Replies

Apologists are individual members who interpret doctrine according to their own intellectual backgrounds and upbringing. Prophets and apostles, as was the case in the Old and New Testaments, receive revelation from God. These revelations are doctrine, not the interpretations of individual members. LDS.org is official. FAIR is not by their own admission.

M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E

Meridian Magazine : : The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather

http://www.ldsmag.com/breakingnews/020815lds.html

LDS Conference is a Big Hit: “The Best Apologetics Conference Yet.”
by Cooper Johnson

(Orem, UT) – From scholars, professors, and intellectuals to Sunday School teachers, Bishops and Ward Mission leaders, an international crowd of people from all walks of life gathered for two days in Orem, UT, to learn more about gospel scholarship and how to answer some of those pesky questions from the critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. The fourth annual FAIR (Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research) LDS Apologetic Conference, according to attendees and presenters, was an outstanding success.

The goal? To turn perceived stumbling blocks (the tough questions about the LDS faith, it’s doctrines, history, and leaders) into stepping stones of knowledge, wisdom and truth. From plural marriage to racism, from Book of Mormon studies to the doctrine of deification, attendees of the FAIR Conference walked away well equipped to address the issues used to attack the LDS faith by it’s critics.

“Where else can you go to really learn about these things?” says Sam Katich. “I mean, let’s face it, the enemies of the Church are all over the place, poisoning the Internet, spreading their wings. Never before, has there been such an event that enables members of the church to come and learn of the answers.”

Mike Ash admits, “It’s really amazing to learn that those issues you thought were difficult to talk about actually aren’t difficult at all, once you learn about them. They really are stepping stones.”

Causing Commotion
One of the true highlights of the conference was the presentation of Dr. Royal Skousen. Dr. Skousen has been the editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text for the last 13 years. He knows more about the manuscripts and linguistics in the Book of Mormon than probably anyone in the world.

Dr. Skousen presented some of his findings (as many as could be presented in an hour) and commented that the most significant were his discoveries that the process of translation was so systematic and consistent. He has concluded that everything he has learned only adds to the fact that the Book of Mormon was the result of a divine translation process.

The biggest splash made at the conference was the presentation by Renee Olson. Renee is a black female and former anti-Mormon. She was certified by the Southern Baptist Convention in “Mormonism,” at one time. She is now a faithful member of the Church and spoke on the issue of blacks and the priesthood, in addition to racism in the church, in general.

“It was, by far, the best thing on the race issue I’ve ever experienced,” according to Kevin Barney. “Renee has a certain credibility that none of us could ever muster.”

Dr. Kathryn Daynes, a BYU Professor of History, and author of the recently released book, More Wives Than One, shared the results of her lengthy study on plural marriage from the arrival of the saints in Utah to the 1890 manifesto. Her findings were absolutely outstanding. “Dr. Daynes shared much light on the issues of who, what, when and why, regarding plural marriage,” Gale Tenney said.

Of course, the scholars from the FARMS/ISPART group are always favorites and played the role of bookends. John Tvedtnes kicked off the conference on the topic of Biblical Inerrancy and the changing position of Evangelical scholars, in addition to other very recent movements and findings at the scholarly level.

Dr. Daniel Peterson took his familiar position as keynote speaker to end the conference and presented an absolute delightful view of the failure of the critics to find a sound, naturalistic explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon. From the days of the early church, 170 years ago, to today, Dr. Peterson demonstrated the absolute failure, time and time again, of anyone to present an alternative explanation to the divine origins of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic call of Joseph Smith. There is nothing left, but the divine, to explain it.

Other outstanding speakers were Mike Ash, who spoke on the effects of anti-Mormon research on LDS scholarship, Russell Anderson, who spoke on the 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith, Roger Cook, who spoke on the Judeo-Christian roots of the doctrine of Theosis (e.g. deification), Dr. Tim Heaton, who presented the results of his gathering demographic statistics on LDS members, and Brant Gardner, who presented an incredibly unique perspective on the Gaddianton Robbers of the Book of Mormon.

Everyone Happy
Not a soul left the conference disappointed. “The FAIR 2002 Conference was a great success. I enjoyed it from so many perspectives,” shared Craig Ray.

“I thought this was the best apologetics conference yet,” concluded, John Tvedtnes, one of the speakers from FARMS/ISPART. “Even the couple of speakers who didn't deal with apologetics issues gave us some very good information. I learned a lot of new things and in my book, that makes the conference a success.”

This year’s FAIR Conference will be difficult to top. But, I know, from inside sources within FAIR, that the management team is already putting together some surprises, that will definitely raise the bar. Stay tuned to the FAIR website (www.fair-lds.org) or subscribe to the FAIR Monthly Journal, at their home page, to get the latest news on the next conference.

Lying for the Lord ... in this case, playing two-step deceit to deal with opposition to the cult:

[Excerpts from an Essay by Ken Clark for MormonThink. Ken worked for the Church Education System (CES) of the LDS Church for 27 years. He also served as a bishop; a calling he enjoyed as much as full time instructor and Coordinator for the Church Education System. He loved (and still loves) the students and the ward members.]

“The right to lie in the service of your own interests is highly valued and frequently exercised”—Nero Wolfe<[p> I began this exercise when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and CES Stake Coordinator of CES Programs from 1975 - 2002. (I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned on August 7, 2002.) I continue to cherish the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I still write to a few beloved former students. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted to hear detractors accuse LDS church leaders of dishonesty, or other embarrassing actions. I “knew” because of my testimony the criticisms could not be true.

As an informal defender, I noted that those charging the church with dishonesty had the facts on their side from time to time. I defended the leaders in these cases by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and of course you’ll find unrepeated instances of deception by its leaders; and (2) the leaders of the LDS church are working out their salvation too as they gain wisdom and experience; of course they will err from on occasion. I created other ways to deal with the cognitive dissonance, but these were the most frequent rationalizations. It was a way of saying that while there may have been isolated instances of a leader here and there telling a lie. But I saw no evidence that church leaders engaged in a pattern of premeditated deceit.

Sometimes I caught myself and other member missionaries telling less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was trying to achieve a higher moral purpose; or so I reasoned. I resolved not to be dishonest when defending the church. I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. They would have to represent the church so I could be more honest with myself and others. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would have to deal with it.

I began keeping a list of documented prevarications. I wanted to prove that deceit was not an established practice. Instead it was sometimes a misunderstanding, a remark out of context or an innocent mistake. As I read more church history the list began to grow, and I recognized that an institutional practice had been established by Joseph Smith and carried on by church leaders; including those who serve currently. It indicated an accepted practice and pattern. When the church or its leaders sought protection, it was acceptable to fib, deceive, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or outright lie. As you will read below, church leaders have admitted that deception was a useful tool used to protect the church and its leaders “when they are in tight spot,” or “to beat the devil at his own game.” They confess that lying for the Lord constitutes a greater good – and that God approves of deception – it’s lying for a superior cause; a higher law. I was devastated at first to learn these uncomfortable truths. I had not expected to find that lying for the Lord was a common and acceptable method for avoiding embarrassment. I had naively believed that when church leaders erred, they followed the steps of repentance the church taught to all its members. I believed they had the courage to face their mistakes with humility and confess or admit their shortcomings; no matter what the consequences; to live the same standards they set for the members. I believed they were honest in all their dealings with their fellow men/women.

D. Michael Quinn called the practice of deceit by church leaders “theocratic ethics.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) It was an ethos established by Joseph Smith to protect the church or its leaders by lying if necessary. Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith’s philosophy. Smith used deception if it resulted in good – as he saw it. Smith had Moroni, an ancient American prophet and custodian of gold plates say, “And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. (Moroni 4:11-12). This translated into the following ethic. If deception was necessary to do good, or bring a soul to Christ, then it was worth it.

Smith also raised lying to higher moral ground when he rationalized both lying and murder in 1 Nephi 4. Nephi was inspired by God to dress in disguise and alter his voice to deceive and capture a servant and then murder Laban in order to secure an ancient historical record on plates of brass. God, according to Smith, not only approved of lying, but also murder if it brought about the greater good – however Smith defined it. In Missouri Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon threatened to kill Mormon’s who disagreed with Smith’s policies and initiatives (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 3, “Theocratic Beginnings,” 79-103).

Smith lied in order to convince others that he could see subterranean treasure by pulling a hat over his face and peering into a magic rock placed inside (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86). Smith determined that God had ordered the prophet Abraham to lie to protect himself and his wife Sarah from harm (Abraham 2:23-25).

Smith’s arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 is well documented. He was found guilty for glass looking. Our modern term for Smith would be a con artist. Smith’s conscience permitted him to lie when he thought it was necessary to earn a living, though it meant conning the gullible out of their money. He claimed to see buried treasure in a rock placed in the bottom of his hat (pulled over his face) and charged a fee to locate the riches. The moral ethic at work was that if he could deceive and get away with it, and if some good could might come from it (making a living wage), then there was no harm in it. Modern scams operate on the same principle.

Smith was comfortable with lying and deception and wove it in the fabric of Mormonism as a way of dealing with undesirables, unwanted publicity, tattlers, and others who disagreed with Smith’s deception. Some excellent sources that record Smith’s deception (and the deception of others) who are nevertheless charitable to Smith are: Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady”, Polygamy’s Foe. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2004. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1994. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997. Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, Vintage Books, NY, 1995. B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992. (The essay on Lying for the Lord in the Hardy appendix is masterful and yet compassionate.) Also, Will Bagley’s, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK 2002, offers insight into the minds of other church leaders who used deception effectively too.

The following is a list or prevarications that I compiled as I read church history. Some rate higher on the “deceit-scale” than others. It’s not exhaustive, and only lists a sample of some of the well known incidents of deception on the part of LDS church leaders. I referenced each of the numbered incidents with the secondary source. It’s easier for the normal reader to locate the incidents and additional information in a secondary source. The excellent footnotes provided in the secondary sources will provide you with the primary sources if you wish to review them.

...

+++1. Knowing that the official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith was unknown to the members of the church during the 1830s, the church leadership kept Joseph’s original handwritten version of the First Vision hidden in the church historian’s office for over a century after the church was organized. The 1832 account, in Joseph’s own handwriting does not mention God the Father as a visitor, or the religious excitement around Smith’s home, or require him to remain aloof from other churches; and he was not called to restore the true church of Christ on earth. The “vision” resembles a common Christian epiphany rather than an extraordinary, literal visitation and call to be a special servant of the restoration. (James B. Allen, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp.24-25)

+++2. The Church consistently describes in words and paintings, the visitation of Moroni to Joseph on September 21, 1823. Moroni is pictured floating above Joseph or next to his bed, alone in his bedroom. The pictures do not portray Joseph’s five brothers that slept in the same room with him. A restored Smith house is used for LDS tours showing the small room and only two beds for six brothers. Nothing resembling the actual sleeping arrangement is hinted at in the church’s official literature and pictorial recreations of the scene. It would seem inconceivable to most investigators (and perhaps many members) that Joseph’s brothers sleeping in the same room and bed would not have been awakened by the events as described by Joseph. The inaccurate depictions and lessons tell a different story to make it seem more believable. This is also an example of the deceptive “milk before meat” principle used to suppress questionable historical stories about Mormon origins. http://www.mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm

+++3. Joseph Smith never finished the history of the church he was dictating prior to his death. The Joseph Smith History was completed in August 1856 by historians that tried to make the history appear as if it was written by Joseph. They wrote approximately sixty percent of the history after his death. The church failed to inform its members of this fact, preferring to let them believe that the official history was written by Joseph Smith. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp.466, 469, 470, 472). In the middle of the 20th century, after the deception was pointed out by critics, the church admitted to the practice. When something in History of the Church proved embarrassing, such as the account of the Kinderhook Plates, which is written in the first person by Smith, the practice was for LDS apologists to claim that a scribe or someone else must have written that section. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Shadow or Reality? Chapter 7, “Changes in the Joseph Smith History,” pages 126-142)

+++4. The famous Rocky Mountain Prophecy was a later addition to the official church history and not uttered by Joseph Smith as a prediction that the Mormons would inhabit the Salt Lake Valley. Despite the fact it is not authentic; the church presented it as such for more than a century. The ‘Rocky Mountain Prophecy’ was added at a later time to the history after the Mormons arrived in Utah. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, online at the utlm website, p. 406) The church had no intentions of giving this information to members, in order to make their history appear more faith promoting. The deception was exposed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

+++5. Related to changes in the history of the church, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the following in The Changing World of Mormonism, “One of the most interesting changes in the history is concerned with the name of the angel who was supposed to have appeared in Joseph Smith's room and told him about the Book of Mormon plates. In the history, as it was first published by Joseph Smith, we learn that the angel's name was Nephi: "He called me by name and said ... that his name was Nephi" (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p.753). “In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read "Moroni": "He called me by name, and said ... that his name was Moroni ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.11).
+++a. “The original handwritten manuscript shows that the name was originally written as "Nephi," but that someone at a later date wrote the word "Moroni" above the line (see photograph in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p.136). In the book Falsification of Joseph Smith's History, page 13, Tanners showed that this change was made after Joseph Smith's death. An examination of the duplicate copy of the handwritten manuscript, Book A-2, provides additional evidence that the change was not made during Joseph Smith's lifetime. This manuscript was not even started until about a year after Smith's death. Like the other manuscript (Book A-1), it has the name "Nephi" with the name "Moroni" interpolated above the line.
+++b. “It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name "Nephi" was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction. In August, 1842, the Millennial Star, printed in England, also published Joseph Smith's story stating that the angel's name was "Nephi" (see Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53). On page 71 of the same volume it reads that the message of the angel Nephi ... opened a new dispensation to man...." “The name was also published in the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price as "Nephi." Walter L. Whipple, in his thesis written at BYU, stated that Orson Pratt "published The Pearl of Great Price in 1878, and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely and inserted the name Moroni in its place (reprinted in The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 13, pages 409-410).

+++6. Official Mormon histories have omitted references to Joseph Smith’s drinking and use of tobacco in order to preserve the image of their prophet, who if living today (2007) would be unworthy and unable to qualify for a temple recommend in the church he founded. (Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414 and Chapter 18 of the same online book). “Joseph tested the Saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman, of the First presidency, related: 'Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of old'" ("Joseph Smith as an Administrator," Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, p.161) (Quotation from The Changing World of Mormonism, page 31).

+++7. The LDS Church has engaged in a cover up of history since its origin. In 1972 Leonard Arrington was appointed to serve as the church historian. Writing six years previously, Dr. Arrington had said: "it is unfortunate for the cause of Mormon history that the Church Historian's Library, which is in the possession of virtually all of the diaries of leading Mormons, has not seen fit to publish these diaries or to permit qualified historians to use them without restriction." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1966, p.26). Leonard Arrington was demoted in 1980 and sent away from the church historians office to BYU because he was a threat to the faith promoting history the church insisted he support (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980). The church does not report accurate unflattering historical facts about its origins and leaders to the membership or the world, unless forced to by critics’ revelations of deception.

+++8. Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed certain doctrines to him and he planned on publishing them in the Book of Commandments before Missourians destroyed the printing press. He later published a revised version with additional revelations and called it the Doctrine and Covenants. Apologists claim that added material was only to help the revelation seem clearer to the reader. "Many words were added to the revelations in order to more clearly state what Joseph Smith intended to write.... Many times phrases were added to increase the ability of the reader to get the meaning of the verse" (Melvin J. Petersen "A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," Master's thesis, BYU, 1955, typed copy, p.147).
Joseph significantly altered and changed the meaning of many of the original revelations. David Whitmer was perhaps the most vocal opponent to the revisions – all of which gave more authority and power to Joseph. (Letter written by David Whitmer, published in the Saints' Herald, February 5, 1887). To this day, LDS members are unaware of the significant revisions; that the meaning of some of the “revelations” was reversed. This raises a question about the honesty of Joseph and the current church leaders. It also raises the question whether Joseph Smith received revelations from God or whether they originated in his own mind. If Mormons continue to insist that JS was inspired by God, critics might ask, “Which God? – the one who revealed the first revelations of the one who revealed the later ones that contradicted the first?” For a fuller treatment by David Whitmer see An Address To All Believers in Christ.

+++9. La Mar Peterson explained, “The important details that are missing from the "full history" of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. The student would expect to find all the particulars of the Restoration in this first treasured set of 65 revelations, the dates of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent.... The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years.
More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of August 1829 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants; the new material added the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph's apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68 (Problems In Mormon Text, by LaMar Petersen, pp.7-8. See also D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 1, “The Evolution of Authority.” The online book, The Changing Story of Mormonism, Chapter 16 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner also contains the story of the evolution of the Mormon priesthood with which most Mormons are unfamiliar.

There is more, much more, for those who insist on deceiving readers further.