Prophets
Start: Introduction
Previous: Polygamy | Polyandry
Contents for this section:
“…The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place.”
– PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF, WILFORD WOODRUFF: HISTORY OF HIS LIFE AND LABORS, P.572
“Keep the eyes of the mission on the leaders of the Church…We will not and…cannot lead [you] astray.”
– ELDER M. RUSSELL BALLARD, STAY IN THE BOAT AND HOLD ON!, OCTOBER 2014 CONFERENCE
There are two themes that Jeremy presents throughout this section. First, he has a preconception that prophets cannot (or should not) make mistakes, but that is not true. He presents these quotes in support of that, but ignores quotes that say they are imperfect humans.
In a 12 May 1844 sermon, Joseph Smith taught, "I never told you I was perfect— but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."
In the April 2013 General Conference, Jeffrey R. Holland gave a talk where he taught:
Be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.
Many others in between taught that they are not perfect. Relevant to the arguments that the Jeremy will make in this section, I like what Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught on the Doctrine of Christ in April 2012, a year before the CES Letter was first published. "It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."
Elder Neil L. Andersen gave a similar teaching in the following conference:
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”
Prophets are not infallible, but confusion comes in when we say that "the Lord will never permit … [the] President of this Church to lead you astray." (Which is printed with Official Declaration 1, I'm not sure why Jeremy cited Wilford Woodruff's history instead, but that's not important.) I think this leads a lot of members to think that they are infallible, but there is a difference.
I like the analogy made by Terryl and Fiona Givens in their book, The Crucible of Doubt, and discussed in this article. In Genesis 41, after Joseph correctly interprets the Pharaoh's dream, Pharaoh delegates his authority to Joseph. This doesn't mean that Joseph would do exactly what Pharaoh would do, but it does mean that the people were bound by Joseph's words and actions as if from Pharaoh, because Pharaoh had authorized it.
The same is true for prophets as well. Just as the Lord has said that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" we should also consider what President Monson said several times, that "whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies" or in the words of the scriptures, when Moroni expressed inadequacy, the Lord taught that He gives us weakness that we may be humble, and that through His grace, He will make weak things become strong, as we humble ourselves before Him.
What would it mean to actually "lead the Church astray" anyway? I would say that it would mean leading away from the principles of salvation, which Jesus described as His doctrine in 3 Nephi 11:31-40, or as His gospel in 3 Nephi 27:13-22. Nephi also taught the doctrine of Christ in 2 Nephi 31. In each, we find:
- Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
- Repent of our sins
- Baptism by immersion
- Receive the gift of the Holy Ghost
- Endure to the end
- These shall receive eternal life.
Jesus taught that those who teach more or less than this and establish it for His doctrine comes of evil, and is not built on His foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive them. If someone were to lead the Church astray, I think that's what it would mean.
We might want to see a scriptural example of a prophet attempting to lead the Church astray, and for that we can turn to Numbers 22-24 and 31. Although not an Israelite, the Bible describes Balaam as a prophet. As Moses was leading the Israelites in the plains of Moab, the king of Moab, Balak, summoned Balaam to come curse the Israelites. God came to Balaam and told him that he was not to curse them, for they were blessed.
When they called for him a second time and Balaam left, he was met with divine displeasure. An angel with a drawn sword appeared blocking the path, which only the donkey could see at first. After the third time, the Lord opened Balaam's eyes, and the angel told him he would have been slain. He permitted him to continue, but was to speak only what the angel of the Lord would tell him to speak. Balaam blessed Israel four times, much to Balak's exasperation.
However, in the following chapter, the Israelites fell into idolatry and immorality, enticed by the Moabite women. In Numbers 31:16, we learn that they were acting on Balaam's advice, without further explanation. Balaam was counted among the dead in Numbers 31:8.
His end kind of reminds me of Korihor in Alma 30, who was struck dumb, and he had to go begging for food, but was trampled to death by the Zoramites. Although not a prophet, his end I see as typical of all who would lead the Church astray: "And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children in the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell."
Besides the theme of prophetic infallibility in this section, the second theme is that Jeremy seems to hold onto an idea that teachings cannot change. It seems as though the argument is that God should have revealed everything all at once, and then we should be good to just use that revelation going forward. This is what the Catholic/Protestant world believes, that God gave us the Bible and that is all we need. Latter-day Saints however, believe that we need prophets in our day for revelation applicable to our time. That is what makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a living Church. Our ninth article of faith says we believe that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." So we should expect change.
“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life…”
– 2013 RACE AND THE PRIESTHOOD ESSAY, LDS.ORG
(2013 “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” throwing yesterday’s “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” under the bus over yesterday’s racist revelations and doctrines)
We will talk about this more in a later item in this section, but I wouldn't call this throwing them under the bus. Yes, those that provided theories explaining the priesthood ban were wrong. There was no revelation providing these theories. Often when these explanations were taught, they were taught as theories. But when the Priesthood ban was lifted in 1978 by revelation, that same year Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught at a BYU devotional: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
There are some people out there who still teach these racist theories, and the Church essay is an important source for teaching that these explanations are disavowed.
1. ADAM-GODPresident Brigham Young taught what is now known as “Adam–God theory.” He taught that Adam is “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” Brigham not only taught this doctrine over the pulpit in conferences in 1852 and 1854 but he also introduced this doctrine as the Lecture at the Veil in the endowment ceremony of the Temple.
Brigham Young taught it a lot, starting in 9 April 1852. Latter-day Saints teach that Heavenly Father is the Father of our spirits, and that we were created spiritually before we were created physically. Brigham Young taught this too, but he associated Heavenly Father with Adam, not Elohim, instead seeing Elohim as Adam's father only. (This isn't always clear in his teachings, but seems to be the only way it would fit together.)
In that first sermon, Brigham Young used some strong language that this teaching "will prove their salvation or damnation." This seems to come from Jesus' teaching in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
In later sermons he used language describing principles of the Adam-God teaching that indicate it was his own personal belief. In a 23 October 1853 sermon, He said that Adam was not created of the dust of this earth, saying "this I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding."
Again, in General Conference 8 October 1854 he began by explaining that what he would teach on "a subject that does not immediately concern your or my welfare." When he gets to explaining about Adam, he said:
As we say, "I reckon," and as the Yankees say, "i guess;" but I will tell you what I reckon. I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial Kingdom they were crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, with thrones, principalities and powers, and it was said to him, "It is your right to organize the elements, and to your creations and posterity there shall be no end, but you shall add kingdom to kingdom and throne to throne, and still behold the vast eternity of unorganized matter." Adam, then, was a resurrected being. And I reckon our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam and born of Eve. "How are we going to know this?" I reckon it. And I reckon that Adam came into the Garden of Eden and did actually eat of the fruit that he, himself, planted.
Brigham Young uses the term "reckon" five more times. In a 25 April 1855 address to the Deseret Theological Institute, he said, "this is for you to believe or disbelieve as you please" and you can find similar language in other sermons. To be fair, although he characterizes it as a belief, he also believes it to be true, and one enlightened by the Spirit.
I should also issue a caution for those of us who want to argue about what Brigham Young actually said, that we rely on those who wrote down Brigham's sermons with the expectation that they did so correctly. One of these people was George Watt, who wrote in Pitman shorthand. In recent years, LaJean Purcell Carruth learned Pitman shorthand to read what George Watt originally wrote, and she found that when comparing with the English writing he put it into, large sections were changed. The general idea of what they say is still the same, but the exact words are not. It is possible that Brigham reviewed the transcripts before they were published, which was supposed to be part of the process, but it's not clear how thorough it was, and at least sometimes this review didn't always happen.
Anyway, we see in this sermon quoted above, he expanded on what he had said previously, teaching that Adam was not literally created out of dust, but in the same manner we are. We might be said to be created of the dust of this earth, and Brigham Young taught that Adam was created of the dust of another earth. He believed Adam and Eve were resurrected beings and after Adam assisted Jehovah in the creation, he stayed in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve ate the fruit and eventually died. There seems to be a theme of making "One Eternal Round."
Here perhaps we can begin to see the contradictions. Although the Pearl of Great Price hadn't been canonized at the time, Brigham Young seemed to be aware of it, as he also taught that "Every world has had an Adam and Eve." But the Book of Moses also says that God would only give an account of this earth, which seems to preclude Adam being created from the dust of another earth.
But a more obvious contradiction is that Amulek taught in Alma 11:45 that in the resurrection, the "mortal body is raised to an immortal body," and "they can die no more" which means that Adam could not have both been a resurrected being and then die.
Apparently, by that time Brigham Young had been made aware of the contradiction since he tried to resolve it by explaining, "for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came."
In 1853, Orson Pratt published in The Seer an article on The Pre-existence of Man which contained some false ideas. President Brigham Young wrote in 1855 to the editor of the Millenial Star not to republish any more of The Seer. On 29 January 1860 Orson Pratt delivered a sermon, which was published 7 July 1860 in The Deseret News followed by a statement from the First Presidency message putting down those statements in The Seer and elsewhere, and cautioning "not to undertake to teach doctrine they do not understand."
In it, it appears to make a comment associated with the Adam-God theory: "With regard to the quotations and comments in the Seer as to Adam's having been formed 'out of the ground,' and 'from the dust of the ground,' &c., it is deemed wisest to let that subject remain at present, for it is written that we are able to receive 'line upon line,' according to our faith and capacities, and the circumstances attending our progress." Apparently, the Church chose not to take a formal position regarding the Adam-God teachings at that time.
After Joseph Smith gave the first endowments in Nauvoo, he told Brigham Young, "This is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies". In the Nauvoo Temple and later in the Endowment House, the words of the ordinances had been preserved only through word of mouth.
In 1877, portions of the St. George temple were dedicated. Endowments for the dead were performed for the first time. Brigham asked Wilford Woodruff and others to write out the endowment ceremony and other temple ordinances. Brigham accepted or revised them as the Spirit directed, and when finished he said, "Now you have before you an example to carry on the endowments in all the temples until the coming of the Son of Man" (Saints volume 2, chapter 28).
Originally, the ceremony lasted the better part of a day. At St. George, President Brigham Young gave a thirty-minute "lecture at the veil" which appears to have summarized and explained the symbolic instruction given through the endowment, and John Nuttall summarized the lecture in his diary.
Brigham Young died 29 August 1877. It is not clear whether the lecture was later used in all temples, or even how long it remained taught in St. George. After seeking divine guidance, later generations of Church leaders over time streamlined the ceremony, keeping the symbolic instruction format, but changing the way it was administered.
Brigham also published this doctrine in the Deseret News on June 18, 1873:“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.”
From here we learn that the Adam-God theory did not originate in 1852, but according to Brigham Young, it came from Joseph Smith. The second line that Jeremy bolded is in reference to Doctrine and Covenants 78:16, that the Lord "hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life." Michael was identified as Adam in Doctrine and Covenants 27:11: "Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days".
A search of Joseph's other teachings about Adam fail to provide support to the Adam-God theory. Instead, we find other contradictions. For example, when Joseph performed the wedding ceremony between Newell Knight and Lydia Goldthwaite (the first wedding he performed) on 24 November 1835, he told them that "marriage was an institution of heaven instituted in the garden of Eden" as opposed to on another planet. Joseph also taught about God placing into Adam his spirit during the creation (17 May 1843, 7 April 1844, see also Abraham 5:7) instead of before, like Brigham taught.
On 21 January 1836, Joseph had a vision in the Kirtland temple, found in Doctrine and Covenants 137. In this vision, Joseph saw the Father and Son as well as Adam, which would show that Adam is not the same being as the Father. This was canonized decades after Brigham Young had died, though it appears that he was aware of the vision itself.
Brigham Young also claimed he learned it by revelation. While it is possible that revelation was involved, what was missing from the revelation was how to fit it in with existing doctrine. When you look at new doctrine that Joseph Smith introduced, it usually came with an explanation of how it fit in. If it contradicted what was already taught, he would explain it clearly so that we could understand it.
But it seems Brigham thought what he taught agreed with Joseph had taught, and so never saw the contradiction. Brigham tried to make logical arguments, but he failed to reconcile the teaching with scripture. It was therefore never accepted as doctrine, and was abandoned.
Contrary to the teachings of Brigham Young, subsequent prophets and apostles have since renounced the Adam-God theory as false doctrine. President Spencer W. Kimball renounced the Adam-God theory in the October 1976 General Conference:“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”
– Our Own Liahona
In 1860, the apostles had a series of meetings to resolve the conflict regarding what Orson Pratt had published in The Seer, which I mentioned earlier. Like Brigham and his own teachings, Orson had trouble seeing how his statements contradicted what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had taught. He was willing to silently submit, but didn't want to retract what he sincerely believed without a convincing argument, since he felt it would be hypocritical to go against his beliefs.
He also said that he found the Adam-God theory to go against what Joseph Smith and the scriptures had taught. In one meeting where Brigham Young wasn't present, he gave several explanations as to why he found it contradictory. Others suggested that it might just seem contradictory. As quoted in the Dialogue article I linked:
"It was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden," Pratt pressed on. "B. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, both of his spirit and Body, in his teachings from the stand. Bro. Richard publishes in the Pearl of Great Price, that another person would come in the meridian of time, which was Jesus Christ."
"David in spirit called Jesus Christ, Lord," Hyde offered. "How then is he his Son? It would seem a contradiction, I went to Joseph and told him my ideas of the Omnipresence of the Spirit, he said it was very pretty, and it was got up very nice, and is a beautiful doctrine, but it only lacks one thing, I enquired what is it bro. Joseph, he replied it is not true." [Emphasis in original.]
"If Christ is the first fruits of them that slept," Apostle Taylor similarly commented, "there must be some discrepancy, he must have resumed his position, having a legitimate claim to a possession somewhere else, he ought not to be debarred from his rights. The power of God was sufficient to resuscitate Jesus immediately, and also the body of Adam."
Perhaps anticipating a drawn-out exchange, Orson Hyde announced, "We have come here to arrange that discourse, to the sanction of bro. Young, that it may go forth under the sanction of bro. Pratt . . .
is he willing to put that discourse in shape to recall or qualify certain points of doctrine, not extorted, but in an easy way to show reflection, and that truth has led him to make that confession, and to leave bro. Young out as a dictator, and what would be satisfactory to bro. Young I am pleased with the leniency extended by bro. Young to bro. Pratt, it is more than has been extended to me, or others.
Despite Hyde's attempted reconciliation, Pratt remained uncompromising. "I have heard brother Brigham say," he remarked, "that Adam is the Father of our Spirits, and he came here with his resurrected body, to fall for his children, and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death: that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelations . . . [A]nother item, I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body, flesh and bones, before he came, he was born of the Virgin Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given."
They reverted back to discussing issues with what Orson Pratt was teaching, and together they modified Orson's January talk until it was satisfactory. Brigham Young was pleased, and he and the others in the First Presidency appended a statement. As mentioned above, the statement specifically took no position on Adam being created from the dust of this earth.
In 1844 at the trial of Sidney Rigdon Orson Hyde related how new revelation comes:
There is a way by which all revelations purporting to be from God through any man can be tested. Brother Joseph gave us the plan, says he, when all the quorums are assembled and organized in order, let the revelation be presented to the quorums, if it pass one let it go to another, and if it pass that, to another, and so on until it has passed all the quorums; and if it pass the whole without running against a snag, you may know it is of God. But if it runs against a snag, then says he, it wants enquiring into: you must see to it. It is known to some who are present that there is a quorum organized where revelations can be tested. Brother Joseph said, let no revelation go to the people until it has been tested here.
On 7 May 1861, Brigham Young taught the same principle:
In trying all matters of doctrine, to make a decision valid, it is necessary to obtain a unanimous voice, faith , and decision. In the capacity of a Quorum, the three First Presidents must be one in their voice—the Twelve Apostles must be unanimous in their voice, to obtain a righteous decision upon any matter that may come before them, as you may read in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Seventies may decide upon the same principle. Whenever you see these Quorums unanimous in their declaration, you may set it down as true.
It appears that consensus on the Adam-God theory was not reached before Brigham Young died in 1877. In 1897, 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency Joseph F. Smith wrote a letter, as quoted in this article (linked previously, but it was a long time ago):
President Woodruff . . . partially outlined what I should say. . . . I am happy to know that he and I are in accord on the subject. . . . [In his April 1852 discourse] Pres[ident] Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof.
1st Counselor George Q. Cannon the following year said that "the First Presidency and the Twelve do not think it wise to advocate these matters." From that time on, consensus was against the Adam-God theory.
Along with President Spencer W. Kimball and similar statements from others, Elder Bruce R. McConkie made the following statement:
"The devil keeps this heresy [Adam-God theory] alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day.”
Personally, I take the notion that we do not have creeds to heart, meaning that we are not restricted in our beliefs, and Latter-day Saints don't really have a concept of "heresy" like other Christian denominations. To be sure, there are things that we teach, and we do correct incorrect beliefs, but to me, "heresy" brings to mind people being expelled from the Church for their incorrect beliefs, and as far as our membership councils go, I find we generally care more about incorrect actions instead of incorrect beliefs. That being said, I get what he is saying, that this is a false doctrine that is contrary to everything we are taught.
Meanwhile, fundamentalists that broke away from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally accept the Adam-God teaching. I think that is what Elder McConkie meant by "obtaining converts to cultism" and for that reason it should be considered a "heresy" as it would lead to apostasy from Jesus Christ's Church.
Ironically, Elder McConkie’s June 1980 condemnation asks you to trust him and President Kimball as today’s living prophet.
That's not ironic, that's exactly what he is saying, and what all prophets have taught: living prophets are more more important to us than dead prophets. In 1852, that included President Brigham Young and Elder Orson Pratt. In 1980, that included President Heber C. Kimball and Elder Bruce R. McConkie. In 2021, that includes President Russell M. Nelson and Elder Gary F. Stevenson.
Perhaps what Jeremy found ironic is that Elder McConkie and President Kimball are now dead, so why should we trust their words? Apparently, they were successful and no one is believing the Adam-God theory anymore, so the prophets don't find a need to condemn it. That is the whole point of living prophets: they give us teachings for our time. Meanwhile, those teachings that are still important will get repeated by later Church leaders.
For example, in the October 1866 General Conference, Brigham Young related an experience where for a lesson he laid down the scriptures one at a time, "there lies the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations God has given through Joseph for the salvation of the people in the 19th Century, yet I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for these three books, so far as they are efficacious for the salvation of any man, that lives without the living oracles of God."
This story was repeated by President Wilford Woodruff in October 1897 General Conference, then-Elder Ezra Taft Benson in October 1963, and again by Bishop H. David Burton in October 1995.
In October 1910, Elder J. Golden Kimball (then of the Seventy) gave a similar sentiment, "I believe in the living oracles. I honor the dead, but they are dead and performing their work behind the vale. We have the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, and they are united and with the help of God I want to sustain them."
Many Church leaders over the decades have observed that it is easy to follow dead prophets, but we are to follow the living prophets. This is probably best articulated in Ezra Taft Benson's 1980 BYU devotional and was recently quoted in by Elder Claudio R. M. Costa in October 2010 General Conference that "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet."
This is how doctrine gets established. It is not defined by what one leader said a few times over a hundred years ago. But with clear consensus, repeated over time.
Further, McConkie is pointing to the endowment ceremony as a source of factual information. What about the Saints of Brigham’s day who were following their living prophet? And what about the endowment ceremony of their day where Adam-God was being taught at the veil?
The endowment ceremony presents Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael as three separate individuals, and did even during Brigham Young's day. It seems possible that either Elder McConkie did not know about the lecture at the veil, or did not understand what Brigham Young meant by Adam-God theory. Either is likely, and probably both. Although it is not clear when it was removed, it was not a lasting part of the endowment ceremony. Brigham Young never presented it in a way that really makes sense, it takes some interpretation, and even then we are still left with questions about the contradictions.
Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine and yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.
Jeremy is going to repeat this mantra at the end of each item in this section. So I feel a little justified in repeating myself, too. It helps to understand how doctrine is established. Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught in April 2012 that "It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church."
In the following conference Elder Neil L. Andersen taught, "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk."
In October 2019 President Dallin H. Oaks repeated the above two statements, and gave examples, saying,
The family proclamation, signed by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators, is a wonderful illustration of that principle.
Beyond something as formal as the family proclamation, the prophetic teachings of the Presidents of the Church, affirmed by other prophets and apostles, are also an example of this.
I think it can be confusing because there are two common definitions of doctrine. One is simply "something that is taught." This one is easy to understand and define. Is it taught? If so, then it is doctrine, otherwise it is not. The more complex definition is "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief." The Church uses a definition of "eternal unchanging truth" which relates to this definition of a body of principles in a belief system.
So "yesterday's doctrine" was only "doctrine" in the one sense of the word. It was something that was taught, however, it was not formally accepted into the body of principles of the Church. It is today's false doctrine—meaning both that it is not taught, and consensus of the Church leaders places it outside the body of principles of the Church.
A heretic is "a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma." Brigham Young was a heretic even in his own day, since Adam-God theory differed from established doctrine. But in a way, all prophets are by nature heretics, since they teach new things. The question is just whether they stay heretics, or whether what they teach become established as doctrine.
You see the same sort of thing with scientists. New scientific ideas start opposing the orthodox consensus, but they either get supported and accepted into consensus, or eventually disproven. Sir Isaac Newton gave us the laws of gravity that got us to the moon. However, he also believed in alchemy.
Sometimes I think people look at a prophet's mistakes and incorrectly conclude that because they made a mistake, they can't be a prophet. However, if you accept that they aren't perfect, then you must also accept that mistakes will be made. I quoted part of this already, but In April 2013, Jeffrey R. Holland gave a talk on faith. He gave this observation:
Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all. Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.
When you focus on mistakes, like this and the next items, then that's all you will see. I recommend reading Saints to see Brigham Young and his inspired guidance that he gave in his role as a prophet.
2. BLOOD ATONEMENT
Along with Adam-God, Brigham taught a doctrine known as “Blood Atonement” where a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ.
The summary isn't quite correct, "blood atonement" was that certain sins were beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Jeremy presents it, it makes it seem as though all sins were. Anyway, given that this was never practiced, it doesn't seem to have been a doctrine even in Brigham Young's day. How can a teaching be a doctrine in any meaningful way if the Church has no power to carry it out?
A related question, we may have: Are there sins that are beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ? Jesus taught in Matthew 12:31-32 (and Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10) that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. Hebrews 6:4-6 says:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
In the Book of Mormon, Alma taught something similar that "if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable" and the Lord used similar words in the Doctrine and Covenants saying of those that go to outer darkness that "there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come— Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame."
Joseph Smith elaborated on what it means for this sin of denying the Holy Ghost in a sermon given 7 April 1844. Several men took notes and one amalgamation of these notes put his teaching this way:
All sin shall be forgiven except the sin against the holy ghost, for Jesus Christ will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He has got to deny the plan of salvation; he has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it with his eyes open; he has got to receive the holy ghost, deny Jesus Christ when the heavens are open to him, know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost there is no repentance for him.
In short, there is only one sin that one cannot receive forgiveness for, and that is denying the Holy Ghost. This isn't a simple denial like the atheists, but a determined denial while knowing exactly what they are denying. In this sense, they are like Satan, who rebelled and fought against God even while in His presence. They have no desire to repent, and so will not be forgiven.
Anyway, from there, Jeremy provides a quote from Brigham Young that he taught during a sermon delivered in the Bowery in Salt Lake City on 21 September 1856.
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…
And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;
I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit...There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.”
In my personal opinion, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the sacrifices required by the Law of Moses. Sacrificing animals did not actually atone for our sins, but they were symbolic of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
In Romans 6:23, Paul teaches that "the wages of sin is death" and we learn in from the Lord in Doctrine and Covenants 19 that those who do not repent "must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink". However, your own death and suffering is not capable of paying the price for sin, apparently a common misconception.
Jesus taught the 12 Nephite disciples in 3 Nephi 27:19 that "no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom"—sin makes us unclean, and as a consequence, we are separated from God, also called "spiritual death." Jesus continued, "therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood". We become unclean through sin, but we become clean only through the atonement of Jesus Christ. King Benjamin taught in Mosiah 3:17 that "there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."
Nephi also understood this, saying that the law of Moses had become dead to them, given that they understood that Jesus was where they found salvation. Abinadi further taught that salvation does not come by the law of Moses, and no one would be saved if it weren't for the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Aaron taught Lamoni's father that "since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory". We cannot atone for our own sins, but Jesus can and did. Amulek taught that the reason Jesus is able to because the sacrifice of the Son of God is an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
All sins are equal in the sense that they will separate us from God, so I would say that the reason one is in more serious than another is how easy it is to repent from. I talked about the unpardonable sin earlier. Alma taught his son that next to that is shedding innocent blood, saying "whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness."
Part of the repentance process is the idea of restitution, but you cannot restore a life that you have taken. This doesn't itself place that sin "beyond" the saving power of Jesus Christ, but redemption only comes through Jesus Christ. He sets the terms for repentance, and when we put our faith in Him and repent of our sins, we are cleansed through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
I think it is worth pointing out here that the commandment to not kill in D&C 42:18 also says, "he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." Latter-day Saint author Daniel Ludlow explained that murder is an unforgivable sin, but not an unpardonable sin, meaning that although Jesus requires that they suffer for their sin, Jesus will ultimately redeem them.
So given all that, how could Brigham Young not understand that? Actually, it appears that he did, because that's what he taught at a meeting in Ogden, 10 July 1870:
How are we to be exalted? We have sinned and transgressed the law of God. … It is a divine debt. What will pay it? I ask, Is there anything short of a divine sacrifice that can pay this debt? No; there is not.
I say this to gratify myself, and to gratify my brethren and sisters. A divine debt has been contracted by the children, and the Father demands recompense. he says to his children on this earth, who are in sin and transgression, it is impossible for you to pay this debt; I have prepared a sacrifice; I will send my Only Begotten Son to pay this divine debt. …
Unless God provides a Savior to pay this debt it can never be paid. Can all the wisdom of the world devise means by which we can be redeemed, and return to the presence of our Father and elder brother, and dwell with holy angels and celestial beings? no; it is beyond the power and wisdom of the inhabitants of the earth that now live, or that ever did or ever will live, to prepare or create a sacrifice that will pay this divine debt. But God provided it, and his Son has paid it, and we, each and every one, can now receive the truth and be saved in the kingdom of God.
The idea that if we do not repent we must suffer for our own sins is correct, but that this suffering can cleanse us of sin without Jesus Christ is not correct.
UPDATE: The Church now confirms in its Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints essay that Blood Atonement was taught by the prophet Brigham Young.
To be clear, it refers to the teaching, but says "in order to receive forgiveness" rather than "to make atonement." The essay also puts it into its historical context to better explain the prophet's words:
Nineteenth-century Americans were accustomed to violent language, both religious and otherwise. Throughout the century, revivalists had used violent imagery to encourage the unconverted to repent and to urge backsliders to reform.35 At times during the reformation, President Young, his counselor Jedediah M. Grant, and other leaders preached with fiery rhetoric, warning against the evils of those who dissented from or opposed the Church. Drawing on biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness.36 Such preaching led to increased strain between the Latter-day Saints and the relatively few non-Mormons in Utah, including federally appointed officials.
35. For the mixing of religious language with violence throughout U.S. history, see John D. Carlson and Jonathan H. Ebel, eds., From Jeremiad to Jihad: Religion, Violence, and America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012). Violent rhetoric was often used in the political realm as well. In 1857, for instance, Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas harshly denounced the “treasonable, disgusting and bestial practices” of the Mormons. Protecting those who practiced polygamy, Douglas said, was a “disgrace to the country—a disgrace to humanity—a disgrace to civilization.” He continued: “The knife must be applied to this pestiferous, disgusting cancer which is gnawing into the very vitals of the body politic. It must be cut out by the roots and seared over by the red-hot iron of stern and unflinching law.” The most inflammatory language was edited down in the official version. (See “Great Rally of the People,” Marshall County [Indiana] Democrat, June 25, 1857, [1]; Remarks of the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, on Kansas, Utah, and the Dred Scot Decision [Chicago: Daily Times Book and Job Office, 1857], 11–15; “Senator Douglas’ Speech in Illinois,” New York Herald, June 22, 1857, 2; and Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas [Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997], 568–69.)
36. See, for example, Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:53–54; and Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses, 7:16–21. This concept, which came to be known as blood atonement, was a stock component of anti-Mormon rhetoric in the 19th century. While many of the exaggerated claims that appeared in the popular press and anti-Mormon literature are easily disproven, it is likely that in at least one instance, a few Latter-day Saints acted on this rhetoric. Nevertheless, most Latter-day Saints seem to have recognized that the blood atonement sermons were, in the words of historian Paul Peterson, “hyperbole or incendiary talk” that were “likely designed to frighten church members into conforming with Latter-day Saint principles. To Saints with good intentions, they were calculated to cause alarm, introspection, and ultimately repentance. For those who refused to comply with Mormon standards, it was hoped such ominous threats would hasten their departure from the Territory.” (See Isaac C. Haight letter to Brigham Young, June 11, 1857, Brigham Young Office Files; Peterson, “Mormon Reformation of 1856–1857,” 67, 84n66.)
It seems that not only was "blood atonement" not accepted as a doctrine, but was not intended as a doctrine, either.
As with the Adam-God theory, the Blood Atonement doctrine was later declared false by subsequent prophets and apostles.
Jeremy does not cite any specific declaration that it is false. I have already cited and quoted Brigham Young teaching that salvation is only through Jesus Christ, which implicitly declared his earlier statements as false, or misquoted or misunderstood. When blood atonement is declared false, those statements refer to Brigham Young as being misunderstood.
Disavowals of blood atonement has taken many forms. There was a claim that the Church was executing apostates, so early disavowals emphasized that apostasy is not a capital crime, and that the Church only has authority to excommunicate, and is not authorized to carry out the death penalty. These sermons taught that killing is a capital punishment, referencing Doctrine and Covenants 42:19, "thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die" and Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." But they again confirm that we do not have authority to carry out capital punishment, as Doctrine and Covenants 58:21 teaches "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land."
Statements on blood atonement also typically pointed out that all Christians believe in "blood atonement," in the sense that we are redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Elder Charles W. Penrose gave a talk on 12 October 1884 with the above points, and was published by the Church specifically in response to accusations made against the Church.
On 12 December 1889, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve issued a statement that included the declaration "that this Church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence" and that capital punishment belongs to the State.
In the October 1902 General Conference, President of the Middle States Mission, Ben E. Rich spoke saying, "We do believe in blood atonement; and so does all the Christian world believe in blood atonement. We believe in the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, that it will cleanse mankind from all sin, upon condition of obedience to the laws of the Gospel. There is not a Christian nation on earth who does not believe or pretend to believe in blood atonement just as the Latter-day Saints believe in it." From there, he went on to describe as above a belief in capital punishment, and quoted the 1889 declaration. Elder Reed Smoot spoke the next day and endorsed his talk, and encouraged everyone to read it.
Joseph Fielding Smith answered questions regarding blood atonement in 1905 and again in 1957. In 1905, he was Church Historian, and in 1957 he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve. Neither were official Church publications, but he largely gave the same answer that Elder Penrose gave in 1884, that we are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and that murder is a capital punishment, but can only be carried out by the state.
Also worth including, although not official publications of the Church, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, then a Seventy, had summarized Joseph Fielding Smith's 1905 statements in Doctrines of Salvation in 1954, and then in 1958 published Mormon Doctrine, where he largely said the same thing, adding that "This doctrine can only be practiced in its fulness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administrated in the same hands" and that it was practiced in the days of Moses, but not in our dispensation.
All of these statements affirm, rather than reject what Brigham Young taught. Many of them continue to describe killing as "beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ" but, as I described above, we are only saved through Jesus Christ. In October 1990, Hugh Nibley wrote in the Ensign on the atonement, and made this clarification. He quoted King Benjamin in Mosiah 4:8, that there are no other conditions for salvation except through Jesus Christ. He wrote of how Abraham was asked to make a sacrifice, but all that was required was his intent.
Thus, no “blood atonement” is required of us, since the sometimes necessary sacrifice of our lives has nothing to do with atonement of our sins. Only one infinite and eternal sacrifice could pay for sin, but God may still expect us to sacrifice our lives if the need should arise as we struggle to build up the kingdom of God on earth.
I think the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism describes it succinctly:
The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior's sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ.Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement-which was based on voluntary submission by an offender-into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.
Since the Church cannot perform capital punishment, "blood atonement" is not something that is taught, or even relevant in our day. But we do believe that if we are sincere in our repentance, we will be willing to submit to the laws of the land. Currently, the Church's position on capital punishment is "We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment."
In 2010, The Church released a statement on blood atonement:
In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.
Nowadays people realize that we don't kill apostates, but people still need to realize that we believe that redemption is only through Jesus Christ.
Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.
Brigham Young understood that it is only through Jesus Christ that we are saved, and he would not be seen as unorthodox. "Blood atonement" as understood by our critics has never been a doctrine of the Church. Even as understood correctly by the Latter-day Saints, it was just rhetorical and has never been a practice of the Church.
3. POLYGAMY
Brigham Young taught the doctrine that polygamy is required for exaltation:"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."
There are two problems with this assumption. The first is the one causing Jeremy the most trouble: Plural marriage was a commandment between 1852 and 1890. The whole point of prophets is that they can teach the people of their own time, and that is what Brigham Young is correctly doing. When Wilford Woodruff received his revelation to end the practice, that was also correct. When Jacob in the Book of Mormon taught that it was a sin for the Nephites to have more than one wife, that was correct for the people of his time.
The second problem becomes obvious when you read the talk. In the same paragraph, Brigham Young says "if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the same blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith". So apparently, being a polygamist "at least in your faith" was sufficient
Actually, in the transcript of the shorthand George D. Watt wrote before editing it, he used the words "if you have the privilege" rather than "at least in your faith"—which is still the same sentiment, but I bring it up to reiterate what I said earlier, that what we have doesn't always capture the exact words used.
Several other prophets after Young, including Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, and Joseph F. Smith gave similar teachings that the New and Everlasting Covenant of plural marriage was doctrinal and essential for exaltation.
Jeremy doesn't cite sources on these, but it doesn't really matter. As in the last item, between 1852 and 1890, it was doctrinal and essential for exaltation, at least in their faith if not in practice. So during those years, you should expect to see statements saying as much. After 1904 with the second manifesto, we excommunicate those who engage in polygamy.
The new and everlasting covenant is of eternal marriage, not plural marriage. So if their statements were on "the new and everlasting covenant" then that would refer to marriage in general and not specifically to plural marriage.
There is a related question where people wonder if plural marriage will come back again one day. In the Come Follow Me lesson for Doctrine and Covenants, they talk about plural marriage in a video in the lesson that covers D&C 132. At the 9-minute mark, Elder Quentin L. Cook says:
In the senior councils of the Church, there's a feeling that polygamy, as it was practiced served its purpose, and we should honor those Saints, but that purpose has been accomplished and that it isn't necessary.Now there are unanswered questions, and we don't always receive revelation on everything. President Ballard and I were laughing about this the other day and saying, "when the Millennium comes, there's a thousand years, and we're going to need a thousand years to get the answers to all the issues that surround everything."But I want you to know that we have a loving Heavenly Father, who has a perfect plan, that this plan is one of happiness, that we have a Savior who did everything for us. We can trust in Them.
Given that the practice of plural marriage has changed over time (such as when Jacob taught against the practice among the Nephites) then that means the word "doctrinal" in this sentence cannot refer to "an eternal, unchanging truth" since it has changed, and therefore the word can only refer to "something that was taught" and it was taught during that time, but it is not something taught today. Periods of time where polygamy was permitted or even required are the exception, not the rule.
It’s even in the scriptures:
“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
Jeremy is making the argument that plural marriage is essential for exaltation. This scripture does not support that position. From his previous paragraph, it appears that he was under the mistaken impression that the new and everlasting covenant was specifically for plural marriage. But if you read on, it describes what the covenant was:
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
…
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
These and the verses in between only speak of a man and a wife. It is only later in the revelation that plural marriage is introduced, that part is applying the same principle that monogamists may have their marriages sealed for eternity to multiple wives.
In a September 1998 Larry King Live interview, President Hinckley was asked about polygamy:Larry King: “You condemn it [polygamy]?”Hinckley: “I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”Contrary to President Hinckley’s statement, we still have Doctrine & Covenants 132 in our canonized scriptures.
President Hinckley didn't say, "it doesn't exist in our canonized scriptures" he said that it is not doctrinal, and he condemns the practice, which is correct. Also in our scriptures is Official Declaration 1 which ended the practice of plural marriage. In 1904 was what was called the Second Manifesto which confirmed what was said in the first and also stated that we would excommunicate any who entered into or attempted to solemnize such marriages.
As I explained earlier, there are two definitions of "doctrinal" and plural marriage does not fit either definition. It is certainly not something taught, and is in fact condemned. And it is certainly not an eternal, unchanging truth since it has changed.
Doctrinal doesn't mean, "is found in the scriptures somewhere." Otherwise, we would have to start telling other Christians that baptisms for the dead are doctrinal in their church. Same with animal sacrifice.
We're also still practicing plural marriage in the Temples by permitting men to be sealed to more than one woman (so long as only one is living). Apostles Elder Oaks, Elder Perry, and Elder Nelson are modern examples of LDS polygamists in that they're sealed to multiple women.
Remarriage after the death of a spouse is not polygamy or plural marriage. If it was, then pretty much everyone on the planet believes in polygamy. In order to be considered polygamy, the multiple spouses must be living at the same time. Laws established to prevent polygamy do not forbid remarriage after the death of a spouse. Official Declaration 1 does not forbid remarriage after the death of a spouse.
We condemn polygamy during mortality, but a related question is what about in the eternities? President Oaks has spoken on it a couple times. The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine manual said this in the lesson on celestial marriage:
Latter-day Saints today do not practice polygamy. However, because temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature, some Saints may have questions about plural marriage in the eternities. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who remarried after his first wife died, explained that although we do not know everything about the eternities, we do know that if we are faithful, our temple marriage covenants are eternal in nature: “There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. … For people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, ‘What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?’ I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life” (in “Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary,” July 20, 2007, mormonnewsroom.org).
In October 2019, President Oaks taught regarding these kind of questions to Trust in the Lord:
My dear brothers and sisters, a letter I received some time ago introduces the subject of my talk. The writer was contemplating a temple marriage to a man whose eternal companion had died. She would be a second wife. She asked this question: would she be able to have her own house in the next life, or would she have to live with her husband and his first wife? I just told her to trust the Lord.
I continue with an experience I heard from a valued associate, which I share with his permission. After the death of his beloved wife and the mother of his children, a father remarried. Some grown children strongly objected to the remarriage and sought the counsel of a close relative who was a respected Church leader. After hearing the reasons for their objections, which focused on conditions and relationships in the spirit world or in the kingdoms of glory that follow the Final Judgment, this leader said: “You are worried about the wrong things. You should be worried about whether you will get to those places. Concentrate on that. If you get there, all of it will be more wonderful than you can imagine.”
Before getting upset about some imagined future state, we need to remember that not everything has been revealed, and we should hope in God's promises.
Polygamy is doctrinal. Polygamy is not doctrinal. Yesterday's doctrine is today's false doctrine. Yesterday's prophets are today's heretics.
Protestants believe that the Bible is sufficient. Latter-day Saints believe that God continues to lead us, His children, today through living prophets. God's counsel for His people is going to be different in different generations. God commanded Noah to build a boat, but not us in our day. Saying past teachings are not teachings today is part of the reality of living prophets. We believe that past prophets were correct to teach plural marriage, but that teaching only applied to the people of their day. We don't discard dead prophets because they are heretics, but because we have living prophets that are teaching us the things we need today.
4. BLACKS BAN
As you know, for close to 130 years blacks were not only banned from holding the priesthood but black individuals and black families were blocked from the saving ordinances of the Temple. Every single prophet from Brigham Young all the way to Harold B. Lee kept this ban in place.
That is correct. Although Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood in 1836, and Walker Lewis was ordained in 1844, Brigham Young reversed this position. On 23 January 1852 and again on February 5th, acting as the territorial governor of Utah, Brigham Young gave some speeches before the territorial legislature and is the first recorded time where he taught that black Africans could not hold the priesthood. (1978-1852 = 126, which is close to 130 years.) Brigham Young is reported to have said:
The African enjoys the right of receiving the first principles of the Gospel, this liberty is held out to all these servants, they enjoy the liberty of being baptized for the remission of sins, and of receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands; they enjoy the privilege of living humble before the Lord their great master, so as to enjoy the spirit of the Lord continually; in short as far as the common comforts of life, salvation, light, truth, enjoyment, and understanding is concerned the black African has precisely the same privilege as the white man. But they cannot hold the priesthood, and inasmuch as they cannot bear any share in the priesthood they cannot bear rule, they cannot bear rule in any place, until the curse is removed from them
At the same time, he also taught that the time would come that they would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.
And for the temple, Richard and Johanna Provis from South Africa had their marriage sealed in the Endowment House in 1861 with no concern over Johanna's African ancestry. However, after Brigham Young's death, Church leaders taught that black men and women were not able to be endowed or sealed, either.
In the years after 1852, Brigham Young and other Church leaders put forward explanations as to explain these restrictions. However, the Church today teaches that these were racist theories, and are not accepted today as official doctrine of the Church.
The origin of the priesthood ban is not clear, but Church leaders believed that they could not end it without a specific revelation to do so. Since the days of Brigham Young, it was promised that one day they would receive the priesthood. In the 1950s, President David O. McKay prayed for such a revelation, but did not receive the answer he sought, and "concluded that the time was not yet ripe."
In June 1978, after many hours of prayer, President Spencer W. Kimball along with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received the revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple … without regard to race or color."
Prophets, Seers, and Revelators of 2013 – in the Church’s December 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay – disavowed the “theories” of yesterday’s Prophets, Seers, and Revelators for their theological, institutional, and doctrinal racist teachings and “revelation.”
Here is what the essay actually says:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
It's difficult for me to understand what Jeremy is claiming here. By placing "theories" in scare quotes, that suggests that he disagrees with the claim that they were theories. But then the last part of the sentence doesn't come from the essay. The scare quotes around "revelation" suggest he disagrees with a claim that the theories were revelation, which is not something the Church or the essay claims.
I've talked with some people who mistakenly think that the essay is disavowing the priesthood ban itself, and perhaps that's what Jeremy is saying here. It would fit with what he's saying, but the essay doesn't actually go that far. What it disavows are the racist explanations for the ban. The reason for the ban has not been revealed.
Personally, I like the essay, as it provides a easily accessible location to point to when I encounter someone who still teaches these racist theories.
Yesterday’s racist doctrine and revelation is now today’s “disavowed theories.”
Jeremy is mistaken—these racist theories were never presented as doctrine or revelation. In fact, they were almost always presented as speculation.
I wanted to research one of these theories, the idea that blacks were neutral in the war in heaven, how it originated and how it was taught. I found that they were usually provided as speculation. The quotes are racist, but I want to share them to show that the theory was not taught as doctrine or revelation.
I found that it came from Orson Hyde. However, that was in 1845, years before Brigham Young introduced the priesthood ban in 1852, and so wasn't offered as an explanation for the ban. In a meeting with the school of the prophets on Christmas 1863, Lorenzo Snow asked if blacks were neutral in the war in heaven. Brigham Young answered that there were no neutral spirits in heaven, that we all took sides, and that all spirits are pure that come from the presence of God.
In the early 1900s, there are a few references to blacks being less valiant, but as you can see, they are presented with language that it is speculation, and not doctrinal.
That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth.It is a reasonable thing to believe that the spirits of the pre-mortal state were of varying degrees of intelligence and faithfulness. This thought is conveyed in many passages of scripture, such as Acts 17:24-27; Deuteronomy 32:8; Abraham 3:19-26. However, to dwell upon this topic and point out certain nations as having been cursed because of their acts in the pre-existence, enters too much on the realm of speculation. Therefore, let it suffice that the negro is barred from the Priesthood and the reason some day we may understand.
—Joseph Fielding Smith, The Negro and the Priesthood, Improvement Era April 1924
What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. … Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this.
—Elder George F. Richards, April 1939 General Conference
Just as Brother George F. Richards has indicated that our poor benighted negro brethren are suffering the consequence of their sowing at some other time and place, so as certainly shall we hereafter reap what we are sowing here and now.
—Elder Melvin J. Ballard, April 1939 General Conference
The opinion is held by many members of the church that because the negro was a neutral in the great council, held in the heavens before the foundations of the earth were laid, he has been punished with a black skin. There is no evidence, as far as found, to justify this belief. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the church doctrine that all who have been permitted to come upon this earth and take upon themselves bodies, accepted the plan of salvation. Those who did not accept it were cast out and became the angels of the evil one.The cause of the black skin of the negro is not known. A mark was placed upon Cain because of his sin. The negroes are supposed to be his descendants. Since these people, themselves, did not commit Cain's sin, it is very probable that in some way, unknown to us, the distinction harks back to the pre-existent state.
—John A. Widtsoe, Lxxx. Were Negroes Neutrals in Heaven?, Improvement Era 1944
The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit.
—Elder George F. Richards, October 1947 Conference
… The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; …
—First Presidency statement, 17 August 1949.
The only statement I can find that doesn't use speculative language is from Elder Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine. He became an apostle in 1972, and was also one of those that received the revelation in 1978. After that, this statement was removed from the book.
Two months after the revelation was given, at a CES Religious Educator's Symposium on 18 August 1978, Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke about how to deal with the change. Given his involvement with both the publication of those racist theories and receiving the revelation, his words are extremely relevant.
There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.
It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.
That is how revelation works, and that is the purpose of revelation. We speak with limited understanding, and revelation will increase our understanding. Without revelation, we are left with our own human interpretations
Additionally, the above-mentioned essay also withdraws “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse” while ironically contradicting the Book of Mormon itself:
2 NEPHI 5:21“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”
The original Book of Mormon was not divided into verses, and the curse is more clear when you include the previous verse:
Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
Being cut off from the presence of the Lord was the curse, not the dark skin. The dark skin was so that the Lamanites would "not be enticing" to the Nephites.
Some earlier Church leaders interpreted the verses to mean dark skin was a sign of the curse rather than the curse itself. This is what the essay is refuting, those interpretations that it is a curse or even a sign of a curse.
The description in the Come Follow Me manual published in 2020 for those verses describes it well:
What was the curse that came upon the Lamanites?In Nephi’s day the curse of the Lamanites was that they were “cut off from [the Lord’s] presence … because of their iniquity” (2 Nephi 5:20–21). This meant the Spirit of the Lord was withdrawn from their lives. When Lamanites later embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ, “the curse of God did no more follow them” (Alma 23:18).The Book of Mormon also states that a mark of dark skin came upon the Lamanites after the Nephites separated from them. The nature and appearance of this mark are not fully understood. The mark initially distinguished the Lamanites from the Nephites. Later, as both the Nephites and Lamanites each went through periods of wickedness and righteousness, the mark became irrelevant as an indicator of the Lamanites’ standing before God.Prophets affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing. The Church embraces Nephi’s teaching that the Lord “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). President Russell M. Nelson declared: “The Lord has stressed His essential doctrine of equal opportunity for His children. … Differences in culture, language, gender, race, and nationality fade into insignificance as the faithful enter the covenant path and come unto our beloved Redeemer” (“President Nelson Remarks at Worldwide Priesthood Celebration” [June 1, 2018], newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).
This represents another disavowal that dark skin is a sign of a curse, and supports what the Book of Mormon teaches, that the Lord "denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female" which even Jeremy will quote in a minute.
Joseph Smith permitted the priesthood to at least two black men. Elijah Abel was one of them. Walker Lewis was another.
So, Joseph Smith gives the priesthood to blacks. Brigham Young bans blacks. Each and every single one of the 10 prophets from Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee supported what Spencer W. Kimball referred to as a “possible error” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.448-449).
We talked about most these things already, so here I'll just talk about President Spencer W. Kimball's quote. His full quote is "I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation." Jeremy seems use this quote to imply that the priesthood ban was a "possible error" but the quote in context shows that President Kimball called it the Lord's policy, and so the "possible error" instead appears to reference the theory that blacks had committed some error in the premortal life.
So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they all supported what they believed to be a policy revealed by the Lord. Contributing to that understanding is that most incorrectly believed that it began with Joseph Smith. However, at the same time, they believed and taught that black Africans would one day receive the priesthood and all the blessings that are associated with it.
Heavenly Father likes blacks enough to give them the priesthood under Joseph Smith but He decides they’re not okay when Brigham Young shows up. And He still doesn’t think they’re okay for the next 130 years and the next 9 prophets until President Kimball decides to get a revelation.
The same God who “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female” is the same God who denied blacks from the saving ordinances of the Temple for 130 years. Yet, He apparently changed His mind again in 1978 about black people.
Receiving the priesthood isn't a matter of whether God "likes" you or not. President Kimball didn't "decide" to get a revelation. He desired one, as did President McKay. Though seeking one may be part of it, ultimately revelation comes on God's terms, not ours. Also, God revealing policy changes isn't "changing His mind." However, because God did not reveal the reasons behind the ban, people continue to believe and propagate defenses or justifications of the ban, many of which are racist.
Of course, the revelation He gives to the Brethren in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978 has absolutely nothing to do with the IRS potentially revoking BYU’s tax-exempt status,
Of course not. The supreme court case that Jeremy linked, Bob Jones University v. United States ruled in 1983 that the "Government has a fundamental overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education." However, unlike Bob Jones University, BYU had no admission policies based on race. The court also made clear that the ruling dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."
Given that BYU allowed people to enroll on the same terms regardless of race, on what terms would the IRS revoke BYU's tax-exempt status? I don't think the government cares who a church allows into its largely unpaid ministry.
Given that they had been boycotting since 1969, it apparently had little to no influence. At the end of that same year, the Church released a statement that they supported civil rights for black Africans, and that the priesthood ban was a religious rather than civil matter, but that one day they would receive the priesthood.
we can’t figure out who’s black or not in Brazil (São Paulo Temple dedicated/opened just a few months after revelation),
This issue was largely answered by 1965, that members no longer had to prove they had no African ancestry in order to receive the priesthood. However it did remain a problem for those that did have African ancestry, and the Church essay speaks of their sacrifice in building a temple they then could not enter.
The essay also brings up something that Jeremy didn't mention, that thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians had converted to the gospel, but could not hold the priesthood.
and that Post-Civil Rights societal trends were against the Church’s racism. I would think Christ’s one true Church would have led the Civil Rights movement; not be the last major church on the planet in 1978 to adopt it.
The Church did support the Civil Rights movement. First Counselor, Hugh B. Brown spoke in favor of it in the October 1963 General Conference
During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.
We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God, and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.
Perhaps you disagree and think that purely religious decisions are also a civil matter. I disagree, and believe that church and state should not mix.
Even if you think 1978 was when we accepted the Civil Rights movement, we were not the last major religion to accept it. The Southern Baptist Convention is the second-largest denomination in the United States, which began in 1845 over the issue of slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, most Southern Baptist pastors and members rejected racial integration and accepted white supremacy. In 1995, the convention voted to adopt a resolution where it renounced its racist roots and apologized for its past defense of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.
This isn't a contest about who is more righteous, or who we can accuse of being more wicked. The reality is that the United States has had a problem with race, and recent events even today show that racist attitudes are still prevalent, and we need to work together to combat racism in society.
How can we trust these “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators,” who have been so wrong about so many important things for so long while claiming to be receiving revelations from God?
As an analogy, Prophets are men in the watchtower. We trust them because they can see farther off. They are still human, and therefore fallible, but the alternative is to rely on ourselves, or others of us who are not in the watchtower. We still have the problem of being fallible humans, but we also lack the advantage of being in a position to see farther. As I quoted in the introduction, Elder Holland taught, "Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we."
Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s 10 prophets are today’s heretics.
By "doctrine" it cannot mean "eternal, unchanging truth" because it was promised that one day the priesthood will be extended to all people. Therefore "doctrine" can only mean "teachings" here. This is correct, it was taught that those of black African descent could not hold the priesthood, which is not true in our day, and so is not taught. However, past prophets are not considered heretics. They promised that there would be a day when the priesthood would be extended to those of all races, and they were correct.
And as far as the racist theories behind the ban went, I don't know that they were ever taught as doctrine, but more typically as speculation. But they were taught, and as we learn more through revelation, we reject false teachings. This is the point of having modern-day revelation.
5. MARK HOFMANN
In the early to mid-1980s, the Church paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive and valuable antiquities and cash to Mark Hofmann – a con man and soon-to-be serial killer – to purchase and suppress bizarre and embarrassing documents into the Church vaults that undermined and threatened the Church’s story of its origins. The documents were later proven to be forgeries.
Did the Church pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive and valuable antiquities and cash to Mark Hofmann? No. One total puts it at $57,100 plus artifacts of undetermined value, but estimated to be between $80,000-$110,000.
Was Mark Hofmann a con man and soon-to-be-serial killer? Yes. And also yes, the documents were later proven to be forgeries.
Did the Church suppress these documents into the Church vaults? No. Only two of these hundreds of documents were placed in the Church vaults. One was a letter from Thomas Bullock to Brigham Young regarding the Joseph Smith III blessing donated by Mark Hofmann, the other he sold for $15,000 and was a letter from Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell. If they were suppressed, they did a poor job, as the Josiah Stowell document was published in April 1985, and the other was given to police investigators.
Were these documents bizarre and embarrassing? Almost all the documents were trivial, and not even newsworthy, let alone bizarre and embarrassing. Even the more noteworthy documents, most supported the Church. The Joseph Smith III blessing and the Bullock-Young letter were controversial as they were used to support RLDS claims, but weren't bizarre or embarrassing. The Josiah Stowell letter and the Martin Harris letter (commonly called the Salamander letter) were bizarre as they emphasized superstition rather than religious elements of Church history.
Did these documents undermine and threaten Church history and story of its origins? No. Only the Joseph Smith III blessing and the Salamander letter might be said to do so, but these documents were publicized and rebutted.
Books have been published about his activities, but here is a long summary of events, highlighting the things brought up in this item:
In April 1980, Mark Hofmann claimed to have discovered a document that matched the description that Charles Anthon gave of the Book of Mormon transcript that Martin Harris gave him. Dean Jessee, who worked in the Church Historical Department was recognized as the leading expert in Joseph Smith's handwriting, and after examining it, he was confident that it was Joseph's handwriting.
The picture Jeremy used is regarding this document. Pictured, left-to-right, Mark W. Hofmann, N. Eldon Tanner, Spencer W. Kimball, Marion G. Romney, Boyd K. Packer, and Gordon B. Hinckley. The Church News published an article on May 3rd, and the Church published articles in the Ensign in June and July about the document, and over several months of examination, confidence grew that it was legitimate.
The document was appraised at $25,000, but Hofmann wanted to trade for a set of six Mormon gold pieces, worth far more. He was eventually talked town, and Church Librarian Don Schmidt traded one $5 Mormon gold coin, several historic Mormon notes, and a first edition of the Book of Mormon missing its title page. The Church had duplicates of these items, so they considered it beneficial to them, as they thought they were upgrading their collection for free.
The Anthon transcript was not embarrassing, but exciting, and was well reported, and certainly not suppressed.
When speaking of Hofmann's forgeries, people often think of the more controversial ones, but he was very prolific. In the years after, the Church has discovered 446 Hofmann forgeries in its collections, which Brent Ashworth helped identify and remove from circulation. Hofmann also forged works claiming to be from famous Americans, and items occasionally still turn up at auction that turn out to be Hofmann forgeries.
The first controversial document was "The Joseph Smith III Blessing" which claimed to be a transcript of a blessing that Joseph gave his son that he would be his successor, which is what the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) claimed. He offered to sell it to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they initially refused until after they heard he had offered it to the RLDS Church. Ultimately, he met with Schmidt and traded it for a first edition of the Book of Mormon and several pieces of historic Mormon money and other notes in February 1981.
After the trade, RLDS historian Richard P. Howard was upset with Hofmann for going back on his agreement with him to give him time to authenticate the document. After discussion, the First Presidency decided to offer it to the Reorganized Church in trade a copy of a Book of Commandments, while retaining a copy. They had a press conference after the signing in March.
They were able to send the document out for analysis, and a number of outside experts verified that the handwriting, paper, and ink was authentic.
Again, this document was not suppressed, nor could it be, given that it we declined the first offer, and when it was offered again, they were informed that it was offered to the RLDS Church. President Hinckley spoke on it in General Conference noting that blessings are different than ordinations.
In the next several months, Hofmann dealt with the history department several times. But in September, he met with President Gordon B. Hinckley who had been called to the First Presidency that July. President Spencer W. Kimball and the other two counselors had poor health, and he assumed the bulk of the First Presidency's responsibilities. Hofmann told President Hinckley that he had another document relating to the blessing, a letter from Thomas Bullock to Brigham Young saying he refused to give his copy of the blessing to be destroyed. Hofmann gave him the document for free, saying that he did not want to blackmail the Church, and he did not keep a copy.
President Hinckley discussed it with the First Presidency, and they decided to file it in the First Presidency's vault. They did not record the reason for their decision, and some feel that it was suppression. Hofmann gave it to the Church after expressing concerns about the reaction to the Joseph Smith III blessing, implying a similar reaction would come about. Another interpretation would be that they wanted to postpone making it public until they had a healthy First Presidency to respond to criticism. However, because it was donated, there was only a record of the meeting, not the transaction, and President Hinckley would later forget about it, confusing the meeting with the Joseph Smith III blessing itself.
Hoffman continued to sell and trade works with the Church and with other artifacts collectors. The next one to hit the news was a letter Hofmann traded to Brent Ashworth for a few items including letters from Andrew Jackson and John Brown and an early copy of the Thirteenth Amendment with signatures of members of congress. The letter was not controversial, but Ashworth intended to keep it quiet for a year or two, and if it proved to be authentic then he would write an article on it. But word leaked out, so he showed it to Church leaders a few weeks later in August 1982.
In October, Ashworth had a press conference for another document, a letter written by Martin Harris to Walter Conrad, where he shared his testimony of the Book of Mormon. Like his other letter, Ashworth did not reveal his source, but he had bought it from Mark Hofmann nine months previously for $33,000. It also was not controversial, and so couldn't be said to be "suppressed."
Soon after, Hofmann told Don Schmidt of another letter to Walter Conrad, this one from David Whitmer, also with his testimony. The First Presidency met and agreed to his $15,000 offer, though Hofmann ended up deciding to sell it for $10,000 instead.
In December 1982, the Church rejected a proposal that Mark Hofmann made that would effectively commission him to work for the Church finding artifacts.
The next controversial document was also the first "bizarre" one, a letter from Joseph Smith Jr. to Josiah Stowell, giving him instructions in folk magic to locate the silver mine he was looking for. Like the letter to Brigham Young, Hofmann bypassed the Church history department and met with President Gordon B. Hinkley directly in January 1983.
The First Presidency authorized its purchase, but there were concerns about its authenticity, so Mark Hofmann flew to New York and was able to get the document authenticated by document dealer, Charles Hamilton. The next day, he met with President Hinkley who purchased it for $15,000. He gave it to Francis Gibbons, secretary to the First Presidency, who placed it in the First Presidency’s vault.
In Mark Hofmann’s deposition, he said that he assured him that there were no copies, and that Hinckley told him that only top church leaders would know of its existence. Therefore, critics of the Church claim that they intended to suppress the document, presumably for being strange. I would suggest that the best way to suppress a document is to destroy it, but what do I know?
In March, the Church bought a document purporting to be the Grandin contract for $25,000 from Mark Hofmann. He sold many more minor documents to the Church in 1983, as he had since 1980.
In January 1984, Lyn Jacobs, an associate of Mark Hofmann visited Brent Ashworth and showed him a letter from Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps that was "bizarre" in that it told a different version of how Joseph received the plates, describing it using language of folk magic. This came to be known as "the Salamander letter" because it says the spirit who appeared to Joseph Smith turned into a salamander and prevented him from taking the plates.
Ashworth found it suspiciously similar to an account given in Mormonism Unvailed, and so thought it was an early forgery based on it. Hofmann defended it, believing that he could get it authenticated.
Lyn Jacobs then met with Don Schmidt and offered to give the letter to the Church in exchange for a ten-dollar Mormon gold piece, an extremely rare item Jacobs later estimated to be worth between $60,000 to over $100,000. Schmidt felt it was too expensive, and set up a meeting with Gordon B. Hinckley. He agreed. Jacobs then offered to exchange it for a copy of a Book of Commandments, valued by Jacobs at $30,000-$40,000. President Hinckley again turned down the offer.
Steven F. Christensen had an interest in Church history, and Hofmann was able to sell it to him for $40,000. He intended to have it researched and published with a commentary, then to donate it to the Church. Shortly after the sale, information was "leaked" on the Salamander letter, and several other documents.
While research was ongoing, and speculation was rampant, President Hinckley prepared a statement on the Salamander Letter, which he gave to Jerry Cahill, director of public affairs, which he gave to writers for Time magazine who had asked for some kind of statement.
It is true that I saw the letter.
I felt that no public comment was in order until the matter had been thoroughly researched in the context of the time and the environment in which it was written. I was pleased to learn that the owner has engaged professionals to do such research. Until such is completed it would be improper for me tor anyone else to speculate on the contents or any interpretation of the meaning of various statements. I would think that no reputable individual or journal would issue a speculative story until such had been done.
In August, he again prepared a statement regarding the Josiah Stowell document:
I am advised that questions are being raised concerning the location of a letter presumably written in 1825 by Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell, typescripts of which I am told are now in circulation.
In response to queries, personnel of the Historical Department of the Church have indicated that they do not have the letter. This is true. I have it. I handled the purchase when it was brought to me by a dealer and put it in the vault adjacent to my office pending the time when we may have it studied to determine its authenticity. Meanwhile I would assume that no reputable scholar would draw conclusions concerning it and no journalist of integrity would wish to publish it.
However, the media went ahead with stories on the Stowell document, and President Hinckley's statement was not published at that time, and so Jerry Cahill and the Church Historical Department remained unaware that he had it.
By April 1985, the Salamander letter had been authenticated, with results saying that there was no indication that it was a forgery. Steven Christensen donated it to the Church, who then published it in the Church News along with an article and a First Presidency statement.
The Salt Lake Tribune published a two-part series on newly discovered documents, first on the Salamander letter, the next on the Stowell letter. Cahill repeated what he had learned the previous year that the Church did not have the Stowell letter. This came to President Hinckley's attention, so he called him to his office to correct him. Cahill then wrote a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune to correct his statement. After explaining that he was quoted correctly, he said:
My statement, however, was in error, for which I apologize and for which I alone am responsible. Some months ago I was asked the same question by another inquirer and made a thorough check before responding. Dawn Tracy called me twice as she prepared her article and I responded without checking again.
When my published statement came to his attention, President Gordon B. Hinckley of the First Presidency of the church informed me of my error. The purported letter was indeed acquired by the church. For the present it is stored in the First Presidency’s archives and perhaps some day may be the subject of the kind of critical study recently given to the purported letter of Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps
Soon after, the Church published photographs and a transcript of the Stowell letter, along with an article. Prominent ex-Mormon critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner maintained that Church leaders intended to suppress it and "they only published it because their own scholars were preparing to release it to the press."
In May 1985, Brent Metcalfe (an associate of Mark Hofmann) made an announcement that according to a reliable source, the Church had the long-lost Oliver Cowdery history and that it would corroborate the Salamander letter, using similar language, and also stating that the plates were actually found by Alvin. He claimed that Gordon B. Hinckley knew where it was, but he did not, and so President Hinckley asked the Historical Department what they knew about it. No one claimed to have found it.
At the same time, Hofmann asked coin dealer Alvin E. Rust for his help to buy the McLellin collection. He claimed that this collection had a number of historical documents including three diaries of early apostle William E. McLellin, copies of some early revelations, a Book of Commandments, and other artifacts including the original Facsimile #2 of the Book of Abraham and four other papyri fragments.
Rust had helped him in the past, but was concerned because he felt out of the loop: Hofmann had bought the collection, but it was not sent to Rust, and then he learned that the Church wanted to buy the collection, and Hofmann told him to keep it secret. That June, he asked President Hinckley in a letter for an explanation.
However, Hofmann hadn't made an offer to the Church. Later that day, Hofmann visited President Hinckley and explained that Rust had given him $175,000 to buy the McLellin collection, and that he was able to buy it for $185,000. He said he would take out a loan repay Rust, and he intended to donate the collection to the Church. Working through other dealers, Hofmann had offered a copy of The Oath of a Freeman to the Library of Congress for $1.5 million, and would then be able to repay the debt. In a meeting with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve the next day, they decided that they would make an announcement when they received the gift. Assuming Hofmann had it taken care of and Rust would soon be paid, President Hinckley did not respond to Rust's letter.
In the meanwhile, Hofmann met with Steve Christensen, saying that he needed $195,000 to buy the McLellin collection, and had put up $10,000 as earnest money. However, despite his large purchase the year before, Steve Christensen was no longer in a position to provide that kind of money. He spoke with Elder Hugh W. Pinnock, a successful insurance executive for some help, who also happened to be a Seventy in the Church. He in turn consulted with Elder Dallin H. Oaks before meeting with Hofmann and Christensen.
Elder Oaks apparently didn't know or remember anything regarding the McLellin collection, saying only that he had heard it mentioned in the news. He rejected the suggestion that the Church lend $185,000 saying President Hinckley was in Europe. But he did observe that if Hofmann was going to receive a million dollars from the Library of Congress, why not get a loan from a bank for the $185,000 that he needed? Elder Pinnock agreed and in his meeting with Hofmann afterwards meeting, he assisted getting him in contact with banking officials so he could get a loan.
Hofmann claimed to have received the McLellin collection, but in the months that followed no one saw it, and he did not repay his bank loan. Meanwhile, he continued to make deals with Curt Bench at Deseret Book. It became clear that he was in financial trouble. Now, he was saying that he also had received a loan from Alvin Rust in a different transaction, using the McLellin collection as collateral. Elder Pinnock suggested he would have to sell the McLellin collection to get the money he needed and repay his debts. Elder Oaks spoke with President Hinckley, and they replied that they would not buy the collection.
Arrangements were made to sell the McLellin collection, but on 15 October 1985, Hofmann killed Steve Christensen and Kathy Sheets with two homemade bombs delivered in packages. Since she was the wife of Christensen's former employer, it was initially believed to be related to that, perhaps a disgruntled employee, though the other possibility was over the Salamander letter, as it was reported that Gary Sheets apparently paid to help authenticate the letter. The next day, a bomb went off in Hofmann's car, which brought his document dealings to the forefront.
The Church worked with police investigators to tell them what they knew. A week later, due to allegations in the media, the Church held a news conference to explain what they knew.
As information was shared, it became immediately clear that Hofmann had been double-dealing, and there likely was no McLellin collection. As time went on the secret of his forgeries was discovered and Hofmann was charged on 4 February 1986 on 28 criminal counts, including two capital murder counts for the deaths of Steve Christensen and Kathy Sheets, three "infernal machine" counts for the bombings, thirteen counts of theft by deception, and ten counts of communications fraud.
The county attorneys delivered the Church a subpoena requesting "any records, check out slips, logs, cards, or other documentation of visits tot he LDS Church Historical Archives and the documents, books, catalogs, letters, information, etc." that Hofmann and five others had used since 1975, giving them 9 days to comply. Glenn Rowe and his staff prepared a typed list of materials 99 pages long, but that wasn't good enough: they wanted the actual documents, or copies of them.
In March, some Historical Department personnel wanted to know more about William McLellin, and so contacted Dean Jessee, since he had used to work for the department, and had become an expert on its holdings. He discovered in his research files some notes that referred to correspondence in the department's uncatalogued Joseph F. Smith collection that mentioned McLellin's diaries and other belongings.
They searched the collection and found the letters. J. L. Traughber of Doucette, Texas had written the librarian of the Church on 13 January 1908 informing them that he had a copy of a Book of Commandments that he had received from McLellin's widow, and also a journal covering 1831-36, and some manuscript books. He wanted them preserved and was willing to sell them to the Church for $50. Joseph F. Smith wrote to Central States Mission president, forwarding Traughber's letter, asking him to purchase them, and to try to contact McLellin's widow to see if she would sell his other journals. A reply letter said he was able to get them.
Information about the letters went up the chain, and so when President Hinckley learned of them, he asked Francis Gibbons if those items were in the First Presidency's vault. He searched and found them. Although it wasn't "the McLellin collection" that Hofmann had claimed, which also included affidavits from early Church members, Facsimile No. 2, and the Canadian copyright revelation, but it did have McLellin's early journals, which confirmed that Hofmann was a fraud.
Beginning 14 April 1986 and lasting a month, Hoffman had his preliminary hearing, where they heard from 39 witnesses and 11 provided stipulations. The court ruled that there was probable cause that the crimes alleged had been committed, and that Hofmann had committed them, meaning they could then go to trial.
On 23 January 1987, Mark Hofmann entered a plea deal where he plead guilty to second-degree murder in the deaths of Steve Christensen and Kathy Sheets, two counts of theft by deception in obtaining money from Al Rust for the purported purchase of the McLellin collection, and in the sale of the salamander letter to Steve Christensen. He was sentenced to one term of five years to life in prison and three terms of one to fifteen years. The judge recommended he serve the rest of his life in the Utah State Prison.
As part of the plea deal, prosecutors were able to question Hofmann, and he was to answer honestly in order to provide closure to the ordeal. He answered many questions relating to his forgeries, but many of his answers were dishonest, so it is not clear how much of what he said could be trusted. When it came time to talk about the murders, he refused to talk, and questioning ended.
In January 1988, the board of pardons met with Hofmann, reviewed the case, and by majority vote, they decided he should serve natural life in prison. After serving nearly 30 years in Utah State Prison, he was transferred to the Central Utah Correctional Facility, where he remains to this day.
- The lack of discernment by the Brethren on such a grave threat to the Church is troubling.
Jeremy doesn't explain why he thinks it was a grave threat to the Church, nor why he finds their lack of discernment troubling. Personally, I wouldn't consider losing $57,100 plus artifacts estimated to value $80,000-$110,000 to be a "grave threat" to the Church, but putting that aside, the reason I don't find it troubling is because I don't believe Church leaders to be perfect.
Take for example, when Joseph Smith permitted Martin Harris to take the manuscript pages for the Book of Mormon. Joseph asked the Lord three times, and was told no twice, but the third time was permitted, so long as Martin promised to show it to only five named family members. But he broke his promise and they were stolen.
God uses weak people, and is able to accomplish His purposes despite our mistakes. Although Church leaders are said to have the spirit of discernment, the Lord also told Joseph in D&C 10:37 "you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous". And that is true, Joseph often trusted people he shouldn't have. But the Church still moves on, despite those like Hofmann who would have it otherwise.
- Speeches by Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Gordon B. Hinckley offered apologetic explanations for troubling documents (Salamander Letter and Joseph Smith III Blessing) that later ended up, unbeknownst to Elder Oaks and President Hinckley at the time of their apologetic talks, being proven complete fakes and forgeries.
They were defending the Church, not the documents. They taught that despite what was claimed in these documents, even if they were true, they do not destroy the truth-claims of the Church.
In President Hinckley's talk about the Joseph Smith III blessing, he correctly noted that a blessing is not an ordination. One can only become the President of the Church through ordination, and Joseph Smith III was never ordained an apostle, nor given keys. President Hinckley also pointed out that Thomas Bullock, "if he wrote that blessing, he knew about it." And he was a faithful member of the Church all his life.
That is some skeptical language for someone supposedly defending the document. He also says it was "reported to have been given January 17, 1844" and that "it was reportedly found among [Thomas Bullock's] papers left at his death." He was not defending the blessing, he was using what others had reported on it as the topic of his talk, to speak on the subject of how succession in the Church requires priesthood keys.
Jeremy has more to say about Elder Oaks' talk:
THE FOLLOWING IS ELDER OAKS’ 1985 DEFENSE OF THE FAKE SALAMANDER LETTER (WHICH OAKS EVIDENTLY THOUGHT WAS REAL AND LEGITIMATE AT THE TIME):“Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word salamander in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word salamander in the modern sense of a ‘tailed amphibian.
One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in a current edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary, is ‘a spirit supposed to live in fire’ (2d College ed. 1982, s.v. ‘salamander’). Modern and ancient literature contain many examples of this usage.
A spirit that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was ‘truly like lightning’ and whose overall appearance ‘was glorious beyond description’ (Joseph Smith-History 1:32). As Joseph Smith wrote later, ‘The first sight [of this personage] was as though the house was filled with consuming fire’ (History of the Church, 4:536). Since the letter purports only to be Martin Harris’s interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph’s experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.
In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship with or membership in the Church? The media should make more complete disclosures, but Latter-day Saint readers should also be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read.”So, what just happened? Elder Oaks defended and rationalized a completely fake and made up document that Mark Hofmann created while telling “Latter-day Saint readers” to be “more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read.”
Is Jeremy suggesting that we should not be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what we read? If I were to follow Jeremy's advice, then I would just dismiss the CES Letter as "anti-Mormon lies" and be done with it. I think either I'm misunderstanding Jeremy, or Jeremy is misunderstanding Elder Oaks. Probably both.
Elder Oaks didn't defend the Salamander letter, he defended Joseph Smith's narrative that the angel Moroni appeared to him. He said that just because this narrative that Martin Harris supposedly wrote described it differently doesn't necessarily make both men liars. He used skeptical language to describe the letter, "a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps" and "the letter purports only to be Martin Harris's interpretation".
The entire purpose of the talk is to teach critical thinking skills, specifically that we should consider "(1) scientific uncertainties, (2) lack of context, (3), truths and half-truths, (4) bias, (5) balance, and (6) evaluation." The part that Jeremy quoted was in this evaluation section, where Elder Oaks uses it as an example of how different word meanings is a target of evaluation.
Like with President Hinckley's talk, Elder Oaks wasn't defending the letter, he was using what others had said about the letter to support the subject of his talk, to think more critically regarding the things we read.
(Not that it matters, but the link also contains audio of what Elder Oaks said. The transcript provided doesn't quite match, while the one provided by the Church History Catalog is better.)
- There was significant dishonesty by President Hinckley on his relationship with Hofmann, his meetings, and which documents that the Church had and didn’t have.
The link leads to a Wikipedia footnote on a sentence that Hofmann's forgeries deceived "not only members of the First Presidency — notably Gordon B. Hinckley, then the de facto president of the church due to the poor health of more senior leaders — but also document experts and distinguished historians." The footnote is a long note with extra material, rather than a reference. It also doesn't have anything to do with the sentence, unless we also note that dealing with Hofmann was a very tiny part of the things President Hinkley was doing, and/or that Hofmann was also able to fool police investigators. Anyway, the footnote has since been broken up into two notes, so I fixed the link to point at the note on the page's history. What is now the first note isn't relevant to Jeremy's accusation, and the claim about President Hinckly's relationship is in what is now the first part of a second note:
"Early in the investigation[,] friends of Mark Hofmann and Steven Christensen repeatedly told the detectives that they had been present when Hofmann and Christensen received telephone calls from Gordon Hinckley. Toll records showed Hofmann placed several calls to Hinckley's office from his car telephone during the week before the bombings. … But Hinckley spoke of Hofmann as if he barely recognized his name. Repeatedly when he was asked about the document [dealer], Hinckley answered: "I can't remember." Lindsey, 267.
Brackets added by me from what Wikipedia missed in their quote. The Wikipedia article is referencing A Gathering of Saints: A True Story of Money, Murder, and Deceit by Robert Lindsey, published in 1988. This is the start of chapter 44, and the context is an example to support a claim that the Church was not cooperating with police investigators. However, take a look at how the paragraph continues:
He said he couldn't remember what Hofmann had told him about the McLellin Collection, but said he was certain Hofmann had never mentioned that it contained any material that would be embarrassing to the church. And while it was true that he had purchased documents from Hofmann over the years, Hofmann could not have construed from anything he ever said that he was acting as an agent—formally or informally—to acquire anything for the church.
Apparently he was able to talk about Hofmann and the McLellin collection, while supposedly not remembering him? The context comes from a police interview with Ken Farnsworth and Mike George on 9 December 1985. Reading more about the interview, it turns out the narrative the book describes is mistaken since it was written from the police's point of view. The police had come to the interview with their own set of assumptions. They believed Hofmann was the killer and were trying to establish motive, but the answers President Hinckley was giving them didn't match what they had thought, so they believed he was lying.
In their interview, President Hinckley reviewed the same things he had shared in the October press conference, adding in more details that weren't shared at that time. He talked about all the times he had met with Hofmann, supplementing his memory with Church records of his visits. However, Hofmann had led police investigators to believe that he and President Hinckley were close, and that they had met far more frequently than they actually did. Since Hofmann was corroborated by his friends, the police believed him, not realizing that his friends only believed it because that is what Hofmann had been telling them.
The police were also under the impression that he was working as an agent for the Church, that collecting documents was like his calling or something, and that President Hinckley had met with Christensen to replace Hofmann in that position. However, there was no such position, and President Hinckley had only met Christensen once when he received the salamander letter from him.
They also didn't believe that Hinckley had not heard of the McLellin collection before Hofmann, as they were under a mistaken impression that the collection was like some common knowledge thing. Descriptions written by Hinckley on what Hofmann claimed was in the McLellin collection also support that Hofmann didn't tell him that it supposedly contained very controversial information.
A similar thing happened in March 1986 when prosecutors Bob Stott and David Biggs met with President Hinckley and interviewed him prior to a preliminary hearing, where he would be expected to provide information on his meeting with Hofmann regarding the Stowell letter. They also were mistaken in believing he had a close relationship with Hofmann, and pressed him for details. President Hinckley could not remember the details of that meeting beyond what he had told investigators earlier, and they were surprised to learn that he didn't keep a detailed, daily journal, which is actually pretty normal despite Latter-day Saint emphasis on journal keeping in our teachings.
They also said that Hofmann had claimed that he had access to the First Presidency's vault, but only the secretary, Francis Gibbons had access, and he had only met Hofmann once for the Joseph Smith III blessing.
Jeremy's link didn't mention his other claim, about being "dishonest about which documents that the Church had and didn't have." Hopefully I covered that well enough in my summary above to cover whatever part he might be talking about.
- Just hours following the bombings on the morning of October 15, 1985, murderer Mark Hofmann met with Elder Dallin H. Oaks in the Church Office Building:
“He’s just killed two people. And what does he do? He goes down to the church office building and meets with Dallin Oaks. I can’t even imagine the rush, given Hofmann’s frame of reference, that this would have given him. To be there standing in front of one of God’s appointed apostles, after murdering two people, and this person doesn’t hear any words from God, doesn’t intuit a thing. For Hofmann that must have been an absolute rush. He had pulled off the ultimate spoof against God.”
– The Poet and the Murderer: A True Story of Literary Crime and the Art of Forgery, p.232
Elder Oaks had a serial murderer right in front of him in his office just hours after Hofmann killed two people (Oaks later admits this meeting). What does this say about the discernment of the Brethren when they can’t discern a murderer and con man, hell-bent on destroying Mormonism, right under their noses?
Elder Oaks didn't have to "admit" meeting with Hofmann. Using the word "admit" implies reluctance, but there was no reluctance about it—when Hofmann was involved in a car bombing the next day, that made it appear that the bombings were related to his document dealings after all, so he called the police and immediately told them about their meeting.
I'm not sure that it really says anything about the spirit of discernment. It seems that Jeremy thinks Elder Oaks should have known that Hofmann was a murderer instead of whatever Elder Oaks did instead in their meeting. Maybe we should answer what did Elder Oaks did? Here is the description from Victims by Richard Turley.
Oaks assumed Christensen's death had prompted Hofmann to seek advice on closing the McLellin transaction, and so he agreed to see him. Pinnock's secretary called the security desk and told the officer that Oaks would see Hofmann. A week later, Oaks would dictate a memorandum recording the details of the brief meeting.When Hofmann arrived at Oaks's office at about 2:50 P.M., the two men met for the first time. Oaks told Hofmann that that Pinnock had kept him informed about the McLellin collection. The two expressed shock at the bombings that had killed Steve Christensen and Kathy Sheets earlier that day. Oaks asked Hofmann about the purpose of his visit. Hofmann said he thought bombing investigators might want to question him. He worried about what to tell them. Oaks told him to to tell the truth. Oaks was unaware of any connection between Sheets and Hofmann or church documents. To him, the bombings seemed connected to CFS."But why would the police want to question you?" he asked Hofmann, describing the apparent tie between the bombings and Sheets's and Christensen's business dealings. "Their business activities don't have anything to do with you, do they?"Hofmann said no.Oaks asked Hofmann if he thought the bombings related to his association with Christensen.Again Hofmann answered no."Do you know anyone in your documents business who would enforce his contracts with bombs?" Oaks asked.When Hofmann once again replied no, Oaks said, "Well, then, what do you have to worry about? The police probably won't question you, and if they do, just tell them the truth."Even about the McLellin collection deal? Hofmann wanted to know.Oaks said that as far has he knew, Hofmann's activities with the McLellin collection, though confidential, were just part of an ordinary commercial transaction and had nothing to do with the bombing investigation. Police probably would not ask him about the deal. If they did, he should answer truthfully and completely.Oaks asked Hofmann if he still intended to proceed with the closing on the collection. Hoffman said he planned to go to New York the next day but would be willing to stay in Salt Lake to close the deal. Oaks told him he ought to get in touch with David E. West, Sorensen's attorney, who would doubtless wonder how Christensen's death would affect the transaction. West and his client would have to decide if they wanted to go ahead with the deal and who would replace Christensen as authenticator. Thus, Oaks reminded Hofmann, they might need some extra time to arrange for the closing. Hofmann said he would get in touch with West. Oaks thanked Hofmann for his work in discovering church documents and for his willingness to sell the McLellin collection to someone "friendly" to the church.
The next day, after he learned of the explosion that injured Mark Hofmann, Elder Oaks realized that the motive shifted from someone related to Christensen's former employer to someone related with Church documents, and so he sensed that the McLellin deal was involved with the bombings, so he had information that would greatly help the police in their investigation. He called President Hinckley, who agreed that he tell the police what he knew. He immediately called and arranged a meeting with investigators. When they arrived, he explained everything he knew about the McLellin deal, including his brief visit with Hofmann the previous day, and recommended that they also question Elder Pinnock.
The purpose of Hofmann's visit appears to be that he was worried that police would question him about the McLellin collection. If Hofmann was there for an "absolute rush" then it doesn't seem that he got what he was looking for. Instead of asking him to conceal the McLellin collection, as he apparently anticipated, Elder Oaks encouraged him to tell the truth to the police. Which is precisely what I would expect the Spirit of discernment to say.
In the same talk that Jeremy linked, Elder Oaks answers Jeremy's question.
Some have asked, how was Mark Hofmann able to deceive Church leaders?As everyone now knows, Hofmann succeeded in deceiving many: experienced Church historians, sophisticated collectors, businessmen-investors, national experts who administered a lie detector test to Hofmann, and professional document examiners, including the expert credited with breaking the Hitler diary forgery. But why, some still ask, were his deceits not detected by the several Church leaders with whom he met?In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.The Church is not unique in preferring to deal with people on the basis of trust. This principle of trust rather than suspicion even applies to professional archives. During my recent visit to the Huntington Library in Pasadena, California, I was interested to learn that they have no formal procedures to authenticate the many documents they acquire each year. They say they consider it best to function in an atmosphere of trust and to assume the risk of the loss that may be imposed by the occasional deceiver.
I feel like it is an extension of the problem of evil. I have my own answer to that, but one part of it is what Alma described in Alma 14:11 that the Lord allows evil so that his judgments against the wicked may be just.
- Ultimately, the Church was forced to admit it had, in the First Presidency Vault, documents (McLellin Collection) that the Church previously denied it had. The McLellin documents were critical for the investigation of the Hofmann murders.
Actually, the Church wasn't forced to admit anything, and if they wanted to, they could have continued to keep them hidden. The McLellin documents clearly weren't critical for the investigation, since the investigators did not have them, but yes, they would have helped. Although it did not contain the same documents as what Hofmann purported to have in the McLellin Collection he was trying to sell—and therefore was not "the McLellin collection" Hofmann supposedly was selling—it did contain his journal, proving that Hofmann was a liar for at least that item. Once Church leaders learned that they had been found, the case was nearly to trial, so they decided they would tell them then, but since Hofmann took the plea bargain, it never went to trial.
So the Church not only wasn't forced to admit it had McLellin journals, the Church did not reveal it until 1992, when Richard Turley published Victims, long after the investigations had been completed. (Which is what the Utah Lighthouse Ministry's article Jeremy linked is responding to.) The Church made them available for research at that time, and they are available online today.
• While these “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” were being duped and conned by Mark Hofmann’s forgeries over a four-year period (1981-1985), the Tanners – considered some of the biggest critics of the Church – actually came out and said that the Salamander Letter was a fake. Even when the Salamander Letter proved very useful in discrediting the Church, the Tanners had better discernment than the Brethren did. While the Tanners publicly rejected the Salamander Letter, the Church continued buying fakes from Hofmann and Elder Oaks continued telling Latter-day Saints to be more sophisticated.
Information about the Salamander letter was leaked after Christensen had bought it, and so in their March 1984 newsletter, Sandra and Jerald Tanner broke the news. They said that they were "able to piece together the story and to learn of the remarkable contents of this letter."
At the outset we should state that we have some reservations concerning the authenticity of the letter, and at the present time we are not prepared to say that it was actually penned by Martin Harris. The serious implications of this whole matter, however, cry out for discussion. If the letter is authentic, it is one of the greatest evidences against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. If, on the other hand, it is a forgery, it needs to be exposed as such so that millions of people will not be mislead. We will give the reasons for our skepticism as we proceed with this article.
Like Brent Ashworth, they found many similarities to E. D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed. They quoted Hofmann saying that forgeries "hasn't been a real problem with Mormon documents" but with the publicity of the value of documents being sold, "there may be some temptation to forge." They concluded the article by saying, "While we would really like to believe that the letter attributed to Harris is authentic, we do not feel that we can endorse it until further evidence comes forth."
In their next issue in September, they said they had received the full transcript, and they believed it was out of character of Martin Harris. They were also unable to learn how Hofmann received it. "While we have expressed some doubts about the authenticity of the letter, they are based strictly on the text itself. The results of tests on the document as well as the establishment of a pedigree could alter our conclusions."
In the next issue in January 1985, they had heard preliminary reports that document specialists would declare that there was no evidence of forgery (which they soon did so) but they still had reservations.
Christensen bought the letter (not the Church) and donated it to the Church, which published it. As part of the article, President Hinckley said, "No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication of forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies."
In the Tanners' June 1985 issue, they reported that Brent Metcalfe claimed that according to a source, the Church had hidden an Oliver Cowdery history that supported the Salamander letter. (What they did not know until later that Metcalfe's source was Hofmann.) They disagreed with President Hinckley, saying it was not likely the work of a forger at the in the days of the early Church. They still had doubts, but they criticized the Church for suppressing documents that would help verify these controversial claims. They also criticized document dealers for not naming their sources.
The tests which have been made on the Salamander letter, indicate that no ordinary person could have forged it. It would have to be the work of a very skilled forger. Only a person familiar with old documents, chemistry and the process of document authentication could prepare a letter that would have a chance of passing through these tests.
So no, the Tanners also doubted less as time went on and tests showed no evidence of forgery. Both the Church and the Tanners had reservations on its authenticity. The Church didn't buy the Salamander letter, it was donated to the Church. The Church only bought three items after that point:
1 - A letter from Peter and David Whitmer to Bryam Green and Bithel Todd, dated 12 August 1828, significant because of Peter Whitmer's signature, which has no other examples. Hofmann sold it to Brent Ashworth in 1982, then bought it back in 1985 and sold it to the Church before his check to Ashworth could bounce. He admitted to forging the letter.
2 - A letter from Susan [Hugh Conrad Wilkinson] to [Mary] Woolley, dated 5 August 1844. The letter expresses sorrow for Joseph Smith's death. The Church got it from Hofmann, who got it from Ashworth, who got it from Rust. Al Rust reportedly got it as part of a collection from Woolley family members. George Throckmortion examined it in 1987 and though there was no indication of forgery, he could not determine the authenticity of the letter.
3 - A copy of The Book of Common Prayer published in New York in 1830. Not a Latter-day Saint work, but belonged to Nathan Harris, a relative of Martin. Hofmann bought it from Curt A. Bench at the rare books department of Deseret Book. He then forged Martin's handwriting in the book. Glenn Rowe in the Church's Historical Department traded Hoffman three hundred canceled, five-cent Bishop's General Store House Notes.
And yes, Elder Oaks told people to be more sophisticated—meaning skeptical—of what they read. He did not believe that Moroni was a salamander. Neither did the Tanners, but obviously for different reasons, who also taught that people should be skeptical of the letter.
I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means).
The quote, "a prophet is not always a Prophet, only when he is acting as such" is from Joseph Smith but his journal doesn't provide the context. But you can see what it means from how other Church leaders use it. The first part of the quote, "A Prophet is not always a Prophet" means that prophets are still humans and are allowed to have opinions. For example, the Doctrine and Covenants Institute manual has this to say:
Is every word of a prophet inspired? The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (History of the Church, 5:265).Elder John A. Widtsoe commented on the Prophet Joseph’s words: “That statement makes a clear distinction between official and unofficial actions and utterances of officers of the Church. In this recorded statement the Prophet Joseph Smith recognizes his special right and duty, as the President and Prophet of the Church, under the inspiration of the Lord, to speak authoritatively and officially for the enlightenment and guidance of the Church. But he claims also the right, as other men, to labor and rest, to work and play, to visit and discuss, to present his opinions and hear the opinions of others, to counsel and bless as a member of the Church.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:182.)
The second part of the quote, "only when he is acting as such" means when acting in an official capacity. Elder D. Todd Christofferson used Joseph's quote this way in an April 2012 General Conference talk:
It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”
Elder Andersen expressed a similar sentiment in his October 2012 talk. Interestingly, he also references Mark Hofmann, that some lost their faith because over the Salamander letter, and hoped that they returned after it was shown to be a forgery. Anyway, after that, he talks about how doctrine is established in the Church.
A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.”Joseph Smith said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations.”
In October 2019, President Oaks quoted from both of these statements, and used the Family Proclamation as an example, as it was signed by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators. He goes on and says even less formal statements are doctrine as other prophets and apostles repeat what was taught earlier.
I’m told that, like all prophets, Brigham Young was a man of his time. For example,
What follows is not an example of Brigham Young being a "man of his time," as he was teaching something contrary to what others believed. But yes, you can't expect a prophet to have some culture foreign to them, they exist in a time and place and so are susceptible to cultural influence like the rest of us. And like I explained before, the reason we trust them despite this handicap is because they are like a watchmen on a tower.
I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that “God revealed to [him]” that “Adam is our father and God” and the “only God with whom we have to do.” Never mind that Brigham taught this over the pulpit in not one but two conferences and never mind that he introduced this theology into the endowment ceremony in the Temples.
Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet:“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”
I was curious about the phrase "acting as a man" since that sounds strange to me. However, I haven't found it on any website defending the Church, only from those against it. It appears to originate with the Joseph Smith quote as he talks about "acting as a prophet" but I would suggest that being a prophet and being an man are not mutually exclusive. So far, all prophets have been men, and they don't stop being men when acting as a prophet.
I don't want to discount the experiences of others, so perhaps Jeremy was told that prophet was "acting as a man" and so instead I'll suggest answering the question by pointing out that Latter-day Saints don't teach prophetic infallibility.
The quoted sermon is not actually about the Adam-God theory, but just his own role as a prophet in general. It's something I already talked about, but when you actually look at Brigham Young's sermons on the Adam-God theory, he uses language to indicate that it is his opinion.
One thing to consider is that we don't even believe in the infallibility of scripture. Moroni wrote of the Book of Mormon, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
Why would I want my kids chanting “Follow the Prophet” with such a ridiculous and inconsistent 187-year track record?
Jeremy cited five things he disagrees with. Two things that were never accepted as doctrine, one that began and ended with revelation, one with unclear origins and ended with revelation, and one about a guy that tried to defraud and defame the Church and in the end was his own undoing.
I would say that the Church has a remarkable and consistent 187-year track record. Well, 192 years now, since I'm writing in 2022. Why would I want to listen to a guy who chants "yesterday's prophets are today's heretics" when following the prophet is the better course of action? Take a look at Latter-day Hope a paper that shows evidence for the Church, including positive aspects. For example:
- Joseph Smith ran for president, including a plan to abolish slavery
- Brigham Young enacted laws in Utah that would effectively end slavery in Utah
- Women in Utah had the right to "no fault" divorce
- The Church assisted over 26,000 immigrants to the United States with the perpetual emigration fund
- Women in Utah were the first to vote
- The Church runs a comprehensive and effective welfare system
- Latter-day Saints are significantly more likely to get some advanced education
- In 2019, it was reported that the Church donated nearly $1 billion to both welfare and humanitarian aid that year
- Even not counting tithing and church callings, active Latter-day Saints donate and volunteer far more than even the most religious of other faiths.
- Low divorce rate
- Lower suicide rates
- Longer life
What credibility do the Brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his “theories” that will likely be disavowed by future “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”? If his moral blueprint is not much better than that of their Sunday School teachers? If, historically speaking, the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine?
Historically speaking, the doctrine he teaches today will likely be taught for generations. You should be aware that Brigham Young and other Church leaders taught far more lessons than what Jeremy is sharing here. And even his lessons on plural marriage were correct for his time. Living prophets are more important to us than dead prophets.
If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay, and God’s name is not “Adam”?
Brigham Young was incredibly progressive for his time on race and gender issues. The Church never practiced blood atonement, and prophets are allowed to have opinions. Is it reasonable to assume that a prophet, seer, and revelator should behave in a way that an atheist demands over a hundred years later? I don't think so. We see in the Bible that prophets typically don't act according to our desires.
No comments:
Post a Comment