15. Apostles and Prophets Should Continue in the Church (Ephesians 4:11-14)

In reply to the chapter, “A Non-Prophet Organization”

Page 211, lines 1-2

“lf Mormonism is really what it claims to be, then the entire human race ought to submit to the authoritarian claims of The Brethren.”

To the contrary, LDS doctrine speaks against authoritarian rule. “The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and. . . the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” There must be no authoritarianism, only persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and pure love (D&C 121:36, 39, 41).

The book never mentions that common consent is a right that each member of the Church may exercise (D&C 26:2; 41:9; 42:11). See comments about page 93, line 2 and Page 28, line II for earlier discussion.

The LDS Church has behind it the power of God, and deems freedom of choice a sacred right. The Church might be considered authoritative, but not authoritarian.

Page 211, lines 3-4

If Mormonism really what it claims to be, then the entire human race ought to submit to the authoritarian claims of The Brethren and thereby hasten the return of the Mormon ‘Messiah.'”

The book charges that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be worshipping the biblical Christ, because they really are worshipping a satanic Mormon “Christ,” even though Latter-day Saints claim to worship the real Savior of the world.

If Mormons claimed that everyone else but Latter-day Saints were worshipping a Catholic or a Baptist “Christ,” then the authors and the entire Christian world would really have something to protest. Yet the authors somehow feel it is their right to emphatically state that the Monnon “Messiah” is not the real Christ. Their assertion shows an authoritarian attitude.

Page 211, lines 18-20

“God. . . will make me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth to me; and if you don’t like it, you must lump it.”

Here the authors quote Joseph Smith from History of the Church, but the omission of words changes the meaning. The actual account is: “God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel and He will make me be god to you in His stead . . . .” Joseph Smith is paraphrasing the incident from Exodus where God told Moses He would give him Aaron for a spokesman.

In his talk Joseph Smith said, “My lungs are worn out,” indicating that he was exhausted from speaking. Therefore, as the text explains, Joseph compared himself to Moses, who was given Aaron for a spokesman.

In the biblical account the Lord said to Moses, “He shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God” (Ex. 4:16). In other words, as Aaron spoke, Moses could correct him if he said anything wrong, just as God could tell his prophet Moses what to say. Moses by the same token could tell Aaron what to say, and in a figurative way Moses was as God to Aaron.

Joseph Smith, using this Exodus expression, now introduced another church leader to the congregation and said, “I have been giving Elder Adams instruction in some principles to speak to you, and if he makes a mistake, I will get up and correct him” (HC 6:319-320).

The audience would, of course, have been disappointed hearing from a substitute speaker when they came to hear Joseph Smith. He had spoken for hours to an audience of several thousand the day before. In his weariness, Joseph then turned over the speaking assignment to an aide and said to the audience, “If you don’t like it, you can lump it.” (I suppose Joseph said this humorously.) None of this background is mentioned by the authors.

Page 212, lines 1-2

“The list of proven false prophecies beginning with Joseph Smith on down is … staggering.”

The footnote refers to two anti-Mormon sources which give a handful of alleged “false prophecies.” I examine these at the points where they appear elsewhere in The God Makers.

Page 212, line 6

“Joseph Smith used his ‘seer stone’ to prophesy, but it has never been used by any Mormon ‘Prophet’ since.”

How do the authors know it has not been used? Why do the authors ignore the biblically mentioned Urim and Thummim that we know for sure was used by Joseph Smith in receiving some of the Doctrine and Covenants revelations, as well as in translating the Book of Mormon? Since he possessed a seer stone, it is likely that Joseph Smith used it. Most of the first LDS prophet’s revelations, however, came by inspiration, although some were the result of direct visitations by heavenly messengers. It is the same today. See comments about page 95, lines 35-37, for earlier discussion. Perhaps the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone are devices for training seers. Joseph’s successors perhaps had sufficient spiritual instruction and experience before being called as prophets to be seers without the stones.

Page 212, lines 8-10

“How do Mormon ‘prophets’ prophesy? The astonishing answer to that is that they don’t.”

At the dedication of the Washington, D.C., temple in 1974, President Kimball was asked by a reporter if he still revived revelations. President Kimball said, “Indeed I do. Indeed I do.” When Presided Kimball was asked more specifically by a reporter at the 1975 rededication of the Arizona temple, “How do you receive revelations?” his reply was, “I receive them the same as Moses and the other prophets” (Church News, March 22, 1975, p. 3).

Before he became the twelfth president of the LDS Church, Spencer W. Kimball said the following:

What the world needs is a prophet-leader who gives example— clean, full of faith, godlike in his attitudes with an untarnished name, a beloved husband, a true father.

A prophet needs to be more than a priest or a minister or an elder. His voice becomes the voice of God to reveal new programs, new truths, new solutions. I make no claim of infallibility for him, but he does need to be recognized of God, an authoritative person. He is no pretender as numerous are who presumptuously assume position without appointment and authority that is not given. He must speak like his Lord: “. . . as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matt. 7:29.)

He must be bold enough to speak truth even against popular clamor for lessening restrictions. He must be certain of his divine appointment, of his celestial ordination, and his ‘authority to call to service, to ordain, to pass keys which fit eternal locks …

What is needed is more a Moses than a Pharaoh; an Elijah than a Belshazzar; a Paul than a Pontius Pilate (Conference Report, April 1970, pp. 120-121).

Page 212, lines 19-24

The authors quote: “Excluding the Manifesto and the statement (not a revelation) on blacks, only three of [the twelve LDS] Presidents received revelations which were added to the ‘standard works’ [LDS scripture].”

Six points need to be made in regard to the foregoing statement:

1. Earlier the book was critical because some of the theology of Mormonism developed gradually and was not all in place the day the LDS Church was organized; now the complaint is that there is no new revelation. “The formative period was during Joseph Smith’s administration, so that later there was little need for additional revelation in the area of doctrmal development.
2. Although the Manifesto and the statement that every worthy male (blacks) could hold the priesthood were additions to the Doctrine and Covenants and in the form of official declarations, both Wilford Woodruff and Spencer W. KimbaH emphatically said they were based on revelation.
3. There has always been a time lag between the time a revelation is received by a prophet and the time it appears in a printed volume of scripture. For example, Joseph F. Smith received in 1918 a revelation on redemption for the dead, but it was not canonized until 1974, and is now known as Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants. At the same time, another revelation oi Joseph Smith’s was added to the D&C as Section 137, this one received in 1836 concerning salvation for the dead in relation to the celestial kingdom. Other revelations that were received by Joseph Smith or any of the prophets could be added in the future.
4. In LDS doctrine, revelations do not need to be canonized to be considered authentic.
5. Six volumes called Messages of the First Presidency compiled by James R. Clark were published between 1965 and 1975 which contain policy statements and letters by the First Presidency. Included in these volumes are revelations .and statements based on revelation up to the year 1951. (Further volumes in this series are expected.)
6. A partial list of uncanonized revelations in the LDS Church follows (sources will be abbreviated):

 

Page 212, lines 25-27

“Ask any Mormon to name the three most important prophecies uttered by the current ‘Prophet, Seer and Revelator,’ Spencer W. Kimball, and he won’t be able to mention one. “

Can anyone mention right off the three most important prophecies of any of the prophets in the Bible? This is not to say it can’t be done, but the point is that the main function of a prophet is to teach the will of God, to call God’s children to repentance, and to inspire the people as the prophet Mkah did when he said, “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8).

The original meaning of the word “prophet” was “teacher of righteousness. ” The ability to foretell and receive revelation were concepts added later. A prophet can be a prophet without ever making a prediction.

One of the most scholarly and reliable sources of biblical interpretation states that a prophet is “the one who announces the purpose and activity of God” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of theBible [1962], Abingdon Press, New York, Vol. 3, p. 897). Another respected source says “The [biblical] prophet was primarily a man of the word of God” and all other prophetic functions were “subordinated to bringing the word of God to his fellow-men” {The New Bible Dictionary [1974], Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 1038).

In this section the book talks about the lack of prophecy and revelations in the LDS Church in recent times. Every LDS prophet from Joseph Smith to the present prophet has, however, received revelations from God. (See previous item.) In addition, faithful Church members recognize that every significant change made by President Spencer W. Kimball was undoubtedly based on revelation. See the accompanying tabulation.

 

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHURCH GROWTH
AND INNOVATION WITH
PRESIDENT SPENCER W. KIMBALL

Adapted from a list compiled by Dr. Max H Parkan.

1. Revelation. The revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color (June 8, 1978).
2. First Quorum of the Seventy. Organization of the First Quorum of the Seventy, later releasing the Assistants to the Twelve and calling them into the First Quorum of the Seventy.
3. New scripture. The adoption as scripture of Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead. This was the first formal addition to the Church’s body of scripture in eighty-six years. Also, the new LDS edition of the King James version of the Bible (1979) and the Triple Combination (1981). The adding of the subtitle to the Book of Mormon—”Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”
4. Conferences. Elimination of auxiliary general conferences, replacing them with regional meetings and area conferences. Reducing general conference from three to two days. Eliminating two of the stake quarterly conferences.
5. Genealogy. The genealogy name-extraction program, under which Church members meet their obligations by completing four generation group sheets, with names collected far more efficiently for temple work by extracting them directly from civil and church records.
6. Temples. Announcement or commencement of twenty-five temples, more than the seventeen built in the preceding 144 years of Church history.
7. 7. Simplificatwn. Besides refining conference schedules, establishment of a new consolidated meeting schedule for all Church members.
8. Emeritus status. Creation of an emeritus status for some General Authorities, honoring them for long and faithful service, but relieving them of the heavy burdens they had been carrying.
9. Missionary. A vast increase in missionary emphasis, with special attention and prayer given the three-quarters of the world’s population where no missionary work is now being done. The number of missionaries increased 40 percent to 30,000, with a challenge to double that number by increasing the percentage of eligible young men serving missions from 25 percent to 50 percent.
10. Organizational changes. Profound organizational changes at the top, clearly dividing ecclesiastical responsibilities under the Twelve from temporal responsibilities under the Presiding Bishopric, clarifying the role and administration of the youth organizations, redefining roles of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Quorum of the Seventy. Thirteen new area presidencies organized in 1984.
11. Women’s concerns. Strong attention to the problems of women in today’s world including official statements on abortion and the proposed “Equal Rights Amendment”; organization of a Women’s Resource Center, and the holding of the first Churchwide women’s meeting on a scale comparable to general priesthood meeting. More attention is being given to single women.
12. Mass media. Introduction of mass media methods of spreading the gospel, including a nationwide prime-time television program on the family, a series of inserts in the Reader’s Digest,and a number of family-emphasis rallies featuring Church leaders and LDS celebrities in entertainment and sports. Satellite dishes are installed in every stake center in the USA and Canada to receive conference broadcasts and other special programs from Church headquarters. Radio and TV public service announcements on the home are prepared for national use.
13. Jerusalem. Building of the Orson Hyde Memorial Gardens on the Mount of Olives at Jerusalem, attracting attention to the Church’s particular interest and involvement in that part of the world, and establishing a Jerusalem center for Near-eastern studies for Brigham Young University.

Page 212, lines 33-34

“There is no evidence that Heber C. Kimball made any prophecies that came true.”

Of Heber C. Kimball’s prophecies the one that is best documented was fulfilled in 1849 when the LDS pioneers had struggled for two years in Utah and some were ready to return to the East. At that time, “Heber C. Kimball rose before the Saints to prophecy that they would soon be able to buy eastern goods cheaper on their own streets than they could in the East.”

Even some of the most faithful shook their heads. However, within weeks thousands of “forty-niners” began passing thiough the Salt Lake Valley on their way to the gold fields of California (Leonaid 1. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, p. 105). Many of those traveling to California were businessmen who had brought with them tons of merchandise that they hoped to sell for a handsome profit on the West Coast. By the time they arrived in Salt Lake City, they realized their wagons were too overloaded for the trip across the Sierras. Word also arrived that other merchants had chartered entire ships with merchandise that was in the San Francisco area waiting to be sold. Arriving in the Salt Lake Valley, these entrepreneurs sold all they could at rock bottom prices and then hastened on to California to seek gold.

Page 213, lines 1-3

“[LDS] criticism against Catholics and Protestants for not adding to the canon of Scripture applies equally to itself, and by its own doctrines condemn it as apostate.”

There is a big difference between not adding new revelations for nearly two thousand years and the LDS practice of canonizing scripture from time to time. To Latter-day Saints, the messages of the prophet at general conference and in Church periodicals are considered comparable to similar canonized scripture.

Page 213, lines 15-25

When Joseph F. Smith was asked at a U.S. Senate hearing if he received revelations that were subsequently canonized, the book says he stated, “No, sir, none whatever. . . . I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations.”

In the reference the authors give, I couldn’t find the material quoted after the ellipses. At least twice in his testimony the sixth President of the LDS Church said he did receive revelations, but there is some confusion in the account. President Smith did say that he had not received a dramatic direct visitation from heaven, but that he knew he was operating by strong promptings of the Spirit. The reader who reads the minutes of the hearing will undoubtedly be moved deeply by the humiliation and rudeness to which President Smith was subjected in many days of questioning by those who were unfriendly and unkind.

The book fails to mention that this hearing was held to try and unseat Utah’s elected Senator Reed Smoot for allegedly being a polygamist or supporter of polygamy. The hearing was started in 1904, three years after President Smith had become President of the LDS Church. (See United States Senate Reed Smoot Hearings (1904] 4:181-184.)

Later, President Smith himself presented to the conference of the Church, October 3, 1918, a report on several divine communications he had received concerning the spirit world. On October 31, it was unanimously accepted by the First Presidency and the Twelve, In the April conference of 1974 the revelation was unanimously accepted by the Church, and thus became canonized. It now appears as Section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. See also comments about Page 212, lines 19-24 for earlier discussion.

Page 213, lines 22-25

“[Early LDS prophets’] ‘prophecies’ were mostly wrong.”

Appendix C gives evidence that refutes this.

Page 213, lines 31-37

“If Joseph Smith were a true Prophet, it would be expected that the Mormon Church would have widely published his prophecies and gained many converts thereby.”

A few possible reasons why the LDS church does not brag about fulfilled prophecies:

1. To want a list of fulfilled prophecies is akin to asking for a sign. “It is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign” (Matt. 16:4; 12:39; Luke 11:29).
2. Those who join a religious cause quickly because of the miraculous are often the first to leave for minor reasons.
3. The LDS Church’s emphasis is not on signs but on gospel teachings, repentance, a conviction of Jesus the Christ, and righteous works. A sampling of fulfilled prophecies of Joseph Smith that come to my mind is given in Appendix C.

Page 214, lines 1 and 2

“{Joseph] Smith’s claim that he was ordained by John the Baptist and Peter, James and John cannot be substantiated historically as an actual event.”

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the two people present on the occasion of John the Baptist’s appearance, both independently recorded May 15, 1829, as the date. This account of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration by Joseph Smith is found in Joseph Smith—History 1:68-73 in the Pearl of Great Price. Oliver Cowdery’s version is included as a footnote on the same page with the verses stated. Latter-day Saints admit there is no known date for the coming of Peter, James and John, but several references are made to the event by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders. See comments about Page 202, lines 12-13 for earlier discussion.

Page 214, lines 3, 10 and 11

“The saga of [Joseph Smith’s] ‘First Vision’ is a prime example [of countless changes in ‘revelations’]. “

Actually there are several accounts by Joseph Smith of this vision and they are surprisingly similar, especially when one realizes the accounts were given several years apart, to different audiences and for different purposes. The best source for a treatment of the different accounts is a book by Milton V. Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Bookcraft, Inc., 1980. See accompanying chart for content of the different versions of the First Vision.

 

EARLY ACCOUNTS OF
JOSEPH SMITH’S FIRST VISION*

• 1831-32
• 1835
• 1838-39
• Pratt
• Hyde
• Wentworth
• Spectator
• Neibauer

Source: James B. Alien, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision—What Do We Learn From Them?” Improvement Era, Vol. 63 (April 1970), pp. 4-13.

*See chart in connection with Page 218, lines 18-19 for historical setting of these various accounts.

Additional Partial Bibliography

• Allen, James B. “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue, Vol. I (Autumn 1966), pp. 28-4.5.
• Backman, Milton V., Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).
• Bushman, Richard L„ “The First Vision Story Revived,” Dialogue, Vol. 4 (Spring 1969), pp. 82-93.
• Cheesman, Paul R„ “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965.
• Jessee, Dean C„ “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” BYU Studies, 9 (Spring 1969), pp. 275-294. (Other articles in this issue of BYU Studies pertained to this subiect.)

Page 214, lines 16-18

“[There are] countless changes in ‘revelations’ and personal accounts, effect by the Mormon hierarchy without notice. “

Changes made in revelations and history are not necessarily distortions or falsifications; they may be corrections and filling in information that has come to light.

Books on U.S. history today are completely different from those of years past. Written histories are constantly being revised and update as new information comes to light. The same can be said about religious histories, including that of the Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both wrote in their diaries, which were later published, that they were making such revisions. There was no a tempt to deny this. Bible and Christian history is constantly updated.

Any new edition of LDS scripture and history is open to examination and any changes arc carefully analyzed, discussed, and publicized by the LDS and non-LDS observers. Probably no history ( scripture anywhere is as closely scrutinized as is that of the LDS Church.

Page 214, line 32, to Page 215, line 3

“The following foundational Mormon doctrines are implicit in this {first] vision:

(Each of the subsequent four points made in the book is listed below and followed by the known facts.)

Page 215, lines 7-28

“The official account [of the First Vision] that the Church relies on today was not published until 1842, some twenty-two years after it was alleged to have occurred. It is difficult to believe that the most important event in thousands of years and in fact in all of human history would have been kept secret for so long . . .. The First Vision was unknown during those early years when the church was struggling for recognition.”

There are five observations that are in order in regard to the foregoing statement: 1. Although the account was not published until 1842, it was written down in its current form in 1838-1839 and there are at least two earlier similar accounts by Joseph Smith, one as early as 1832. See commentary about Page 214, lines 3 and 10 for previous remarks. 2. Twelve years, fifteen years, eighteen years, or even twenty-two years is not a long time for spiritual events to get into print compared to the hundreds of years after the events happened that the Bible was compiled. 3. The First Vision was not “the most important event . . . in all of human history.” Christ’s ministry and his atonement would rank highest of all events. 4. We can only guess why the First Vision was not recorded earlier. Perhaps the Lord asked for it to be kept secret, as he sometimes asked of his followers during his earthly ministry. Jesus also commanded the apostles not to reveal their experience on the Mount of Transfiguration for a time until after he ascended into heaven (Matt. 17:9; Mark 9:2-9). Joseph Smith recorded that there were “many other things which I cannot write at this time” (JS—History 1:20). 5. Since there are now other primary accounts of the First Vision dating to 1832 and 1835, there is a good chance the story was known earlier in the Church than the book maintains. Earlier documents may yet be found.

Page 215, line 29, to last line

“In 1832 the by-then ‘Prophet’ Joseph Smith claimed a ‘revelation’ that without the priesthood ‘no man can see the face of God, even the father, and live’ [DSfC 84:22] . . . How then could Joseph Smith have ‘seen God’ in 1820?”

The authors omit the first part of the expression, which says, “Without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh” (D&C 84:21). In other words, for a mortal to act in God’s name he must have priesthood. These verses are not intended to restrict God in initiating contact with mortals. In other words, with the priesthood restored, God would normally work through those lines of authority, but God or Christ may reveal themselves in any way they wish, as happened to Paul on the road to Damascus when he had his vision (Acts 9). The very next verse (D&C 84:23), in fact, refers to a time when the Lord was planning to show himself to all the people of Israel at once, but they lacked the faith to receive this blessing (Ex. 19:11).

To be gramaticaJly correct the proper referant for “this” is “the power of godliness” and not “priesthood” in D&C 84:20. In other words, the power of godliness transfigures and overshadows a person, not priesthood, or that person cannot endure beholding the face of God.

Page 216, lines 1-5

“The ‘Lectures on Faith’ . . . declared the father to be ‘a personage of Spirit.’ The ‘Lectures’ were incorporated into Mormon scripture in 1835.”

1. In referring to God being “a personage of spirit” the “Lectures on Faith” did not mean “only” spirit, but were merely emphasizing the separateness of God’s personage from Christ’s personage. Nowhere does the Bible say God is only spirit, but John 4:24 says, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him moat worship him in spirit and in truth.” Humans who worship God do so while possessing mortal bodies. Yet if persons must worship God in spirit, we cannot conclude God is only spirit any more than we can say man is only spirit. The full statement in the lectures seems to support this: “They are the Father and the Son—the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection andfullness.” The Bible makes clear that Christ had a resurrected body when he ascended into heaven and that Christ is in “the express image of [the Father’s] person” (Luke 24:39; Heb. 1:13). It certainly is logical that when the lectures state God the Father possessed all “perfection and fullness,” they are not describing God as having less than Christ with his resurrected body.
2. LDS leaders and scholars have questioned whether Joseph Smith was the author of the Lectures on Faith (Leland H. Gentry, BYU Studies, Fall 1978, pp. 5-19). In any event theLectures on Faith are not on the same level as the accepted scriptures of the LDS Church.

Page 216, lines 5-10

“And if Smith had seen Father and Son in two separate bodies in 1820, why would the ‘Prophet’ in the mid-1830s (in the course of rewriting the entire Bible to correct alleged errors in translation) change Luke10:22 to read (as it still does in the Mormon Inspired Version’), ‘that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son’? “

The above change in the Bible by Joseph Smith at first glance could mean as the book maintains that God and Christ are the same person. It more logically means that God and Christ are alike and have similar characteristics, the same purposes, etc. Christ also said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), meaning that they were alike, but not the same. In this sense Joseph Smith altered Luke 10:22.

The interpretation that the Godhead consists of separate beings is correct and is supported by the fact that there are a dozen or more New Testament changes made by Joseph Smith in which he went out of his way to emphasize the separateness of God and Christ; for example: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (John 9:4). Joseph Smith added, “then I go unto the Father.” (Italics added.)

Another example, “Whosoever shall revive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me” (Mark 9:37). Joseph Smith’s changes on this verse also go out of their way to identify and emphasize that the Father is a separate being: “And whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me only, but him thatsent me, even the Father.” (Italics added.)

Other such revisions Joseph Smith made emphasizing the separateness of God and Christ are found in Matt. 23:9-10; Luke 9:26; John 1:1, 16, 3:36, 5:34, and 6:44, 65.

When one looks at all of Joseph Smith’s changes, not just one, then a proper interpretation of Luke 10:22 can be made. In addition, evidence that the separateness of God and Christ in the First Vision was not an afterthought is brought forth, since Joseph Smith worked on these revisions in the early 1830s.

Page 216, lines 11-19

“The statement by the ‘Personages’ in this vision that all of the Christian creeds on earth ‘were an abomination’ ‘also doesn’t ring true. The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds that were accepted by most Christian churches in 1820 simply state such basics as belief ‘in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth … in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, and resurrected,’ etc.” .

On page 44, lines 7-8 the authors said, “Christians consider the Bible to be the final authority in everything,” and now they defend creeds. The word “Christians” is a generalization, because not all Christians feel this way.

The book quotes parts of the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed that are somewhat biblical, but omits some things definitely nonbiblical, such as, “Christ is of one substance with the Father,” which cannot be found in the Bible.

It should be mentioned that the creeds the Lord was warning Joseph Smith against as abominations undoubtedly included others besides the two mentioned by the authors. For example, if one considers the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith of the Anglican Church, one will find assumptions not based on scripture, such as:

1. God is without body, parts or passions.
2. The Godhead has three persons of one substance.
3. Certain men are predestined to be saved.
4. We have no power to do works pleasant and acceptable to God.
5. Young children and infants should be baptized.

Joseph Smith’s claim that God said the creeds were an abomination is not a unique charge of the LDS founder. Why did the Nicene Creed have to be debated fifty years before it was accepted? Even today many Christian thinkers criticize the creeds. The recent “God-is-dead” movement was largely a result of the frustration many have with Christian creeds. Some atheists claim they do not believe in a god because of the mish-mash found in creeds.

In Joseph Smith’s day some of the most prominent Americans were disgusted with the creeds of Christendom. Thomas Jefferson said:

I [Jefferson] am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the preachers . . of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said or did.

They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man of which Jesus, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. . . . It is the speculations of crazy theologians which have made a Babel out of religion (Saul K. Padover, Thomas Jefferson onDemocracy, 1939, pp. 122-123).

Writing to S. Hales in 1818, Jefferson wrote: “The truth is that Calvinism has introduced into the Christian religion more new absurdities than its leaders had purged it of old ones” (Ibid., p. 219).

On Jefferson’s monument in Washington, D.C., is inscribed: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” If his complete quotation were on the monument it would bring out the fact that Jefferson was speaking against the dergy of his day (Ibid., p. 119).

Benjamin Franklin, replying to a letter from Ezra Styles, president of Yale, said shortly before his death:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left it to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes (Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin, 1941, p. 777).

The first great work expressing the deistic feeling in America was Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, considered to have generated the greatest stir of any book of its day. It made clear that Paine was not an atheist as some claimed, but a deist because of the tyranny and bigotry he found in the existing churches (Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, 1793, p. 287).

Speaking of the period in America between 1670 and 1830, renowned theologian Paul Tillich has said, “First among the educated classes, then increasingly in the mass of industrial workers, religion lost its ‘immediacy,’ and it ceased to offer an unquestioned sense of direction and relevance to human living” (Roland N. Stromberg, Religious Liberalism, 1954, p. 1).

Carlyle has said of the Colonial Period: “An age fallen languid and destitute of faith and terrified of skepticism” (Ibid., p. ix).

Of this time Carl L. Becker has said, “What we have to realize is that in those years God was on trial” (Ibid., p. 1).

On another occasion, Thomas Jefferson said:

The impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the earth (Peter H. Odegard, Religion and Politics, 1960, p. 110).

It is also true that in Colonial America only about 5 percent of the population belonged to any church and that those who did come to America for religious reasons did not come here initially to seek freedom of religion except for themselves. This is certainly an indictment against religion in Joseph Smith’s day.

Peter Odegard also maintains this position:

Nowhere in the old world at the beginning of American colonization was there anything like religious toleration. . . . It is sad but not surprising to recall that even the religious dissenters who found refuge in America were, with notable exceptions, no more disposed toward toleration than the oppressors of the old world Obid., p. 9).

Historian William Warren Sweet says, “The rise of an intense anticlericalism was another cause of opposition to the churches.” Further he relates: “The United States began as a free and independent nation with organized religion at a low ebb” (William Warren Sweet, Religion in the Development of American Culture, 1952, p. 92.).

George Washington, who died only five years before Joseph Smith’s birth, commented on a new mode of baptism: “The change from immersion to affusion is a deviation from the original because the Church has fallen by universal custom into neglect” (“George Washington and Freedom of Conscience,” Journal of Religion, 1932, Vol. 12, p. 493).

When the Lord said to Joseph Smith that their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that many religious professors were corrupt—”having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof, ” this agreed completely with what some of America’s greatest minds were saying as well (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

Page 216, lines 23-31

“Joseph Smith and his family at that time were heavily involved in necromancy and divination, communicating with spirits of the dead and divining the location of buried treasure, which the Bible declares to be an abomination to God in no uncertain terms. What ‘God’ could this be who has no word of reproof for Joseph’s necromancy and divination, yet abominates all biblical creeds? Could that be why the ‘truth’ that he calls Joseph Smith to ‘restore’ turns out to be identical to the lie that Satan used to deceive Eve?”

See page 98, lines 35-37 and page 96, line 30 for remarks on divination charges. The previous point (Page 216, lines 11-19) discussed the “creeds are an abomination” charge.

For discussion of Satan’s lie in the Garden of Eden, see page 139, line 35.

Page 216, line 32 to Page 217, line 31

“One of the strangest contradictions in the entire episode of the alleged first Vision is the fact that, having been twice forbidden in this same vision by the Father to join a church, the young ‘Prophet’ [joins the Methodist church in 1828 in Harmony, Pennsylvania].”

The source the authors use (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, p. 384) is not speaking of Joseph’s joining the Methodist church in Harmony at all. The quote deals with a Methodist probationary class that Joseph attended in Palmyra, New York, in 1820, prior to the First Vision, not 1828. It is difficult to see how the authors could have made such a mistake, since the source text a few lines after the quotation they rely upon makes very clear the place and the period.

Before the organization of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith was interested in several religious groups. He admitted he was “somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them” (Joseph Smith—History 1:8).

The second source the authors use in this connection claims that in 1828 Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church in Harmony. This comes from an anti-LDS source; and the authors do notmention that in the full account it says Joseph’s name merely appeared on a classbook and after three days Joseph Smith asked to have it removed. It was removed by the teacher of the class when Joseph did not seek full membership. The story was written fifty-one years after the event. The statement is filled with numerous opinions, all unfriendly to Joseph Smith, and the account also said, “I think in June, 1828 [these events happened],” and “it was a general opinion . . . .” In summary, the source is questionable, and if it is true, it merely states that Joseph’s name was on a class roll, which does not signify joining a church.

The two persons who gave the newspaper interview in 1879 were Joseph and Hiel Lewis, cousins of Emma Hale Smith, wife of Joseph Smith. The fact that the Hale family was much opposed to Joseph Smith most of their lives should have some bearing on how the claims are assessed.

Page 217, line 19, to Page 218, line I

The same unfriendly Lewis account, written fifty years after the fact, refers to a “bleeding ghost” instead of Moroni as the messenger who gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon plates.

It is more than reasonable to doubt a quote in an anti-Mormon work taken from another anti-Mormon book taken from a fifty-year-after the-fact interview given by hostile witnesses. (For previous comments, see previous item.)

Page 218, lines 1-13

The book now belittles what was then thought to be one of the earliest documents known in LDS history.

Although now known to have been a Mark Hoffman forgery, the authors significantly distorted the Mother Smith letter when most felt it was authentic. This letter was claimed to have been written by Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy, to her sister-in-law, Mary Pierce. The authors depreciate this document because it says, “The Lord . . . has made known his paths to Joseph in dreams . . . and . . . he is able to translate [the gold plates] . . . and he is able to recover these things also in dreams, therefore beware that you do not mock” (Ensign, October, 1982, pp. 72-73).

If authentic, Mother Smith could have used “dreams” and “visions” synonymously as the dictionary and the Book of Mormon do (I Ne. 8:12). There are many possible explanations to her choice of the word dreams, but the most important aspect of this letter would have been that she states her son is translating golden plates with the help of God.

I do not know why the authors put ‘ ‘the gold plates” in brackets in their highly edited version, because in Mother Smith’s letter she included these words.

Anti-Mormons, including the authors of The God Makers, have maintained that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon to earn some money, and that when people started believing it, the First Vision, the gold plates, the angel Moroni, priesthood restoration, were all added to strengthen Joseph’s claims. This some call the evolutionary theory of Mormonism.

“Perhaps the letter’s greatest significance,” said Jan Shipps (a respected non-LDS historian and director of the Center for American Studies at Purdue University) “is that it tends to refute the theory that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as a novel and that he only came to believe it was true after others accepted it as scripture.” Said Dr. Shipps, “The letter tends to validate what Joseph Smith said and therefore it is something that will prove a thorn in the side of people trying to prove that the Book of Mormon was a conscious fraud” (George Raine, “LDS Church Releases 1829 Smith Letter,” Salt Lake Tribune, August 24, 1982, p. B1).

The letter is addressed to Mrs. Mary Pierce and the handwriting is “definitely that of Lucy Mack Smith,” Dean Jessee, a writer and handwriting specialist in the LDS Church Historical Department had said.

Mother Smith writes of the loss, “on account of negligence,” of the 116 pages, and then delivers a synopsis of the contents of the lost manuscript. This is information she could only have gleaned by having read the manuscript herself or through word of mouth from her son.

The letter in part says:

It is my pleasure to inform you of a great work which the Lord has wrought in our family, for He has made His paths known to Joseph in dreams and it pleased God to show him where he could dig to obtain an ancient record engraven upon plates made of pure gold and this he is able to translate. . . .

I want for you to remember that God Himself has given to Joseph that he is able to translate and he is able to recover these things also in dreams therefore beware that you do not mock

“The handwriting is quite good and the writer’s prose is relatively smooth, thus dispelling a belief that Lucy was illiterate,” said Dr. Shipps and Mr. Jessee (Ibid.).

Lucy Smith described how her family had come to be ostracized in the upstate New York community as the Church was being organized. “Our neighbors generally treat us with contempt ever since it has been noised about what marvels that the Lord has worked,” she wrote (Ibid.).

Unfortunately this Mother Smith letter, thought at the time the authors wrote The God Makers to be authentic, would actually have been very supportive of official LDS history. But, as shown, Decker and Hunt distorted it for their purposes. Now, of course, the letter can’t be used for or against the Church since it has been declared a forgery.

Page 218, lines 8-9

“There is not a word [in Mrs. Smith’s letter] of heavenly visitors. “

The forged letter actually includes, “It pleased God to show him where he could dig to obtain an ancient record engraven upon plates made of pure gold and this he is able to translate” (Ibid.).

Page 218, line 15

“The mention of dreams agrees with the Lewis account.”

Actually the early account by Lewis referred to previously in the book on Page 217, line 19, claimed that Joseph Smith met with a “bleeding ghost” to get the plates. Now the authors like the dream “theory,” based on the 1982-discovered letter then thought to have been written by Joseph’s mother.

Are the authors critical of biblical dreams of Abraham, Joseph in prison, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Joseph (husband-to-be of Mary)? See biblical concordance for other dreams that were of God.

Page 218, lines 18-19

“The ‘First Vision’ was a later concoction. “

The authors often quote anti-LDS sources but neglect one anti-Mormon source that says, “Smith (they affirm) had seen God frequently and personally” (Abner Cole, Palmyra Reflector,February 14, 1831). Even Joseph’s enemies were charging that he claimed to see God early in his career. See remarks about Page 215, lines 7-28 for earlier comments. See also accompanying list of early accounts of the First Vision.

 

THE FIRST VISION
Accounts of the First Vision Written or Published
During Joseph’s Life

 

• 1830. Doctrine and Covenants 20:5
• 1831. Abner Cole (Obediah Dogberry) Palmyra Reflector Feb. 14, 1831. “Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally.”
• July to December, 1832. Written by the Prophet Joseph Smith in a Letter Book. This is the first known effort of the Prophet to record the history of the Church.
• November 9, 1835. The First Vision was dictated by the Prophet to Warren A. Cowdery as Joseph told the experiences to Robert Matthias. It is written in third person located in the back of Volume A-l of “Manuscript History of Joseph Smith.”
• November 9, 1835. The above account is also recorded in Joseph’s personal 1835—36 diary. But it is changed to the first person.
• 1839. Joseph began to dictate his history to James Mulholland, his scribe, after his release from the Missouri prison. This became the official history of the Church. It was first published in Times and Seasons, then the Pearl of Great Price, and then, as edited by B. H. Roberts, the History of the Church, 1902.
• 1840. Orson Pratt, Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records, Edinburg. Pratt wrote this in England as a missionary tract in 1841 and published it in Philadelphia, Pa. This was the first published account of the First Vision.
• March 1, 1842. Joseph Smith, The Wentworth Letter, Times and Seasons, Vol. Ill, No. 9, pp. 706-710.
• March 15, 1842. Joseph Smith, “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons, Vol. HI, No. 10, pp. 726-728. Vol. Ill, No. II, pp. 748-749. This is the beginning of the publication of “Manuscript History of Joseph Smith.” Portions of this were later placed in the Pearl of Great Price. August 1842. Orson Hyde, A Cry from the Wilderness—A Voice From the Dust of the Earth,Frankfurt. Hyde used Orson Pratt’s missionary tract as the chief source for this tract to be used in Germany.
• Sept. 23, 1843. Joseph Smith. New York Spectator, New York. This contains a reprint of an interview with Joseph, the Prophet, by the editor of another paper, the Pittsburgh Gazette.
• May 24, 1844. Alexander Neibaur, Joseph’s German teacher, recorded the account in his diary as he remembered the Prophet Joseph Smith telling it to him.
• 1844. Daniel Rupp, An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States. Philadelphia. This book contains an article on Mormonism written by the Prophet. It is very similar to the Wentworth Letter.
• 1851. Joseph Smith, “Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith.” The Pearl of Great Price, published by Franklin D. Richards, Liverpool. Also in subsequent editions of The Pearl of Great Price,1878, 1902, 1921.

Prepared by Dr. Max H Parkin and used with permission.

Page 218, lines 19-24

“Interestingly enough Lucy Smith ends the [1829] letter with ‘adieu. ‘ This probably explains the origin of this French word for ‘good-bye’ that appears in the Book of Mormon, supposedly from the lips of Jewish Indians living in America who allegedly communicate in ‘reformed Egyptian.’ “

Joseph was translating (as good translators should) into the vernacular of his day, including “adieu.” Since the Mother Smith letter is now considered a forgery the point is not relevant.

Page 218, line 26 to Page 219, line 5

“Then are nine different accounts [of the First Vision], each of which contradicts the others on major points. “

A study of the different accounts shows a striking similarity among the various versions. The earliest narrative (1832), never polished to a point for publication, is actually the most detailed. This is the only account that is actually in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting and not that of scribes. When one realizes that all the accounts (except the 1832 version) were written by scribes or individuals recording what they had heard Joseph Smith tell, it is remarkable there is so much agreement among the independent sources. If all the accounts were identical, then one could be suspicious of fraud and collusion. For an examination of all the accounts, see Milton V. Backman, Jr.’s, Joseph Smith’s First Vision. See also James Alien, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Improvement Era, April 1970, pp. 4-13. See the comparison chart by Dr. Alien with the discussion about Page 214, lines 3, 10 and II.

Page 218, lines 30-37

The book quotes Sandra Tanner as follows: “He [Joseph Smith] changes the date, he changes how old he is, he changes the motivation, why he went into the woods to pray. He changes who was there and he changes what the message was that they gave him. “If he were giving us an actual account of a real experience, we would assume he would have known the first time around whether it was God or Jesus, if it was both of them, what their message was, and when it happened.”

One wonders how those who criticize versions of the First Vision for not being identical handle the various different versions of biblical accounts. The authors of the Gospels give different accounts of Christ’s genealogy. Furthermore, John 4:2 says, “Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,” yet John 3:22 says: “Jesus and his disciples [came] into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”

The account of Paul’s remarkable vision of Christ says, “And the men which journeyed with them stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7). Yet when Paul repeated the story to the Jews he said, “They that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the mice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9). Perhaps Paul, as Joseph Smith did, gradually revealed more about his experiences as time went by.

Mark recorded that James and John asked the Savior “that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory” (Mark 10:37). Matthew, however, had the mother of James and John, not the apostles themselves, make the request (Matt. 20:20-29). Perhaps both the mother and the sons made the same request, but the accounts do not make this dear. When Luke tells the story of the healing of the blind at Jericho, he mentions but one man (Luke 18:35-43). Matthew mentions two (Matt. 20:29-34). The authenticity of the Savior and his work is not diminished because of omissions, contradictions and imperfections in the records.

A discussion on the different First Vision accounts, which were written by different scribes and observers, was given in connection with Page 215, lines 7-28. Since the first recital is an unfinished draft, obviously not in final form for publication, and since everyone relates experiences differently depending on the audience one is talking to, as Paul did, the different versions of the First Vision are entirely logical.

All accounts except the 1832 rough, unpolished version, speak of two personages. Joseph may simply not have wanted to relate this detail or was commanded not to. After all, his interview was with only one and his instructions came from only one. See the discussion about Page 214, lines 3, 10-11, for chart comparison of different sources of the First Vision.

There is only one apparent contradiction in the various accounts of the First Vision and it actually speaks for authenticity instead of deception. In his 1832 version of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said he was in his sixteenth year when the event happened. In the 1838 published account he said he was a year younger, “between fourteen and fifteen years.” Joseph Smith appears to have been uncertain about his age at the time of the First Vision, because in the 1838 handwritten manuscript the words “or thereabouts” were inserted directly above the words “fourteen and fifteen years” (Milton V. Backman, Jr„ Joseph Smith’s First Vision, p. 164). Backman also points out that in the 1832 manuscript version the numeral 16 is not written clearly and could also be read as 15. Why this uncertainty was edited out of the account is not known. Also, in his 1842 “Wentworth Letter” .version Joseph Smith said, “When about fourteen years of age. . .” (HC 4:536). If Joseph Smith had fabricated this experience he would have shown no uncertainty. To accuse Joseph Smith of a contradiction when he admitted uncertainty is straining to find fault. Variation is not necessarily evidence of fabrication. Neither is forgetting the exact year in which a particular event happened in one’s life.

Page 219, lines 54

“The me thing that all the nine accounts (except the revised 1842 version) agree upon is that Joseph Smith in none of them claims to have seen God the Father, much less in a physical body.”

The First Vision is not necessarily the source for the LDS doctrine that God has a glorified body. This idea can be supported biblically: “So God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27), “God created man in the likeness of God” (Gen. 5:1), “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30), “The Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Ex. 33:11) and “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). The most emphatic LDS scripture on this point says, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). See also discussion in connection with Page 216, lines 1-5.

Page 219, lines 13-15

In Joseph’s only handwritten account “apparently written about 1833,” it says the Lord (Jesus) is speaking.

The account is actually dated 1832 and the “(Jesus)” in parentheses is the authors’ interpretation. As for the usage of the word “Lord,” it is sometimes used to describe God the Father. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,” Jesus said, referring to his Father (Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). There are dozens of other similar scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, such as, “The Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords” (Dent. 10:17). The best analysis and reproduction of all the First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith and others is found in Milton Backman’s JosephSmith’s First Vision, republished in 1980. Of this earliest known account Dr. Backman says:

This account of 1832 was recorded as a rough draft, the style was not polished, nor was it published by the Prophet. It is possible that after dictating the account, Joseph recognized the desirability of modifying certain statements or correcting concepts not accurately written by an untrained scribe. Often when people record biographical sketches or historical incidents, they write and rewrite until their ideas are clearly expressed (p. 124).

Page 219, lines 18-21

“Until the days of Joseph Fielding Smith, Mormon ‘Prophets’ and ‘Apostles’ testified that the ‘personages’ that Joseph saw in his ‘First Vision’ were not the Father and Jesus, but one or more angels.”

This is not true:

1. Joseph Fielding Smith was the tenth president of the LDS Church from 1970-1972 and there are literally hundreds of talks given prior to that period in which the Father and the Son were mentioned as the personages Joseph Smith saw in his First Vision.
2. If the authors mean Joseph F. Smith, the sixth LDS President, who served from 1901 to 1918, the same is still true. Speakers early in Church history did emphasize the Book of Mormon and such angels as Moroni, John the Baptist, and Peter, but they were usually alluding to events relative to them, not to the First Vision. (See comments about Page 219, lines 25-28 for further discussion on this.) Earlier on the page, the authors themselves refer to the published 1842 version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith as mentioning both the Father and the Son. This account was again published in England in 1851 in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price. The authors also ignore other published accounts of the First Vision in 1840 and 1842. See compilation with Page 218, lines 18-19.
3. Some other examples of Church leaders talking about the Father and Son First Vision visit prior to 1901 (the beginning of Joseph F. Smith’s presidency) are as follows: a) In 1850 John Taylor wrote of “two glorious personages” appearing to Joseph Smith in the First Vision (Millennial Star, 12:235). b) The Apostle Orson Pratt in 1859, 1869, and 1871 quoted Joseph Smith as saying he “saw two glorious personages” and one of them spoke unto Joseph Smith and said, “This is my beloved Son” (JD 7:220-21; 12:354-55; 14:141). c) Third Church president John Taylor in 1879, before the official First Vision account was canonized in 1880, said, “The Lord revealed himself to (Joseph Smith] together with his son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: “This is my beloved Son, hear him” (}D 21:161). d) First counselor in the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon, said in 1883, “The first account we have of the visitation of divine beings in this dispensation, is the account that is given to us by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, concerning the visit of the Father and the Son (JD24:371). e) President Cannon was even more specific in 1884 (JD 25:156-57).
4. The facts about the First Vision were considered obvious to members, but considered inappropriate for frequent repetition in those times, and thus speakers and writers in the nineteenth century did not often repeat this event. It was, after all, a very sacred experience. And in those early days of the Church it was not intended as a “conversion piece,” as the Book of Mormon was. But those who have accepted the Book of Mormon through the witness of the Holy Spirit know by that same power that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the First Vision.

Joseph Smith, as he sent the first foreign missionaries to England, instructed them “to adhere closely to the first principles of the gospel, and remain silent concerning the gathering, the vision . . . until such time as the work was fully established, and it should be clearly made manifest by the Spirit to do otherwise” (HC 2:492). Apparently the counsel was not heeded, because when certain Elders ignored this advice in England, serious problems arose (Ibid., 505). When Joseph Smith spoke of the vision he was alluding to section 76 in the Doctrine and Covenants; however, the idea of sticking to the first principles was the intent of his advice.

Joseph Smith himself experienced great persecution and ridicule when he first related the First Vision. It is easy to understand why this experience was not widely related early in the Church (Joseph Smith—History 1:22).

In the twentieth century as the Church became more accepted, with plural marriage and other controversies waning. Church leaders apparently felt the world was ready to receive this significant aspect of the Restoration, and relating of the First Vision became more customary.

Page 219, lines 21-22

“God sent his angel to the fourteen-year-old Joseph. “

This “quotation” from an 1871 talk by Orson Pratt seems to be given to try and show that Church leaders taught a different version of the First Vision from that which the Church now teaches. Actually I could not find this statement on the pages cited, but I did find on the same page of the talk the phrase “The Lord first revealed himself to that little boy (when] he was only between fourteen and fifteen years of age” (JD 14:262).

It is possible that in those cases where Church leaders refer to an angel appearing to Joseph Smith, they were using the term synonymously with God or Christ, that is, to cover any heavenly being. One of the definitions given in Noah Webster’s First Edition of an American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) of an angel is, “Christ, the mediator and head of the church.”

The Bible uses of the term angel meaning God, such as the Moses and the burning bush incident, when “the angel of the Lord [God] appeared unto him (Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush” (Ex. 3:2-7). Biblical commentaries also suggest that “angel of the Lord” can mean Jesus Christ (J. J. Von Allman, A Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1958, p. 17). Paul also referred to the appearance of God to Moses on Mount Sinai as an angel (Acts 7:38).

Page 219, lines 22-25

“Orson Hyde made it even clearer: ‘Why did not the Savior come himself— because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth . . .”‘ (JD 6:335).

Elder Hyde was saying that the reaping (gathering of Saints) at the end of the world had begun. This is the clear unmistakable context of his statement, and is a totally different subject from the First Vision.

Page 219, lines 25-28

“From 1851 to August 1877, Brigham Young delivered 363 sermons, but in none of them does he assert that the Father and Jesus appeared to Joseph. He does say, however, that ‘the Lord sent his messengers to Joseph’ ” (JD 2:171; 18:239).

Brigham Young also said, “I never saw anyone until I met Joseph Smith, who could tell me anything about the character, personality and dwelling-place of God” (/D 16:46). Some writings during this time frame and earlier certainly talk about the appearance of the Father and the Son. In 1851, the Pearl of Great Price was published which included the 1842 published account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, including the appearance of the Father and the Son. This volume was revised and then canonized as LDS scripture in 1880. See comments with Page 219, lines 18-21 for additional published accounts of the First Vision.

One can assume that Brigham Young’s talking about the angel visits instead of a visit from the Father and Son was deliberate. In Revelation 14:7, John spoke of an angel from the midst of heaven appearing to the earth with the everlasting gospel. Church leaders and missionaries in the early days concentrated on this account of the angel Moroni’s visits because of its biblical connection. They also spoke eagerly about the Book of Mormon because it was “the stick of Joseph” spoken of in Ezekiel 37:16-17.

See remarks about Page 219, lines 21-22 for earlier comments on “angel” and “deity” being synonymous at times.

Page 219, lines 25-32

The authors allege that early leaders of the Church referred to Joseph’s First Vision as consisting of an angel instead of the Father and the Son.

The vision of the Father and the Son was certainly known well, as it had been published numerous times. See list in connection with Page 218, lines 18-19.

Page 220, lines 12-19

“A few months before his death [Joseph Smith allegedly said] to the effect ‘that he could not be killed within five years from that time; that they could not kill him till the Temple [in ‘Zion’] would be completed, for that he had received an unconditional promise from the Almighty concerning his days, and he set Earth and Hell at defiance….”‘

This allegation comes from two who turned against Joseph Smith.

As far as I know, there are no other sources that claim Joseph Smith made such a “prophecy,” and this is unusual because we have many diaries from this period of Church history.

The two who turned against Joseph Smith and are the source for this “prophecy” were Sarah Scott and her husband. She wrote a letter to her parents in the East on July 22, 1844, almost a month following Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. The above quote comes from a book (Dale Morgan, Among the Mormons, pp. 152-153) which gets its information from an article, “The Death of a Mormon Dictator,” published in The New England Quarterly, Dec. 1936, pp. 583. The title of the article is enough to make one question its objectivity. A single secondary source by those who have become bitter against Mormonism is neither a typical quotation nor reliable evidence that this was a false prediction. Most members of the Church were of course deeply saddened by Joseph’s premature death at age 38 ½. The LDS prophet had had numerous close escapes and there was a general feeling among the Saints that he could not be lolled. His death was a severe shock to Latter-day Saints and most members were thrown into a state of confusion for a time. However, when the initial pain of the tragedy subsided, most of the members continued their loyalty to the LDS Church. The truths of the gospel and the testimonies of the gospel were greater than the death of its leader.

Just as many of Christ’s disciples turned against him, so some turned against Joseph Smith. At one point the Savior, seeing his following dwindle, asked the Twelve if they too were about to abandon ship. Peter’s classic reply was, “To whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:67-68). Thus it was with most of the Latter-day Saints.

Page 220, lines 20-21

“[Joseph Smith considered] himself to be greater than any person who ever lived, including Jesus Christ.”

Some time after Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were martyred, one of the two eyewitness survivors, John Taylor, who himself was severely wounded in the incident, said, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”

Also in the movie version of The God Makers, the first sentence of this verse was changed from the words “save Jesus only,” to “Joseph Smith has done more “including Jesus.”

John Taylor’s tribute to Joseph Smith continued:

In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents, has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood; and so has his brother Hyrum. In life they were not divided, and in death they were not separated! (D&C 135:3)

No true Latter-day Saint would ever claim for Joseph Smith an equality with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, much less a superiority.

Page 220, lines 21 and 22

“[Joseph Smith said] I have more to boast of than ever any man had. “

This address was recorded by a scribe in Nauvoo in May 1844, and is found in the History of the Church 6:408-409. Joseph Smith in the sentence following said, “I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me” (HC 6:408).

The Prophet certainly did not consider himself greater than the Savior who brought about the atonement, but correctly claimed that no one in so few years had organizationally accomplished what he had. Many of the Savior’s disciples had left him prior to his death (John 6:67-68). After the crucifixion the Twelve also returned to their former occupations and it took the resurrection of Christ and the bestowal of the Holy Ghost to motivate them to “go into all the world.” Joseph Smith seems to be speaking in the same sense as when Paul said, “I may boast myself a little” (2 Cor. 11:16-17).

Page 220, lines 23-29

“Although he hadn’t even finished elementary school, much less law school, the ‘Prophet’ declared: ‘I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies . . . . I know more than they all.’ “

Using ellipses is a recognized legitimate way of editing quotes, when an author wants to leave out a few words or eyen lines to save space; however the ellipses here signify a separation of 167 pages. In the first part of the quotation (HC 5:289), Joseph Smith is pointing out in February 1843 some of the current laws that were in violation of the Constitution. In the second sentence the LDS prophet is challenging in June 1843 attorneys who claimed the city of Nauvoo had no legal powers, powers which in fact had been granted by the state of Illinois in a charter (HC 5:467). (See remarks about Page 220, lines 20-21 for commentary.)

Page 220, line 20, to Page 221, line 5

The book cites a series of statements where the Prophet apparently is bragging.

The following observations are submitted:

1. I use the word “apparently” deliberately, because from the printed page one cannot tell if Joseph Smith said these things seriously or in jest. When one reads Joseph Smith’s writings il becomes apparent that he had a sense of humor, and once he said, “When I get hold of the Eastern papers, and I see how popular I am, I am afraid myself that I shall be elected.” (HC6:243). Joseph knew he could not win the presidency of the United States. This statement showed his humor. On another occasion the Prophet wrote, “About noon, I lay down on the writing table, with my head on a pile of law books, saying, ‘Write and tell the world I acknowledge myself a very great lawyer; I am going to study law, and this is the way I study it;’ and then fell asleep” (HC 5:307). In his history Joseph Smith said he had “a native cheery disposition.”
2. Joseph Smith was a political candidate at this time, and as those running for office usually do, he sounded like a politician. The quotation, beginning on line 28, was from a letter to James Arlington Bennett, a non-Mormon who was at first expected to be Joseph Smith’s running mate. Joseph was in effect furnishing him with information to be used in the presidential campaign. When Joseph said, “God is my ‘right hand man,’ ” he was making it clear that he lived close to the Lord; he was not subjugating deity. Joseph undoubtedly intended the expression to read similar to the modern, “God is my co-pilot.”
3. There are numerous examples in Joseph’s revelations of great humility: “Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand” (D&C 112:10), and “Blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble” (Alma 32:16).
4. Joseph Smith remained relatively humble considering his impressive list of accomplishments. See comments about Page 220, lines 20-21.

Page 221, lines 7-10

“The obsession with his [Joseph Smith’s] own greatness was closely intertwined with the twin obsessions of the destruction of the United States and the establishment of “Zion.’ “

Such statements are untrue.

Much evidence was given earlier on the false charges that LDS doctrine calls for a destruction and overthrow of the United States by means of a political coup. See comments about page 10, lines 1-3,6-10 and 21-24; and page 143, lines 10-15.

Page 221, lines 10-11

“No egomaniac [Joseph Smith] can endure rejection.”

Just the opposite was true of Joseph Smith—he thrived on rejection and opposition. On one occasion he said, “I’d be like a fish out of water without persecution.” Knowing what his calling was, Joseph Smith proceeded toward his goal regardless of the consequences.

Page 221, lines 10-13

“it was an unbearable affront . . . to Joseph Smith that the ‘Gentiles’ had not admitted that he was wiser than Solomon and submitted to his benevolent kingship.”

Elsewhere the book has often charged the LDS prophet with being a ruthless tyrant. If Joseph Smith had been concerned with what “Gentiles” thought, he certainly would have been smart enough to find ways to win their favor. Joseph Smith did not seem to care about the consequences, he only wanted to establish the work he had been commissioned to do.

Page 221, lines 13-18

“[It] would require a major concession on the part of non-Latter-day Saints [to accept an LDS political government}.”

This quote is not about Joseph Smith’s time period, but is a twentieth century author’s opinion of conditions in Utah territory during the days when over 95 percent of the citizens were LDS. See book by Hyrum Andrus, Joseph Smith and World Government, p. 33.

Page 221, lines 20-34

“This unwillingness [of the Gentiles] to join the ‘restoration’ movement was taken by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Apostles to be an unreasonable and blasphemous rejection. . . and it required sterner methods of persuasion. [The book then quotes an anti-LDS source:] ‘Under Joe as their King and Ruler [the letter-day Saints] were to conquer the Gentiles, and . . . their subjection to this authority was to be obtained by the sword.’ “

Here are some of the reasons the above statements are in error.

1. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that God forbids fighting unless for self-defense. People should defend “their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children. . .” (Alma 43:45).
2. The Doctrine and Covenants condemns war and places limits on retaliation (D&C 98).
3. The Book of Mormon condemns preemptive strikes (3 Nephi 3:20-21).
4. The above conclusion and quotations by the authors are based on an anti-LDS source, and are highly edited. “That he {Joseph Smith] had received a revelation from God” is omitted. Things really get confused when an anti-LDS book quotes from an antiLDS source and edits it.
5. Joseph Smith said the spread of the gospel must not be by the sword (HC 6:365).

Page 221, last 2 lines to Page 222, line I

“Although Mormon apologists haw tried to deny the facts, the evidence now seems overwhelming that Joseph Smith taught, organized and encouraged his followers to rob, murder, and plunder those who opposed them. This was called ‘spoiling the Gentiles.’ “

Evidence shows Joseph Smith was not aware of the illegal actions the group that called themselves Danites were taking. It is true that in the 1840s, in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith set in motion a political arm of the Church to provide governmental functions during the time of the exodus to the West, but it was not a militant body. This organization was known as the Council of Fifty in LDS history and gradually died out by the 1880s.

The description of events on the next two pages of the book belongs to the Missouri period of LDS history, not to the Illinois period. Every Latter-day Saint living in Jackson County, Missouri, had been driven out in 1833 and consequently had settled in northern Missouri. LDS refugees from Ohio also settled in northern Missouri, and by 1838 Latter-day Saints found they were again victimized by persecution, and the promised military protection by state troops occasionally turned on the Latter-day Saints themselves.

A man by the name of Sampson Avard formed a vigilante group that became known as the Danites. It was this group that retaliated against Missourians. This outraged the non-Mormons further and violence broke out at numerous times, resulting in Missouri governor Lilburn W. Boggs slating that Latter-day Saints must be “driven from the state or exterminated.” As a result, Mormon Colonel George Hinkle met with the state forces under General Samuel D. Lucas and Hinkle agreed to bring Joseph Smith to “truce talks.”^[*] When the LDS prophet arrived, he was captured and imprisoned. Lucas’ order to have Joseph shot at dawn was not carried out, but Latter-day Saints were ordered to flee their homes just as winter began, and Joseph and other leaders suffered under inhumane conditions in Missouri for the next six months while awaiting trial. With the connivance of their keepers those in Liberty Jail eventually escaped and some historians feel the escape was permitted so as to allow the state of Missouri now to press more serious charges against the LDS leaders.

The essential point to remember is that almost all Latter-day Saints were peace-loving, law-abiding citizens who were persecuted, harassed, plundered, whipped, raped, and even murdered by Missouri mobs. Apart from the activities of the unofficial and secret group of Danites, retaliation was a rare occurrence, and the level of resistance by Mormons was far below what would be justified in human terms. Mobs and government finally combined to rob them of their homes and eject them from the state — in late fall and winter, when their sufferings would be most acute. The book fails to bring out these important historical facts.

One of the most scholarly works, if one wants to understand the facts of this episode of history, is a doctoral dissertation by Leland Gentry, History of the tatter-day Saints in Northern Missouri.Dr. Gentry’s conclusions differ greatly from those of the authors.

Page 222, lines 5-10

“Several Mormon writers, such as Leland Gentry, have been honest enough to admit the truth, or at least part of it. Gentry says, lt was frequently observed among the [Mormon] troops. . . that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should be consecrated to the Saints.’ “

The authors have not quoted Dr. Gentry accurately. In Dr. Gentry’s thesis this quotation refers to a decision by the Danites, who acted on their own illegally without Joseph Smith’s knowledge to retaliate for wrongs against Latter-day Saints (Leland Gentry, op. cit., p. 322).

Page 222, lines 12-13

“Mormon George M. Hinkle later testified in a Senate hearing [against Joseph Smith].”

Hinkle actually did not testify in a Senate hearing as is implied, but his testimony was entered into the Senate record, not as a result of an in-person appearance. The testimony was actually given before the judge of the fifth judicial circuit of the state of Missouri, November 12, 1838, at a pretrial hearing in the arrest of Joseph Smith.

Page 222, last line to Page 223, line 3

“Like almost every other ‘prophecy’ that Joseph Smith uttered, this one also turned out to be false. “

This refers to an alleged prophecy by Joseph Smith predicting LDS victory in Missouri. In the quote the source is again the LDS betrayer, George M. Hinkle, who said, “As near as I recollect,” as he tried to describe Joseph Smith’s prophecy (Senate Document, p. 189).

The quote contains many ellipses and covers many sentences and paragraphs between the words quoted. Omitted words were “the evening the [state) militia arrived. Smith had a disposition not to fight them. ” This contradicts the words of Hinkle when a few lines later he said Joseph Smith stated, “we should have victory.” Hinkle, trying to escape personal arrest, was an unfriendly witness, who included in his testimony such vague statements as, “Much of the difficulties I believe were of the Danite order.”

In the same Senate document there was testimony favorable to Joseph Smith which the book left out completely. Reed Peck, for example, said, “I heard Joseph Smith say he had a reverence for the constitution of the United States and this state {Missouri).” Joseph Smith then was quoted as to how the laws of the state were only used to help the mob and not the Saints (Ibid.).

Page 223, lines 4-8

“Sidney Rigdon said ‘ . . . it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us.’ “

This material is not found in the History of the Church, 1:441, as the authors claimed, but is found in the Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:442. Using hindsight one can see that these words by Sidney Rigdon, an aide to Joseph Smith, which were intended as a “declaration of independence from mobs,” were inflammatory. However, as one reads of the atrocities and abuse the Latter-day Saints were suffering at the hands of the mobs, this human-like threat becomes understandable. Fortunately it was not carried out. By not portraying the historical setting, the authors fail to properly inform the reader.

Page 223, lines 8-11

“Proving again the falseness of Mormon ‘prophecies’, the ‘Mormon war’ ended with the ignominious surrender of the warring ‘Prophet’ and his rebels to the Missouri state militia at the end of October 1838. “

A betrayal resulting in Church leaders being captured under the pretense of negotiations and ordered to be shot at dawn is hardly a surrender. The Latter-day Saints were defeated by deception and treachery.

Page 223, lines 12-14

John Corrill related that, when the showdown came [between the letter-day Saints and the Missouri forces], “Smith appeared to be much alarmed, and told me to beg like a dog for peace…[he] had rather die himself than have the people exterminated.”

This really makes me admire the Prophet. To offer one’s life for others is not in character for one guilty of a fraud. This happened at the time the Latter-day Saints were betrayed. See commentary about Page 221, last 2 lines, for a more complete account.

Page 223, lines 15-18

“Imprisoned in Liberty Jail, Smith and his men were charged with treason, murder, arson, burglary, robbery, larceny and perjury.”

HC 1:498-99 is the reference the authors give for the above quote, but volume one of History of the Church has an index on the pages cited, not the material claimed by the authors. Although the prisoners never stood trial,

Page 221, last 2 lines to Page 222, line 2 of the book seems to have already convicted Joseph Smith of these charges. The book never mentions the farcical hearing held for the LDS prisoners nor does it mention that the LDS prisoners were denied basic rights including presenting their own Witnesses.

Page 224, lines 16-21

“Revenge upon the ‘Gentiles’ became his obsessive madness. That revenge was to work itself out in two ways: the destruction of all of his enemies throughout the entire United States, and the establishment of his Independence, Missouri, ‘Zion’, which was the key to reigning over the entire world. “

This undocumented conclusion was refuted in my comments about page 10, lines 21-24.

Page 224, lines 21 to 34

“Mormons sometimes refer to Joseph Smith’s so-called ‘Civil War Prophecy’ as proof that he did indeed foretell the future. Of course, they cover up the fact that the ‘prophecy’ was made in the midst of an earlier rebellion in December 1832. That rebellion ended quietly a few months later. It was years later, after Joseph Smith’s death, that Civil War (which had been generally considered inevitable) did break out and the earlier prophecy published. Even beyond its obvious reference to the earlier rebellion that never materialized, the ‘prophecy’ was clearly false, for it never developed the international proportions he predicted: ‘Verily, thus saith the Lord . . . behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States . . . and the war shall be poured out upon all nations.’ “

Several things are wrong with the above:

1. The authors are correct when they say Joseph Smith announced the Civil War prophecy when rebellion in South Carolina was threatening. A large 1832 rebellion never materialized and the threat ended a few months later.
2. There was no attempt to cover up that the revelation was given on the eve of a possible rebellion in South Carolina, although most people unaware of this history might not know this. In Doctrine and Covenants 130:12-13 Joseph Smith in 1843 reiterated the Civil War prophecy.
3. The revelation was published by Latter-day Saints in the Pearl of Great Price seven years before the Civil War, indicating that the Church still expected it to be fulfilled. The authors’ claim that it was not published until after the Civil War is wrong.
4. When Civil War broke out in 1861, it was incited by a rebellion in South Carolina, as Joseph had prophesied, which the book fails to mention.
5. After the revelation says, “the Southern states shall be divided against the Northern states,” the authors put ellipses. This time they have edited out “and the Southern states will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain” (italics added). This of course was also fulfilled. “And they [to be grammatically correct, “they” must refer to “other nations”] shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations.” Now we get back to the portion quoted in the book, “and .then war [not the war, as the book quotes] shall be poured out upon all nations.”

With the full quotation we can see that the revelation refers to Great Britian and other nations calling for help in fighting other nations. This was fulfilled during our two world wars.

The prophecy was not false.

Page 224, line 35 to Page 225, line I

“Mormon writer William E. Berrett admits that a secret society called ‘the Danites, ‘ ‘as historians agree, ‘ was organized within the Mormon Church, ‘for the purpose of plundering and murdering the enemies of the Saints.’ “

William Berretts complete unedited quote is: Such a band as the “Danites” did exist, as historians affirm; but that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it, and that he exposed the participants when he became aware of it, is equally well confirmed. History further affirms that Dr. [Sampson] Avard himself was the author of the organization and that he was cut off from the Church when his guilt was discovered. . . . It {the organization] was foreign to the spirit of the Church (William E. Berrett, The Restored Church, pp. 197-198). Joseph Smith wrote: “Let no one hereafter, by mistake or design, confound this organization of the Church for good and righteous purposes, with the organization of the ‘Danites’ of the apostate Avard” (HC 3:182).

Page 225, lines 1-5

“Leland Gentry, also a Mormon, adds that the ‘Danites were apparently taught to obey the commands of their superiors without question or hesitation.’ “

Again the authors overlook the statements in Gentry’s thesis which make it clear that until their trial Joseph Smith and his brethren were not aware of what Avard had done. From his prison cell, “the Mormon prophet emphatically denied that the Danite actions had any official status in the Church and issued stern warnings to the Saints to be aware of all groups whose spirit was foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ” (Gentry, p. 361). Dr. Gentry further states: Following his capture, Avard called upon his ingenuity to extricate him from his difficult position. Taking advantage of the unpopularity of the Church’s leaders, as well as the fact that they were the ones whom the court desired to convict, Avard carefully shifted responsibility for the Danite Order from himself to Joseph Smith and his close associates.

It being the fashion of the times to blame the Mormon Prophet for all that went awry in Mormondom, enemies of the Church accepted Avard’s lies without question. Sampson Avard, designer, craftsman, and leading light of the Danite Band, was never punished in any way for his crimes. Joseph Smith and other leading Church officials spent the next several months in Missouri jails (Ibid., p. 365).

Page 225, lines 5-9

“The ‘Gentiles’ had rejected the ‘restored’ gospel given to him by extraterrestrials from Kolob, so they had to be destroyed as apostates. What Mormons had failed to do by force of arms and subterfuge they called upon their ‘God’ to do.”

Several things are wrong with the foregoing:

1. The gospel must only be taught by love, persuasion and testimony.
2. “Gentiles” and “apostates” are not the same.
3. If Joseph Smith is the fraud the authors daim, would he dare call on God to destroy others?
4. There was a claim made that a non-Mormon was lolled in the northern Missouri “Mormon War,” yet dozens of Latter-day Saints lost their lives during incidents such as the infamous Haun’s Mill Massacre where seventeen unsuspecting Saints were murdered. The book criticizes the Latter-day Saints for retaliating, when in fact the Latter-day Saints were the victims of atrocities long before a band of Mormons began to illegally retaliate. A handful of unauthorized Latter-day Saints were guilty of practicing “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

Page 225, lines 9-16

“The Mormons openly denounced the government of the United States as utterly corrupt, and as being about to pass away, and to be replaced by the government of God, to be administered by his servant Joseph.”

This quote is from Governor Ford of Illinois. The evidence strongly suggests that he was culpable in the death Of Joseph Smith either by conspiracy or at least by default. Under critidsm for the way he handled Joseph Smith’s arrest, in his book Ford could be expected to justify his actions.

Whatever Church leaders were saying against the United States, it must be remembered that the Missouri legislature refused to aid Latter-day Saints in their cruel eviction from the state, and the federal government resisted later appeals for direct redress; hence the leaders’ statements had a basis of truth. Also, since the United States was on the verge of civil war at this time, it certainly had problems.

Page 225, lines 16-26

“After the ‘Prophet’s’ death, the obsessive desire to see the destruction of the United States took on the added dimension of a means to avenge Smith’s death. As Brigham Young later declared:

” ‘God Almighty will give the United States a pill that will put them to death, and that is worse than lobelia. I am prophet enough to prophesy the downfall of the government that has driven us out. . . Wo [sic] to the United States: I see them going to Death and destruction.’ “

Once again the book quotes from a source that quotes from an undocumented and unfriendly source. Had the authors checked the particular reference they would have found the quotation different.

Page 225, lines 26-33

“[Joseph Smith] in May 1843 said: ‘ … and I prophesy in the name of the Lard God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left. ‘ ” The book then claims this is an obviously false prophecy.

It is a known fact that many of the bitterest Civil War battles, with some of the greatest suffering and bloodshed, took place in the state of Missouri. There are five possibilities that need to be considered concerning this statement made during a visit Joseph Smith had with Stephen A. Douglas.

1. The scribe, William Clayton, did not get it right.
2. Fulfillment of the prophecy is still in the future.
3. The destruction may have referred to Missouri only.
4. The prophecy as worded is obviously a conditional one. The United States did redress the Latter-day Saints to some extent for wrongs committed against them and thus the harshness of the fate of Missouri (or the United States) was reduced. The United States inviting the Saints to volunteer five hundred men to help in the 1846 war with Mexico might be considered partial redress because it provided desperately needed funds for the Latter-day Saints to finance the pioneer trek to Utah. President Polk at this time also promised Latter-day Saints safety as they travelled through Indian lands to the west. When the personal papers of James K. Polk, the U.S. president who asked Latter-day Saints to form a Mormon Battalion, were recently opened, it was found that he considered his action to help the Latter-day Saints. The granting of territorial status to the Mormons might also be considered a partial redress for wrongs.
5. We must remember that prophets are human and hence are not infallible. See comments about page 79, line 21 for earlier discussion.

This encounter of Joseph Smith with Stephen A. Douglas contains another interesting prediction which was completely fulfilled, that the book leaves out. Joseph said: “Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if ever you turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life” (HC 5:394).

This was literally fulfilled. When Douglas ran for the Presidency in 1860 he was considered a sure winner. During the campaign he did speak out against Latter-day Saints. Douglas suffered one of the major political upsets in U.S. history when he was defeated by Abraham Lincoln. Less than a year later, at age forty-cight, he was dead.

Page 226, line 19 to Page 227, line 5

All these charges about “false prophecies,” “broken promises” and so on have been responded to previously.

Page 226, lines 26-29

“The ‘keys’ to the promised [LDSI ‘exaltation’ [are] . . . occult incantations that could only be learned and practiced in the Temple.”

This is not correct, as earlier discussed in connection with page 63, line 4.

Page 226, lines 33-35

“[Joseph Smith] had prophesied that he would live to see the [Independence, Missouri temple] built.”

I am not aware of a credible source that says this. (See the discussion in connection with Page 209, lines 16-18.)

Page 227, lines 5-9

“On February 14, 1835, Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his diary that Joseph Smith had said that ‘God had revealed to him that the coming of Christ would be within 56 years. ‘ The official History of the Church records the same false prophecy.”

The official position of the LDS Church is found in Matt. 24:36, which, speaking of Christ’s second coming, says, “The day and the hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Joseph Smith was well aware of this limiting declaration, which makes one wonder whether he was reported correctly on this occasion.

The LDS revelation on the subject of Christ’s second coming in the Doctrine and Covenants, omitted in the book, states that if Joseph should live to be age eighty-five (1890), he would see “the face of [Christ).” No date is given for the receipt of this revelation, which came in response to Joseph Smith’s earnest petition to the Lord to know when the Second Coming would be. Joseph added: “I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time” (D&C 130:14-17).

In effect, Joseph Smith said, “I don’t know when the Second Coming will take place, but in any case it won’t happen before 1890.” This was a true prophecy, recorded at the time (1843) of great religious interest in the subject, when many were predicting and preparing for Second Coming dates much earlier than 1890. (For example, see footnote about Millerism, HC 2:272.)

Page 227, lines 15-19

“Mormon writer Klaus J. Hansen makes this staggering admission: ‘. . . in 1890 there was a widespread belief among Church members that Joseph Smith’s prediction of 1835, that fifty-six years would “wind up the scene,” would be fulfilled.’ “

As the Saints during these dark days suffered from imprisonment for practicing plural marriage and stiffer and stiffer federal legislation was being passed against them, it is understandable that some thought the Millennium was near. This has been a hope of all Saints throughout the ages beginning with New Testament times (I Thes. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:10). See previous item for actual statement and comments.

Page 227, last two lines

“As the Lord lives we will build up Jackson County in this generation.”

The authors feel that since Brigham Young made this statement (Times and Seasons 6:956) and it has not been fulfilled, it is a false prophecy.

Daniel H. Ludlow has written on this issue:

“The word generation may refer to a state or condition as well as to a time period. The dictionary lists several accepted definitions of the word in addition to the commonly accepted ‘average span of time between the birth of parents and that of their offspring.’

“‘The scriptures refer to an ‘unbelieving and stiffnecked generation’ (D&C 5:8), a ‘crooked and perverse generation’ (D&C 34:6), an ‘evil and adulterous generation’ (Matt. 12:39). All of these uses of the word suggest a state or condition rather than a specific period of time. Thus, when the Lord states that a certain thing will occur in ‘this generation,’ he may be referring to the conditions which are then existing, to a general period of time similar to ‘this dispensation,’ or to the more specific period of time pertaining to the lifetimes of the people then living” (Ludlow,A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, 2:114).

Page 228, lines 1-10

“Apostle Heber C. Kimball stoutly affirmed:’. . . we are as sure to go back there lto Missouri] as we exist …. Joseph the Prophet dedicated that land . . . I shall yet see the day that I will go back there with brother Brigham and with thousands and millions of others, and we will go precisely according to the dedication of the Prophet of the living God.’ “

Here the book quotes Brigham Young’s first counselor and the second ellipses represent a separation of some 430 pages and five months. The first eleven words of the quotation come fromjournal of Discourses 5:134 and the remainder from a different volume, 6:190. The authors fail to say that a few lines later on 6:190 Heber C. Kimball mentions that “if we do not receive these things, it is because we do not live for them.” Such an expression is often implicit in a prophecy, since people have their free agency, and blessings result from obedience to the Lord’s commandments.

Heber C. Kimball, Brigham Young and others may yet participate in going back to Missouri as spirits or resurrected beings during the Millennium. Since Elder Kimball referred to a time when “millions” would return, the fulfillment during the Millennium seems possible as a reasonable interpretation.

Page 228, lines 6-10

In speaking of Heber C. Kimball’s prophecy about the return to Missouri, the authors write: “The [Latter-day Saints] believed it would happen because they believed Joseph Smith was ‘the Prophet of the living God.’ It was a false prophecy, proving that he was a false prophet—yet millions of Mormons today still believe him [ JD 5:234; 6:190].”

The authenticity of such assertions was questioned in connection with Page 209, lines 16-18.

Page 228, lines 10-12

“Apostle George A. Smith exhorted the faithful, ‘Let me remind you that it is predicted that this generation shall not pass away till the temple shall be built f M

Latter-day Saints often use the word “generation,” as did Peter (I Pet. 2:9) to be broader than a span of one lifetime as previously discussed in connection with Page 227, last two lines.

That George A. Smith may have had this broader concept of “generation” in mind is indicated by his words spoken prior to those quoted:

Who is there that is prepared for this movement back to the center stake of Zion, and where are the architects amongst us that are qualified to erect this temple and the city that will surround it? We have to learn a great many things, in my opinion, before we are prepared to return to that holy land(JD 9:71).

See also comments about Page 251, lines 31-34.

Page 228, lines 10-21

“It is astonishing that as late as 1900, nine years after the time limit Joseph Smith had set. President Lorenzo Snow ‘affirmed at a special priesthood meeting in the Salt Lake Temple that “there are many here new under the sound of my voice, probably a majority, who will live to go back to Jackson County and assist in building that temple.” ‘ in spite of their ‘testimony’ that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, and the repeated affirmation that they believed the ‘promise of God’ given through him, it never happened.”

Latter-day Saints are not as bothered by the delayed “return to Missouri” as the authors are, for several reasons:

1. Church leaders’ words are not of themselves infallible. There was much speculation about this subject and little “Thus saith the Lord, ” the expression Deut. 18:22 teaches us to look for as accompaniments to statements of inspired prophecy. See comments about Page 228, last three lines to Page 229, line 6, for further remarks.
2. Those who were living and promised they would return may still do so as resurrected beings during the Millennium.
3. Many prophecies arc not absolute, but conditional. The Lord can revoke commandments when he sees that his children are not worthy of a blessing, just as God in Old Testament times revoked a particular form of government once he had initiated it. The covenant people then were under a system of judges, but in their ignorance and wickedness they insisted on a king. God warned them against kings, but when they insisted, God selected Saul (I Sam. 8-10). God changed his mind about destroying Nineveh, much to Jonah’s chagrin, when the people repented (Jonah 3:4-10). Chrises Second Coming did not occur as soon as he reportedly said, according to the scriptures (Matt. 10:23; Mark 13:30). Fulfillment of prophecy is frequently conditional on the performance of the people.

Whether the translations we have of these predictions of Christ’s Second Coming are correct or not does not detract from the basic truth of the Bible, including the reality of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Testimony of Christ is further reinforced by the Book of Mormon.

Page 228, lines 22-28

“We believe in these promises [of returning to Missouri] as much as we believe in any promise ever uttered by the mouth of Jehovah.

“The Latter-day Saints just as much expect to receive a fulfillment of that promise during the generation that was in existence in 1832 as they expect the sun will rise and set tomorrow.

“Why? Because God cannot lie. He will fulfill all his promises. He has spoken. It must come to pass. This is our faith” (JD 13:362).

This statement by Orson Pratt in 1870 was typical of hopeful expectations expressed by Latter-day Saints during the last half of the nineteenth century, just as early Christians wrongly anticipated Christ’s Second Coming to be in the immediate future (2 Thess. 2:1-3). See previous item and comments about Page 252, lines 1-5, for further remarks.

The Latter-day Saints, as well as the Early-day Saints, were not ready for the Second Coming to take place. Furthermore, other non LDS related events must take place before the Second Coming can happen.

Actually some Latter-day Saints have returned to Missouri, and many are joining the LDS Church in that area, but the building of the temple lies ahead.

Page 228, last 3 lines to Page 229, line 6

“Speaking through the great prophet Moses, God warned of false prophets with these words: When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).

The Lord is here talking of “prophets” who claim to speak in His name but don’t. But an implication, surely, is that prophets can speak for themselves and they can err. There is a difference between a prophet’s ongoing statements and when the prophet claims that he “speaketh in the name of the Lord.” This agrees with the statement by Joseph Smith: “I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (HC 5:265). Otherwise a prophet could never say a word unless he has a revelation.

Notice Moses said, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord . . /’ (emphasis added). Neither Joseph Smith, the LDS Church, nor any prophet in the LDS Church has claimed infallibility for prophets. In a general conference talk, J. Reuben dark, Jr., a member of the First Presidency, said that the First Presidency is “not infallible in our judgment, and we err”(Conference Report, April 1940, p. 14). President Spencer W. Kimball has said “I make no claim of infallibility” (Conference Report, April 1970, p. 120).

Several Bible commentaries observe that prophets have a human side. Catholics do not demand perfection of their popes. (They claim that the pope is infallible only in matters of doctrine.) Yet the authors demand that every utterance and action of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders be true or else. See also comments about page 79, line 21.

Page 229, lines 7-12

“After being put out of his own house, and heartbroken by words from Mormon family members saying that they wanted nothing further to do with him, Dick Boer wrote a letter logging his family to face the facts for their own sakes. In that letter Dick spelled out in detail 53 inescapably false prophecies by Joseph Smith.”

I have a list of these fifty-three prophecies in my possession. The few that the authors felt important enough for their book have been discussed. The remaining “prophecies” too are not the “inescapable false prophecies” as charged.

Page 229, lines 13-15

“To his disappointment, [Dick Boer] has found few Mormons inside or outside his family who are willing even to consider the evidence.”

Most Latter-day Saints have been exposed to virtually every argument against the LDS Church. They have weighed the evidence. They know what the gospel does for them and their families. They have received spiritual witnesses to their convictions. They love the inspiration of the Bible, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures.

Surely it is understandable why many, whose lives are busy raising families, making a living, caring for parents, serving in the Church and the community, getting an education, cannot or do not want to stop and respond to every anti-LDS charge of the last century, even if it is in a new format (film or abridged paperback). Should not people have a right to choose whether they want to build and be constructive or whether they want to immerse themselves in fighting those who seek to destroy the Church?

Every person has the right to be wrong; this includes the authors, Latter-day Saints, or anyone else. But no one, including the authors, has a right to insist that others listen to him.

I take comfort in being convinced that the gospel as taught by my Church is true and in the fact that the Church has a proselyting program to make its views available to all who want to listen. I feel good about belonging to a church that claims it is Christ’s complete and official organization on the earth. However, I would feel uncomfortable if my church spent its resources on tearing down others, running objectionable ads, making derogatory movies, and writing one-sided, unfair books against any or all with whom it disagreed. I would be disappointed if Latter-day Saint facilities were used to show derogatory films about other churches.

I would be appalled if people in my church felt they had a right to parade in clothing that other people held sacred.

Page 229, lines 17-30

“It is tragic that so many Mormons are still clinging to the impossible dream of ‘exaltation’ to a mythical ‘Godhood’ based upon their misplaced confidence in ‘Prophecies’ so fraudulent that it would seem impossible for anyone who openly and honestly examined the facts to continue to be deceived by Joseph Smith’s false claims. The ‘Prophecies’ concerning “Z-ion’ have obniously all failed. Yet more than five million Mormons today, many of them sincerely deceived, are still entranced by the ‘restoration-of-Zion’ theory. The rest of the package, which must be accepted in toto, includes the belief that The Brethren, by virtue of authority inherited from Joseph Smith, must be blindly obeyed because they hold the keys to exaltation and Godhood.”

The following points are germane:

1. The “mythical godhood” is biblical and supported by many Christian thinkers throughout history (as discussed in connection with Page 24, line 18).
2. The dedication and conviction of Latter-day Saints is the result of the entire.gospel truths restored by the Lord through Joseph Smith and his successors, not just of an “impossible dream” of mythical “Godhood.”
3. Most people who honestly and prayerfully examine the facts come to the condusion that Joseph Smith’s claims are true. Anyone who selects the “evidence” from the questionable anti-LDS sources, interprets sources and official doctrines to suit his premises, and edits LDS sources with at least a poor understanding, can prove anything he wants to. The same can be done with any historical study on any subject if “proving” a certain point of view is the objective. Since the book’s stated objective is to “expose,” we are alerted from the beginning to the subjective approach the authors take.
4. The charges of unfulfilled “Son” prophecies and blind obedience have been commented on before (see discussion about Page 209, lines 16-18, and page 79, line 21).
5. It is difficult to understand what is “tragic” about a group that is trying to overcome many of the problems individuals face (and having much success), an organization that brings joy and new hope and new meaning to life, a church that promotes a high morality and greater faith in Jesus Christ, and why it is proper to seek the destruction of that group.
6. There are individuals in any church like those who are mentioned in the book who have serious problems, but frequently these problems exist in spite of not because of what a church teaches. One needs to be suspicious of the objectivity of those unwilling or unable to live the requirements of any church for whatever reasons. Disgruntled former followers of an organization are not the best source of truth about it.

Page 229, last 8 lines

“The Mormon ‘Zion’ fits into an emerging pattern of increasing occult activity leading to a one-world government that could well prepare for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies concerning Antichrist. To understand it properly, the ‘Zion’ kingdom must be viewed in the broader context of the planned Mormon takeover of the world. This is the real ‘key,’ the secret hope Mormons cling to, and the basis for staring one year’s supply of food, guns, and ammunition.”

All these charges have been replied to before, except the charge about weapons. No LDS directive has asked members to own a gun, let alone have a year’s supply of “guns and ammunition.”

The anti-Christ scripture will be discussed in connection with Page 250, lines 29-33. On the “Mormon” takeover of the world see comments in connection with page 143, lines 10-15.

---

^[*] At first Latter-day Saints, who were also members of the state militia, resisted a non-LDS state militia who were closing in on the LDS headquarters at Far West.