigham sees the matter as a command that he does not wish to fulfill—he would prefer to be dead—but that God confirms as his will
Immediately preceding the language quoted by G. D. Smith, Brigham tells an apostle that
the spiritual wife doctrine came upon me while abroad, in such a manner that I never forget. . . . Joseph said to me, ‘I command you to go and get another wife.’ I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything, but I was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that my wife and brother Kimball’s wife would upbraid me for lightness in those days. I could jump up and hollow [holler?]. My blood was as clear as West India rum, and my flesh was clear.[5]
In this passage, Brigham sees the matter as a command that he does not wish to fulfill—he would prefer to be dead—but that God confirms as his will. His bounds are duties to fulfill, not limits that he is now free to exceed.
Further evidence: Heber C. Kimball
That this reading is correct, and that G. D. Smith is in error, is confirmed by Heber C. Kimball’s similar doubts and reassurance: "Finally [Heber] was so tried that he went to Joseph and told him how he felt—that he was fearful if he took such a step [to practice plural marriage] he could not stand, but would be overcome. The Prophet, full of sympathy for him, went and inquired of the Lord. His answer was, ‘Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to myself.’"[6]
Kimball’s bounds—the commandments given him—had increased. But having already proved his faithfulness, he would not be damned for failure. Kimball apparently clung to this promise and would soon write to his wife that "my prayer is day by day that God would take me to Himself rather than I should be left to sin against Him, or betray my dear brethren who have been true to me and to God the Eternal Father."[7]
The Kimball data is absent from Smith’s analysis, but one wonders if it would have helped. To accept it would require a modification of the thesis that polygamy was driven by lust and a violation of barriers, and that Joseph knew it.
Critical sources |
|
Did Brigham Young boast about his ability to get more wives even though he was married to 50-60 women?
The references do not support the claims
As is often the case, the references do not support the claims, and the worst possible interpretation is placed on what are likely innocent remarks, or remarks intended to teach a spiritual point.
The Tanners cite multiple sources for this claim. They are examined below.
Journal of Discousces 5:210
Brigham is here discussing Thomas B. Marsh's return to the Church, and it is inaccurate to describe him as "boasting."
In conversing with brother Marsh, I find that he is about the same Thomas that he always was—full of anecdotes and chit-chat. He could hardly converse for ten minutes without telling an anecdote. His voice and style of conversation are familiar to me.
He has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congre[ga]tion that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men.
Brother Thomas considers himself very aged and infirm, and you can see that he is, brethren and sisters. What is the cause of it? He left the Gospel of salvation. What do you think the difference is between his age and mine? One year and seven months to a day; and he is one year, seven months, and fourteen days older than brother Heber C. Kimball.
"Mormonism" keeps men and women young and handsome; and when they are full of the Spirit of God, there are none of them but what will have a glow upon their countenances; and that is what makes you and me young; for the Spirit of God is with us and within us.
When brother Thomas thought of returning to the Church, the plurality of wives troubled him a good deal. Look at him. Do you think it need to? I do not; for I doubt whether he could get one wife. Why it should have troubled an infirm old man like him is not for me to say. He read brother Orson Pratt's work upon that subject, and discovered that the doctrine was beautiful, consistent, and exalting, and that the kingdom could not be perfect without it. Neither can it be perfect without a great many things that the people do not yet understand, though they will come in the own due time of the Lord.
See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 5:210 to see how this quote was mined.
Journal of Discourses 8:178
Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and ..
See Quote mining—Journal of Discourses 8:178 to see how this quote was mined.
Critical sources |
|
Why did Brigham Young say that women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God"?
Brigham's intent has been distorted
Brigham Young said women "have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God". This is used to portray Brigham as authoritarian and sexist. However, Brigham's intent has been distorted, and those who cite this have used presentism to bias the reader against him.
Sally Denton uses this quote, and uses D. Michael Quinn, as her source. Unfortunately, Denton omits the context which Quinn's volume provides:
- [women] have no right to meddle in the affairs of the Kingdom of God[—]outside the pale of this they have a right to meddle because many of them are more sagacious & shrewd & more competent [than men] to attend to things of financial affairs. they never can hold the keys of the Priesthood apart from their husbands. [8]
Brigham then continued, "When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid but until that time let them stay at home & if you see females huddling together veto the concern." [9]
Brigham's statement about "meddling," then, in no way reflects on women's competence or skills—he insists that many know better than men. Brigham's point is that women have no right to priesthood government. This statement was probably precipitated by Emma Smith's use of her role as head of the Relief Society to resist Joseph's teachings, especially plural marriage. [10] Brigham is signaling that those without priesthood power may not dictate to ordained priesthood leaders about priesthood matters.
The author relies on presentism, since Brigham and virtually all of his contemporaries (men and women) likely had attitudes about women's roles which would strike us as "sexist"
Though the quote seems offensive and exclusionary, we need to remember the context of the time. Attitudes toward women during that time, and even 100 years later, were far from our current attitudes. It is unreasonable to expect people living in a different time to fit 21st century perspectives. Brigham was, however, quite liberal for his day—he encouraged women to get an education: for example, he even assigned several to travel to the eastern United States to get training as physicians.
Critical sources |
|
Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage
Summary: Notes on BRIGHAM YOUNG's Unpublished Sermon of 8 October 1861.Why did Emma Smith and Brigham Young dislike one another?
Summary: After Joseph Smith's death, Brigham Young and Joseph's widow Emma came into conflict for a number of reasons.Has the Church tried to hide Brigham Young's polygamy?
Summary: Some critics have claimed that the Church has tried to hide Brigham Young's polygamy in a modern lesson manual—despite polygamy being the one thing for which Brigham is certainly known, in and out of the Church.Joseph Smith's Polygamy: "Brigham Young Seeks a Plural Wife", by Brian C. Hales
Notes
- ↑ George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "...but we called it celestial marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 364–365. ( Index of claims , (Detailed book review))
- ↑ Citing Brigham Young Manuscript History, 16 February 1849, Church Archives. The quoted material is on pp. 19–20.
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "bound."
- ↑ Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. "bound." (Compare article for "boundary.")
- ↑ Church Historian’s Office, History of the Church, 1839–circa 1882, DVD 2, call number CR 100 102, vol. 19 (19 February 1849), 19.
- ↑ Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 325-326.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball to Vilate Kimball, "My Dear Vilate" (23 October 1842), cited in Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884). (accessed 2 December 2008).
- ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 650.
- ↑ Seventies Record, 9 March 1845, holograph, Church Archives (cited in Beecher, see below).
- ↑ Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, "Women in Winter Quarters," Sunstone no. 8:4/15 (July 1983), note 37. off-site
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
Church Finances
Template:CESLetterItem Church Finances | City Creek
Detailed response to CES Letter, Other
Summary: Critics sometimes argue that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted improperly by developing the City Creek Center shopping and mixed-use project in downtown Salt Lake City. This article explains that the project was undertaken to revitalize a declining area surrounding Temple Square, protect Church-owned property, and encourage long-term economic growth in the city. It also explains that Church leaders have consistently stated that the project was funded through investment earnings rather than donated tithing funds and that maintaining financial reserves and investing them responsibly is a long-standing principle of Church financial management. The article concludes that City Creek Center has largely achieved its redevelopment goals by attracting businesses, creating jobs, and increasing economic activity in downtown Salt Lake City.
Question: Why did the Church get involved in a shopping center?
In early 2003, the Church announced it was purchasing a shopping mall directly south of Temple Square. Because the Church already owned a majority of the land on which the mall was built, this purchase brought the remainder under the Church’s control.[1] The Church did so with the purpose of revitalizing the are directly south of Temple Square because the Church had a “compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple.”[2]
After three years of planning, the Church announced a 20-acre development project called City Creek Center to replace the old shopping mall and several other buildings directly south of Temple Square. The project would be a mixed-use development, which included retail, office, and residential space.[3] Mixed-use developments had become prominent in real estate development because this type of development “ensures vitality through activity and diversity. It makes areas safer. It also reduces the need to travel, making people less reliant on cars, bringing welcome environmental benefits.”[4] All of these objectives are interests of the Church, especially in the environment around the Salt Lake Temple.
Question: Did the Church use tithing funds to finance the purchases and buildings?
In the April 2003 general conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley explained “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.” Instead, “funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.”[5] Multiple statements were subsequently made reinforcing the fact that tithing funds would not and were not used for the development project.[6]
Some claims are made that tithing really was used because some of the money came from earnings on invested reserve funds, which funds were set up using tithing donations. However, financial documents have shown that only earnings on invested funds, not the original funds themselves, were used to finance the development project.[7]
Question: Why would the Church put tithing into investment portfolios?
Some individuals wonder why the Church puts tithing into investments instead of donating to the poor.
President Gordon B. Hinckley explained that saving some tithing funds is a fundamental principle of Church finances:
In the financial operations of the Church, we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of the income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible “rainy day.”
For years, the Church has taught its membership the principle of setting aside a reserve of food, as well as money, to take care of emergency needs that might arise. We are only trying to follow the same principle for the Church as a whole.[8]
The tithing set aside as a reserve is added to the Church’s investment funds. Bishop Gerald Causse explained the reason for putting saved tithing funds into investments instead of simply holding the tithing in cash or cash equivalents:
In the parable of the talents, the lord who asked for an accounting from his servants chastised the one who had not invested the money entrusted to him but instead had hid that money in the earth. He characterized the servant as “wicked and slothful” for not investing that money for a reasonable financial return. Consistent with this spiritual principle, the Church’s financial reserves are not left idle in nonproductive bank accounts but are instead employed where they can produce a return.[9]
Did the Church achieve its objectives with the City Creek Center project?
Most analysts agree that the City Creek project was successful in revitalizing downtown Salt Lake City:
New York Times[10]Salt Lake Tribune[11]“The center has added 2,000 jobs and brought more than 16 million visitors into downtown,” according to the Economic Benchmark Report of 2013, paid for by the real estate firm CBRE. Taking into account the improving economy, the report credits the mall, at 50 South Main Street, with helping downtown retail sales increase by 36 percent, or $209 million, in 2012. The “mall is the single most important thing to happen to Salt Lake City in 50 years, maybe more,” said Bruce Bingham, a partner with Hamilton Partners, a Chicago-based real estate developer. “It revitalized downtown.”
The International Council of Shopping Centers “selected City Creek Center — winner of a number of other awards since its 2012 debut — and the site's co-designer and operator Taubman Centers for its top accolade as "the most outstanding example of shopping center design and development for 2014-2015
BuildingSaltLake.com[12]"Main Street is thriving and it would not be if City Creek Center had not been built," said Jason Mathis, executive director of the Downtown Alliance, representing downtown merchants. "I attribute a lot of downtown's success to City Creek Center's development and the design."
“According to data from the Downtown Alliance, since City Creek opened, downtown retail sales have increased 46 percent, retail employment increased 83 percent and downtown hotel room bookings grew by 62 percent. The retail center’s presence also contributed to an 119.7 percent rise in retail wages, 26.9 in food service wages and 74.1 percent in hotel wages.”
While there are multiple factors that have led to the current boom downtown, based on the numbers City Creek has played an important role in bringing more development downtown. “This is our best example of a TOD (transportation oriented development),” said Reid Ewing, professor of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah. Ewing led a study looking at foot traffic downtown after City Creek opened and found that the block of Main Street between South Temple and 100 South had the highest pedestrian activity than any other block downtown. Ewing cited his vibrancy scale that measures vibrancy based on imageability, enclosure, human scale, transparency and complexity as an indicator of the health of downtown, especially near City Creek. “This (City Creek Center) has it all in terms of vibrancy,” said Ewing.
Further Reading
City Creek Project
- The most comprehensive review of the finances involved in the City Creek Center project is available in “Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment,” James Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 10 September 2021, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, case 2:21-cv-02504-SVW-SK.
- A history of the downtown situation in 2003 is available in "Church to buy Crossroads Plaza mall," Deseret News, 19 March 2003.
- The announcement and details of the redevelopment project is available in "Downtown rebound: LDS Church unveils plans for 20-acre development," Deseret News, 4 October 2006.
- A detailed review of the entire project is available in “Mormon leaders and Salt Lake City work together to transform land,” Deseret News, 7 March 2010.
- A philosophical consideration of whether the Church should invest in things like malls is available in Nathan Oman, "City Creek and the Choices of Thrift," TimesandSeasons.org, 2 April 2012.
Church Finances
- Gerald Causse, “The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Ensign, July 2018.
- Church Newsroom, "Church Finances and a Growing Global Faith," Newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org, 22 May 2018.
- Tad Walch, "Church finances: Presiding Bishopric offers unique look inside financial operations of growing faith," Deseret News, 14 Feb. 2020.
Notes
- ↑ "Church to buy Crossroads Plaza mall," Deseret News, 19 March 2003.
- ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Condition of the Church,” April 2003 general conference.
- ↑ "Downtown rebound: LDS Church unveils plans for 20-acre development," Deseret News, 4 October 2006.
- ↑ Department of the Environment, United Kingdom, 24 July 1995, as cited in A. Coupland, Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development (London, E & FN Spon, 1997).
- ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Condition of the Church,” April 2003 general conference.
- ↑ A compilation of statements is available on pages 2–3 in “Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment,” James Huntsman v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 10 September 2021, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, case 2:21-cv-02504-SVW-SK.
- ↑ A financial analysis on these redacted documents is available on pages 7–8 in “Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment.”
- ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, “The State of the Church,” April 1991 general conference.
- ↑ Gerald Causse, “The Spiritual Foundations of Church Financial Self-Reliance,” Ensign, July 2018.
- ↑ Caitlin Kelly, "Mormon-Backed Mall Breathes Life into Salt Lake City," The New York Times, 9 July 2013.
- ↑ Tony Semerad, "City Creek Center: Boon for downtown or one of SLC's 'biggest mistakes'? Salt Lake Tribune, 11 May 2015.
- ↑ Isaac Riddle, "City Creek's impact on downtown growth by the numbers," BuildingSaltLake.com, 17 March 2017.
Tithing
Names of the Church
Template:CESLetterItemShort < Back to FAIR Answers Index
Changes in the Name of the Church
Summary: Some are concerned when they learn that the Church went by different names in its early history. At one point, the Church was called the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." The concern has stemmed from Jesus's direction in the Book of Mormon that His Church be called by His name (3 Nephi 27:3–8), and that name omits Christ's. The Church's use of different names throughout its early history shows that Joseph Smith did not receive a clear revelation establishing its divinely appointed name. The historical record shows that various names were used during different stages of the Church's organization and growth, often for practical and legal reasons. In 1838, a revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 115 directed that the Church be called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Doctrine and Covenants 115:4).
Question: How many times was the name of the Church changed through revelation?
Critics of the Church ask: Why did the Church change its name twice during its history? Shouldn't revelation have given the name? [1] In 1834, the name of the Church was changed to “The Church of the Latter Day Saints." Why would Joseph remove the name of “Jesus Christ” from the name of his Church? In 1838, the name of the Church was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (there was originally no hyphen in the name). Why was the name of the Church changed again?
The name of the Church was changed through revelation only once
Christ only instructed Joseph through revelation to change the name of the Church once, as described in D&C 115꞉3. Before that time, the Church was referred to by several different names, including "The Church of Christ," "Church of Jesus Christ," "Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints," "The Church of God," and "The Church of Latter Day Saints." The only name for the Church established by revelation was the one mentioned in D&C 115꞉3.
...for thus it shall be called, and unto all the elders and people of my Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, scattered abroad in all the world.
None of the other names by which the Church was known was established by revelation.
David Whitmer disagreed with the change in the name of the Church, and it was one of the reasons for his disaffection
It is interesting to note that the change in the Church's name bothered David Whitmer. Whitmer insisted that the original name of the Church, the "Church of Christ," was the only proper one and claimed that revelation had given it that name. There is no known revelation to support this claim, however, unless you count the Book of Mormon itself. Whitmer appears to be using the Book of Mormon to support this claim (the Book of Mormon uses "Church of Christ").
It should also be noted that, according to Whitmer, Joseph didn't promote the name change from the "Church of Christ" to the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." Whitmer claimed that it was Sidney Rigdon who pushed to change the name to "Church of the Latter Day Saints":
In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it THE CHURCH OF CHRIST until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).)
Question: What names did the Church go by before the revelation which established the correct one?
The Church was referred to as "The Church of Christ," "The Church of Jesus Christ," "The Church of God," and "The Church of the Latter-day Saints"
B.H. Roberts, in a note on pages 23 and 24 of the History of the Church, Volume III, stated:
It will be observed that in verses three and four of this revelation the Lord gives to the Church its official name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Previous to this the Church had been called "The Church of Christ," "The Church of Jesus Christ," "The Church of God," and by a conference of Elders held at Kirtland in May, 1834, (see Church History, vol. 2, pp. 62-3), it was given the name "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." All these names, however, were by this revelation brushed aside, and since then the official name given in this revelation has been recognized as the true title of the Church, though often spoken of as "The Mormon Church," the "Church of Christ," etc. The appropriateness of this title is self evident, and in it there is a beautiful recognition of the relationship both of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Saints to the organization.
The words "Church of Jesus Christ" are obvious references to the Savior and His Church. The addition of "Latter-day" highlights the Church's belief that it is not a new organization of Christians, but a restoration of Christians in the "Latter-days," or the days before Christ's return.
The label "Saints" identifies the members as those who are—or aspire to be—Saints. "Saint" comes from the Latin sanctus, meaning "holy." The Saints are those who have been made holy through the grace and blood of Jesus Christ.
Thus, the name of the Church emphasizes its links to Christ and His Church of former times in multiple ways.
Some critics try to impose inerrantist ideas on the Church—they act as if such things as official names and procedures can never change. But, the Latter-day Saints have never held such ideas—they believe that God gives a fair amount of leeway to His children as they seek to learn and do His will. And, they remain confident that God will speak by revelation when necessary to ensure that His Church will not stray from His intentions.
Question: What is the history of name changes of the Church?
The original name of the Church when it was organized in 1830 was the "Church of Christ"
The original name of the Church when it was organized in 1830 was the "Church of Christ." Mormonism, to some extent, originated in the historical context of the restorationist movement. This movement consisted of Christians who believed that the original Christianity needed to be restored, and it was a common belief among Christian restorationists that the name of a Christian church should properly be the "Church of Christ." Many new members of the Church brought such ideas with them when they became "Mormons."
This caused practical problems, however, since there were lots of restorationist groups who named their local churches the "Church of Christ," so there was tremendous confusion. (Indeed, one of the groups that descends from Alexander Campbell's Disciples of Christ continues to use the name "Church of Christ" to this day.)
The use of the term "Mormonite" prompted changes to distinguish the Church from other Christian churches
This, coupled with the use of the common antagonistic epithet "Mormonite" (soon simplified to "Mormon"), led to a desire for a more distinctive name that would distinguish our church from so many others that were using the same name.
So in April 1834, under the influence of Sidney Rigdon (according to David Whitmer),[2] who had been a reformed Baptist preacher with close ties to Alexander Campbell before joining the church, the official name of the church was changed to the "Church of Latter Day Saints."
There was no attempt to distance the Church from the name of Christ
This was no attempt to distance the Church from the name of Christ or its claims to be Christ's church. In 1835, the official Church paper referred to the:
"Rise and progress of the church of Christ of Latter Day Saints"[3]
The final name of the Church came through revelation
The basis for the present name of the church came in D&C 115꞉3, received on April 26, 1838: the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Note how this name combines elements of the original name and the Rigdon-inspired name.
In 1851, when the church formally incorporated, the name included a corporate initial article "The" and a British hyphenization of "Latter-day," thus becoming the formal name we use to this day, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Other groups that split off from the church, such as the Strangites and the Reorganization (RLDS, now Community of Christ), kept the original unhyphenated "Latter Day" in their formal names.
The members of the Church have always seen themselves as Christians, and members of "the Church of Jesus Christ"
This chart demonstrates that the members of the Church have always seen themselves as Christians and members of "the Church of Jesus Christ."
| Journal or Series | Church of Christ | Church of Jesus Christ | Church of Jesus Christ of LDS | Latter-day Saints alone | Mormon Church |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evening and Morning Star (1832-1834) | 115 | 1 | xx | 0 | 0 |
| Messenger and Advocate (1834-1837) | 33 | 0 | xx | 0 | 1 |
| Elders Journal (1837-1838) | 10 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Times and Seasons (1839-1846) | 118 | 13 | 24 | 47 | 4 |
| Journal of Discourses 26 vols. (1839-1886)
1438 sermons |
167 | 59 | 308 | 3255 | 10 |
| Collected Discourses 5 vols. (1886-1898)
432 sermons |
149 | 15 | 139 | 1121 | 7 |
| General Conference Reports, (1880, 1897-1970) | 780 | 671 | 3180 | 6291 | 333 [4] |
| Millennial Star (incomplete study) | - | 84 | - | - | - |
| The Seer | 0 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
xx = No use of the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" because that name was not yet in use during the journal's publication dates.
Source: Ted Jones, FairMormon researcher, private communication (7 April 2007); updated 1 April 2010.
Notes
- ↑ Criticisms put forth by Watchman Fellowship, The Watchman Expositor (Page 3)
- ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).
- ↑ W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, June 1835, "Letter No. 8," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1 no. 9 (June 1835), 129–31. off-site See also W. W. Phelps to Oliver Cowdery, "Letter No. 11," Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 2 no. 1 (October 1835), 193–95. off-site
- ↑ The vast majority of these were in describing what others said about the Church.
"Some things that are true are not very useful"
"Criticizing leaders"
"the scary internet"
Strengthening the Church Members Committee
"When the prophet speaks the debate is over"
Notes
- [note] Samuel Katich, "A Tale of Two Marriage Systems: Perspectives on Polyandry and Joseph Smith," Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2003.