User:InProgress/Website reviews/L

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "Lying for the Lord" appears to take are the following: The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• The critics conclude that lying is "standard operating procedure for Church leaders" from Joseph Smith's time to the present, and that pretty much every thing that the Church does is somehow related to deception (this is a standard position taken by many ex-Mormons after their disaffection with the Church).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the official story of the First Vision constitutes deception.

FairMormon commentary

• Yet, the Church discusses the various first vision accounts on lds.org and in the Ensign.

Quotes to consider

During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.
—Accounts of the First Vision, Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.
—Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’,” Ensign, Oct 1984, 2

Additional information

• Joseph's accounts of the First Vision—Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore had no such vision. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that during Moroni's visit that his siblings would have been awakened, and that Church artwork portraying this event are deceptive.

FairMormon commentary

• The entire argument is not only absurd, but it is clearly refuted by the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and artwork presented by the Church itself.
• Some Church artwork does indeed portray Joseph as being alone—this is simply an artistic interpretation. The August 2009 Ensign, page 54, however, shows a painting of Joseph sitting up in his bed looking at Moroni. Next to Joseph one can clearly see three of his siblings in the same bed...sound asleep. (May be viewed here: Artwork by Liz Lemon Swindle) Even the official LDS web site has a painting that shows one of Joseph's siblings asleep in bed during Moroni's visit. See: The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

Additional information

• Why didn't Joseph's siblings wake up when Moroni appeared?—Critics claim that when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in his room on September 21, 1823, his siblings who were sleeping in the same room should have woken up. They claim that this is evidence that Joseph's story is false. (Link)

• Moroni would have struck his head on the ceiling?—In one of the more absurd or desperate attacks upon Joseph's story, some critics claim that Moroni could not have stood "above the floor" because the ceiling would have been too low and he would have hit his head. Photos easily disprove this absurd claim. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the Church deceptively claims that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith himself.

FairMormon commentary

• Though the History of the Church speaks in the first person as if Joseph were writing, these words are put in his mouth by admirers, often after his martyrdom. Thus, small details of Joseph's "personality" in the History are less likely to be accurate.

Additional information

• Authorship of the History of the Church—I've heard that the History of the Church, though credited to Joseph Smith, was not actually authored by him. What can you tell me about this, and what does this mean for the History's accuracy? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the "Rocky Mountain Prophecy" is deceptive.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 406

FairMormon commentary

• Many other Church members later wrote about Joseph's discussion of the Rocky Mountains area. To accept a "forgery" theory, we must accept that all of these people who remembered Joseph speaking about the Rocky Mountains were lying or fabricating their experience.
• Furthermore, we must also accept that Joseph was sending explorers to the west with no real expectation of moving, and the discussion of heading west by both members and enemies was all idle talk.

Additional information

• Forged prophecy about Saints in Rocky Mountains?—Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner claim that a prophecy from Joseph about the Saints' move to the Rocky Mountains was forged after the fact and inserted into the History of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim the using the name "Moroni" for the angel that visited Joseph Smith was deceptive and that the name was originally Nephi.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism
• Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? p.136

FairMormon commentary

• This is not an example of Joseph Smith changing his story over time, but an example of a detail being improperly recorded by someone other than the Prophet, and then reprinted uncritically. Clear contemporary evidence from Joseph and his enemies—who would have seized upon any inconsistency had they known about it—shows that "Moroni" was the name of the heavenly messenger BEFORE the 1838 and 1839 histories were recorded.

Additional information

• Nephi or Moroni—The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni". (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco is deliberately hidden.

Author's source(s)

• Tanner, Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414

FairMormon commentary

• The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. It was not the strict test of fellowships that it is for the modern member. Members and leaders struggled with its application
• Critics count on "presentism"—they hope readers will judge historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day.

Additional information

• Almon Babbitt followed Joseph in violating the Word of Wisdom—Critics charge that Joseph Smith violated the Word of Wisdom, and that another member (Almon W. Babbitt) followed his example. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the Church deliberately hides its history.

FairMormon commentary

• Church historians and church hierarchy are fully aware of its history, yet they maintain strong testimonies of the authenticity and authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Problems arise when faithful members can't reconcile a perfect Savior and his church being led by imperfect people. Developing an understanding that all people, even prophets of the Lord make mistakes. Only Jesus Christ himself was perfect.

Additional information

• Censorship and revision—Critics claim that the church has "whitewashed" some of the information about its origins to appear more palatable to members and investigators. Some feel that this is done intentionally to hide negative aspects of church history. Others feel that it is done to focus on the good, but that it causes problems for believing members when they encounter these issues outside of church curriculum. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that when Joseph Smith edited revelations found in the Doctrine and Covenants, that it was for deceptive purposes.

FairMormon commentary

• If Joseph could receive the Doctrine and Covenants by revelation, then he could also receive revelation to improve, modify, revise, and expand his revelatory product. The question remains the same—was Joseph Smith a prophet? If he was, then his action is completely legitimate. If he was not, then it makes little difference whether his pretended revelations were altered or not.
• The Saints have never believed in inerrant prophets or inerrant scripture. The editing and modification of the revelations was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications, as well as extensive studies in Masters' and PhD theses at BYU.

Additional information

• Textual changes—Joseph Smith and others made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the Church has removed references to "Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man" from its history, such as his arrest and trial for being a "glass looker."

FairMormon commentary

• Claims that Joseph was a "juggler," or "conjurer" were a common 19th century method of dismissing his prophetic claims via ad hominem. Modern-day claims about him being found to be a "con man" are simply the same attack with updated language, usually bolstered by a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Joseph's 1826 court hearing.
• Joseph's tendency to assume the best of others, even to his own repeated detriment, also argues for his sincerity. One might legitimately claim that Joseph was mistaken about his prophetic claims, but it will not do to claim that he was cynically, knowingly deceiving others for his own gain.

Additional information

• 1826 trial for "glasslooking"—Joseph Smith was brought to trial in 1826 for "glasslooking." Didn't Hugh Nibley claim that if this trial record existed that it would be "the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith?" (Link)

• Was Joseph found guilty of being a "con man"?—Critics claim that Joseph was a "con man," and that he was found guilty of being such in a court of law. This refers to the 1826 trial. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that Elder Packer stated that "some truths are not very useful."

FairMormon commentary

• This does not accurately reflect Elder Packer's remarks, however, since Elder Packer was not speaking to "Mormon historians"—he was, rather, speaking to members of CES, the Church Educational System. Elder Packer makes his intended audience clear:

You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.

• CES consists of Church employees who have been hired by the Church to teach its doctrine and promote faith in its young people. Surely it is well within the Church's purview to insist that the perspective on Church history taught in its religion classes will be supportive of, and not destructive of, faith? Surely the CES's study of history is not merely an academic exercise, but also has a spiritual goal?

Additional information

• "Some things that are true are not very useful."—Elder Packer gave an address to religious educators called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect." The following quote is a favorite of critics who wish to demonstrate that the Church wishes to suppress its history and independent thought: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics claim that the Church obscures Joseph's use of a seer stone by using the term "Urim and Thummim."

FairMormon commentary

• Early members of the Church tended to use the term "Urim and Thummim" to refer to both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters. *The Nephite interpreters were never called "Urim and Thummim" by the Book of Mormon text; the label is a modern application.
• The term "Urim and Thummim" was only applied to the seer stone and Nephite interpreters several years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Additional information

• Joseph as seer and his use of seer stones—What do we know about Joseph's seer stone? What is its relation to the "Urim and Thummim"? Did Joseph place his seer stone in his hat while he was translating the Book of Mormon? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that the Church is being deceptive by claiming that the Three and Eight Witnesses actually say the gold plates.

FairMormon commentary

• The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.

Additional information

• What was the character of the witnesses?—Critics charge that the witnesses cannot be trusted, or are unreliable, because they were unstable personalities, prone to enthusiasm and exaggeration. Evidence amply demonstrates that the formal witnesses of the Book of Mormon were men of good character and reputation, and were recognized as such by contemporary non-Mormons. (Link)

• Martin Harris repeatedly sought empirical proof—Critics claim that Martin Harris was a gullible believer in the supernatural. But, in fact, Martin repeatedly performed empirical tests to confirm Joseph Smith's claims. He came away convinced. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that the Book of Mormon translation occurred using Joseph's seer stone and that the plates didn't need to be present.

FairMormon commentary

• It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out "by the gift and power of God." These are the only words that Joseph Smith himself used to describe the translation process.
• We do not know the exact method of translation, other than Joseph employed instruments designated for that purpose: The Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. Many have offered their own opinions about how these devices "functioned" in the process, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time.
• Historical sources also indicate that at some later point in time, both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's seer stone were referred to using the term "Urim and Thummim." Whether Joseph used the "original" Urim and Thummim (i.e. Nephite interpreters or "spectacles") or his own seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work.

Additional information

• Description of translation method and circumstances—Friendly and unfriendly accounts of those who witnessed and heard about the translation of the Book of Mormon (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• The critics claim that Fanny Alger was "[o]ne of Joseph Smith's first experiments with adultery "

FairMormon commentary

• The Fanny Alger marriage illustrates many of the difficulties which the historian encounters in polygamy. There is little information available, much of it is second hand, and virtually all of it was recorded "after the fact." Even the dates are unclear, and subject to debate.
• It seems clear, however, that Joseph, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one. The witness of Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young make it untenable to claim that only a later Mormon whitewash turned an affair into a marriage.

Additional information

• Fanny Alger: Marriage or affair?—Critics charge that Joseph Smith's early plural marriage(s) cannot have been "real" marriages, since the doctrine of "eternal marriage" (i.e., marriages which last beyond the grave) was not introduced until 1841. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants promoted monogamy while polygamy was secretly being practiced.

FairMormon commentary

• The statement itself was not changed between the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C. In fact, the statement remained in the D&C until the 1876 edition, even though plural marriage had been taught since at least 1831, practiced in secret since 1836, and practiced openly since 1852. The matter of not removing it in 1852 was simply due to the fact that a new edition of the D&C was not published until 1876.

Additional information

• 1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy—The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics claim that Joseph lied when he stated the "spiritual wifery" was "absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing."

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph distinguished "spiritual wifery," a term used by John C. Bennet, from the doctrine of plural marriage.

Additional information

• John C. Bennett—John C. Bennett material is in three draft chapters. Given their length and difficulty of converting them to wiki format, they are presented here in downloadable PDF. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that Joseph took wives without Emma's consent, contrary to the requirement that the first wife needed to give consent.

FairMormon commentary

• Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.

Additional information

• Sealing required Emma's consent—Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics note that Joseph wrote a letter to Sarah Ann Whitney telling her to come when Emma was not present.

FairMormon commentary

• Critics would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting the Whitneys in danger.

Additional information

• Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?—Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Joseph publicly denied plural marriage while secretly practicing it.

FairMormon commentary

• It is true that Joseph hid the practice of plural marriage.

Quotes to consider
A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:

When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.” (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.)

Additional information

• Hiding the truth about polygamy—It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics claim that the Church histories "deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment."

FairMormon commentary

• Church histories are full of examples of Joseph Smith exercising poor judgment and the consequences that resulted from it. Some examples include:
  • The Kirtland Safety Society—Consequence: apostasy of many Church leaders, including two of the three witnesses.
  • The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press—Consequence: the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Joseph's polyandrous marriages were not published in Church manuals.

FairMormon commentary

• Church manuals don't say much of anything about any type of plural marriage at all, not just those that were polyandrous.

Additional information

• Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto was issued in 1890.

FairMormon commentary

• Some Church members unfamiliar with the history behind the aggressive Federal anti-polygamy movement have been troubled by critics who try to portray Church members’ and leaders’ choices as dishonest and improper. It is important to realize that this is a point on which modern enemies of the Church would be impossible to satisfy. If the Church had acquiesced to government pressure and stopped polygamy completely in 1890, the Church would then be charged with having “revelations on demand,” or with abandoning something they claimed was divine under government pressure. In fact, prior to the Manifesto, the attorney prosecuting Elder Lorenzo Snow for polygamy “predicted that if Snow and others were found guilty and sent to prison church leaders would find it convenient to have a revelation setting aside the commandment on polygamy.”

Additional information

• Practiced after the Manifesto—limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. Critics claim that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

• Critics claim that the Church is deceptive in its practices for ensuring that Baptism for the Dead is not performed for Holocaust victims or celebrities.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  The Church has made great efforts to prevent such baptisms from being performed. Critics want to the Church to exercise some form of control over members who persist in submitting such names. These same critics complain that the Church exercises too much control over its members.
• While work toward the complete removal of all Holocaust victims' names from the Church's database continues, controversy and frustration may well continue to surface. It is important to remember that progress has been made, and that as temple approval safeguards become more sophisticated, one can hope that misguided individuals will be much less able to violate the agreement.
• The Church has now flagged Holocaust-related names in the database so that if an attempt is made to perform ordinance work for them, the user's account will be locked.

Additional information

• Work for Holocaust victims—In 1995, after it was learned that a substantial number of Holocaust victims were listed in the Church's temple records as having been baptized, an agreement was signed between the Church and leading Jewish authorities which officially ended baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims posthumously. (Link)