FAIR - User contributions [en]

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:57:58Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; 2 Nephi 2:27–28; Jacob 4:11; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69; 107:19).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; 2 Nephi 2:9–10; Mosiah 14:12; 15:8; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4); from "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19). Christ ''does'', however, continue His intercessory work before the Father to this day (Hebrews 2:17).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:54:09Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; 2 Nephi 2:27–28; Jacob 4:11; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69; 107:19).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; 2 Nephi 2:9–10; Mosiah 14:12; 15:8; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19). Christ ''does'', however, continue His intercessory work before the Father to this day (Hebrews 2:17).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:46:19Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Scriptural Requirements */

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19). Christ ''does'', however, continue His intercessory work before the Father to this day (Hebrews 2:17).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:42:09Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that lived or would live either ''before'' or ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:41:38Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is both ''retroactive'' and ''proactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came both ''before'' and ''after'' the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:39:36Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Mosiah 2:38; Alma 34:16; Alma 42:24). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (2 Nephi 9:26; Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T20:28:00Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; 15:19 Alma 12:25, 30; 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46; John 18:1; Mosiah 3:7) and on the cross (1 Nephi 11:33; 3 Nephi 27:14; Ether 4:1; Doctrine and Covenants 138:35; Moses 7:55)—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith (Ephesians 2:8–9).
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Resurrection brings about the "condition of repentance" or the ability to repent (Helaman 14:17–18).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
*(Ephesians 2:8–9)
*(Helaman 14:17–18)
*(Mosiah 15:19)
*(Mosiah 18:13)

{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T19:44:22Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time (Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46), was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.

====Appendix A: Scriptures Important to a Theory of Atonement====
*(Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5)
*(Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12)
*(Luke 24:46)
*(Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
*(John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
*(Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30)
*(Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69)
*(Mat
*(1 Corinthians 6:20).
*(Jacob 4:11)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5)
*(Alma 34:11).
*(1 Peter 2:21)
*(Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added)
*(Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
*(2 Nephi 9:10,19)
*(Galatians 1:4)
*(Hebrews 2:14)
*(Hebrews 2:15)
*(John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
*(3 Nephi 9:19).
*(Hebrews 9:9–14)
*(Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
*(2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2)
*(Alma 34:16)
*(Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15)
*(Alma 42:15)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19)
*(2 Nephi 25:16)
*(Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
*(2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41)
*(Alma 42:23)
*(2 Nephi 2:26)
*(1 Corinthians 15:45–47)
*(2 Nephi 9:7).
*(Jacob 4:11).
*(Alma 21:9).
*(2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11)
*(2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16)
*(Moses 6:54)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 42:18
*(Alma 39:5)
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:26; 39:3; Moses 5:57; 6:57; 6:62; 7:46)
*(John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19)
*(Alma 22:14)
*(Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
*(2 Nephi 10:25).
*Alma 13:3–5
*(Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31)
*(Helaman 3:35)
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T19:23:02Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13; Doctrine and Covenants 20:25–26).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18). Another is denying the Holy Ghost after you have felt it, and knowing that you are denying it (Alma 39:5).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-04T04:28:18Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."
# Justification and sanctification come "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Doctrine and Covenants 20:30–31). Sanctification comes about when we choose to yield our hearts to God (Helaman 3:35).

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

The Reality of Joseph Smith Practicing Plural Marriage

2026-04-02T15:13:41Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Polygamy Sandbox|Plural Marriage]] | [[Joseph Smith's Introduction and Practice of Plural Marriage|Joseph Smith's Introduction]] | Reality
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Some question whether Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that Joseph Smith indeed practiced plural marriage. This page answers common questions and criticisms surrounding the reality of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Smith actually teach and practice polygamy?===
| state = closed
| content =
Some splinter groups of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. Instead, these groups argue, polygamy was the later invention of a libidinous and greedy Brigham Young. Since, on these groups’ view, plural marriage was a man-made invention instead of a commandment from the divine, this is evidence that the modern Church is in apostasy and that we must seek the true authority elsewhere. A related charge is that the Church hasn’t taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy openly and frequently.

There is contemporaneous, reliable documentation to establish that Joseph Smith received the revelation on plural marriage and there is ample documentation that he and many of his colleagues practiced plural marriage.

{{InterpreterBar
|link=https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-monogamist-or-polygamist/
|title=Joseph Smith: Monogamist or Polygamist?
|author= Brian C. Hales
|publication=Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship
|vol=25
|num=
|date=2017
|summary= In the past decades much of the debate regarding Joseph Smith and plural marriage has focused on his motivation — whether libido or divine inspiration drove the process. Throughout these debates, a small group of observers and participants have maintained that Joseph did not practice polygamy at any time or that his polygamous sealings were nonsexual spiritual marriages. Rather than simply provide supportive evidence for Joseph Smith’s active involvement with plural marriage, this article examines the primary arguments advanced by monogamist proponents to show that important weaknesses exist in each line of reasoning.
}}

The charts below, prepared by Brian Hales, outline all the evidence available for a polygamist Joseph in an easy-to-read way.

[[File:B7BB6399-9961-40B2-8A3F-8627C5081D4C.jpeg]]{{blankline}}

[[File:BEB33A12-AE96-475A-8B5B-029773E6719D.jpeg]]{{blankline}}

Video by The Interpreter Foundation.
<embedvideo service="youtube">PMBWxnHVIuU</embedvideo>{{blankline}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Did Joseph Smith ever publicly attempt to teach the doctrine of plural marriage?===
| state = closed
| content =
====Joseph initiated the practice of polygamy and hid it from the general Church membership during his lifetime====
It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. One critic of the Church claims, "Joseph Smith publicly lied about his practice of polygamy, and lied to his own wife (Emma) about the practice." <ref>{{CriticalWork:Dehlin:Questions and Answers:25 June 2014}}</ref>

====Joseph made at least one attempt to teach the doctrine, but it was rejected====
Joseph did, however, make an attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. When Joseph tried to teach the doctrine, it was rejected by many Saints, including [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy | Emma]], his wife. Joseph then began to teach the doctrine privately to those who would obey. A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine:

<blockquote> When the prophet "went to his dinner," [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, "as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people." So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said "Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said."<ref>Richard S. Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy: A History'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986),48; citing Robinson, Journal, 23–24.</ref></blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Joseph keep the doctrine of plural marriage private?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The Saints would have suffered negative consequences====
Keeping the doctrine private was also necessary because the enemies of the Church would have used it as another justification for their assault on the Saints. Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been:

<blockquote>
In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|title=The Marriage Relations|date=6 October 1854|vol=2|disc=18|start=75|end=75}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Why did Joseph Smith say "I had not been married scarcely five minutes...before it was reported that I had seven wives"?===
| state = closed
| content =
====William and Wilson Law sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery and perjury====
This statement refers to Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844 in his "Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo." Significantly, this address was given the day after William and Wilson Law sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.)

Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating the realities of the dangers involved. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open." Since Joseph was sealed to his plural wives for either eternity, or for time and eternity, he did not view these relationships as constituting adultery or fornication. Therefore, under Illinois law, as long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him: he was not committing adultery or fornication.

====Joseph was refuting the charge of ''adultery'', not the fact that he had "seven wives"====
''History of The Church'' 6:410-411:
<blockquote>
I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.<ref>Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to [[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett's]] pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.</ref>....

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.

Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document,<ref>That is, the Relief Society document condemning adultery, which Foster had engaged in under the tutelage of [[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]].</ref> and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,<ref>Again, Joseph is denying the spiritual wifeism of Bennett, which he calls "wickedness" and was quick to oppose via Church discipline.</ref> they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.

[Joseph H.] Jackson<ref>Jackson was another witness against Joseph Smith, and would go on to write an anti-Mormon tract: {{CriticalWork:Jackson:Narrative}}</ref> has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.

When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross—I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.—Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.<ref>{{HoC|vol=6|pages=410-412}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Note the rejection of the term "spiritual wifeism." Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to [[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett's]] pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.

====Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point====

In light of the circumstances under which they were spoken, Joseph's words were carefully chosen. Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally ''could'' prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before. Joseph was ''legally'' married to only one wife, and he did not violate the laws against bigamy and adultery because he did not live in either of these "openly."

{{Related articles
|title=
|link1=The Legality of Plural Marriage in Ohio and Illinois#Was Joseph Smith charged with adultery under Illinois Law?
|subject1=Illinois Law on Bigamy and Adultery
|summary1=See here for discussion of the legality of Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage under Illinois Law.
}}

Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes:

<blockquote>A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|413}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

FAIR Resources on the First Vision

2026-04-02T15:12:31Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | FAIR Resources
{{Header}}
Below are resources from FAIR for interested readers to learn more about Joseph Smith's remarkable First Vision.
----
* Matthew Brown, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2006/revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith’s Foundational Stories],” (FAIR Conference 2006).
* Steven Harper, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2011/four-accounts-and-three-critiques-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision Four Accounts and Three Critiques of Joseph Smith’s First Vision],” (FAIR Conference 2011).
* Ronald O. Barney, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2013/joseph-smiths-visions-his-style-and-his-record Joseph Smith’s Visions: His Style and his Record],” (FAIR Conference 2013).
* Don Bradley, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2013/the-original-context-of-the-first-vision-narrative-1820s-or-1830s The Original Context of the First Vision: 1820s or 1830s],” (FAIR Conference 2013).
* Rene Krywult, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2019-old/fear-leads-to-the-dark-side Fear Leads to the Dark Side – Navigating the Shallows of (mis)Information],” (FAIR Conference 2019).
* Don Bradley, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2019-old/first-vision-as-endowment-and-epitome-of-the-gospel Joseph Smith’s First Vision as Endowment and the Epitome of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (or Why I Came Back to the Church)],” (FAIR Conference 2019).
* Andrew Knaupp and Paul Velutto, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2020-fairmormon-conference/pillar-of-light Pillar of Light: A Graphic Novel Adaptation of Joseph Smith’s First Vision],” (FAIR Conference 2020).
* Don Bradley, “[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2023-old/knowing-brother-joseph-how-the-historical-record-demonstrates-the-prophets-religious-sincerity Knowing Brother Joseph: How the Historical Record Demonstrates the Prophet’s Religious Sincerity],” (FAIR Conference 2023).

Gordon B. Hinckley's Claims in ''Truth Restored''

2026-04-02T15:11:49Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | [[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|The Church's Treatment of the Accounts]] | Gordon B. Hinckley
<h1>Gordon B. Hinckley's Claims in ''Truth Restored''</h1>
{{Summary1}} It is claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, and that Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information regarding an 1820 revival in a book called ''Truth Restored''. The material found in ''Truth Restored'' was written in 1947 under the title ''What of the Mormons?'' It was written as an introduction to the Church for non-members when Gordon B. Hinckley was a 37-year-old employee of the Church.

Several chapters were later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''. The relevant material reads as follows:

<blockquote>
This condition among the people of the frontier areas of America became a matter of serious concern to religious leaders. A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced." The week following it was able to report "that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good."<ref>''Truth Restored'' (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), 1–2.</ref>
</blockquote>

The source for this claim is Preston Nibley, ''Joseph Smith the Prophet'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 21-22. Nibley, in turn is quoting from Willard Bean, ''A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism'' (1938).<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}</ref> Bean writes:

<blockquote>
In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the ''Religious Advocate'' of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"<ref>Cited in Dale Broadhurst, "Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History: Misc. New York Newspapers," note 2. {{link|url=http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSg.htm}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.
----
====This is almost certainly a miscitation====
As the Reverend Wesley Walters pointed out in his article which attempted to dispute the existence of a revival, this is almost certainly a miscitation, since the quoted newspaper did not begin publication until 1825.<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}</ref>

Thus, Gordon Hinckley (1947) quoted a line from Nibley (1946), who was quoting from Bean (1938) that was in error. It is important to remember, however, that Hinckley's book was not intended to be a scholarly treatise, but was an introduction to the basics of Church history. The material from 1947 was later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''.

====Despite the miscitation, there actually is, however, evidence of religious excitement in Palmyra in 1820====
Despite the claims of Walters and other critics, modern research has demonstrated that there ''were'' [[Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision#No Revival Activity in 1820|religious meeting in the Palmyra area in 1820]]. The cited newspaper article did not apply to the 1820 events, but other reports are known today which would make the same point.

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.

Anti-Mormon authors should be well aware of this phenomenon—anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses or the primary sources. In this respect, the Church has done better than the critics—the current brief introduction to Church history, ''Our Heritage'', quotes no newspapers about the 1820 revival.<ref>See {{OurHeritage|pages=1–4|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=75e2c106dac20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0}}</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820/Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information/CriticalSources}}

{{endnotes sources}}

Gordon B. Hinckley's Claims in ''Truth Restored''

2026-04-02T15:10:56Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | [[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|The Church's Treatment of the Accounts]] | Gordon B. Hinckley
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} It is claimed that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, and that Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information regarding an 1820 revival in a book called ''Truth Restored''. The material found in ''Truth Restored'' was written in 1947 under the title ''What of the Mormons?'' It was written as an introduction to the Church for non-members when Gordon B. Hinckley was a 37-year-old employee of the Church.

Several chapters were later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''. The relevant material reads as follows:

<blockquote>
This condition among the people of the frontier areas of America became a matter of serious concern to religious leaders. A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced." The week following it was able to report "that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good."<ref>''Truth Restored'' (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), 1–2.</ref>
</blockquote>

The source for this claim is Preston Nibley, ''Joseph Smith the Prophet'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1946), pp. 21-22. Nibley, in turn is quoting from Willard Bean, ''A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism'' (1938).<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}</ref> Bean writes:

<blockquote>
In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the ''Religious Advocate'' of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"<ref>Cited in Dale Broadhurst, "Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History: Misc. New York Newspapers," note 2. {{link|url=http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSg.htm}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.
----
====This is almost certainly a miscitation====
As the Reverend Wesley Walters pointed out in his article which attempted to dispute the existence of a revival, this is almost certainly a miscitation, since the quoted newspaper did not begin publication until 1825.<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=Rev. Wesley P. Walters|start=67, 67 n. 48|vol=4|num=1|date=Spring 1969|article=New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra Revival}}</ref>

Thus, Gordon Hinckley (1947) quoted a line from Nibley (1946), who was quoting from Bean (1938) that was in error. It is important to remember, however, that Hinckley's book was not intended to be a scholarly treatise, but was an introduction to the basics of Church history. The material from 1947 was later reprinted as ''Truth Restored''.

====Despite the miscitation, there actually is, however, evidence of religious excitement in Palmyra in 1820====
Despite the claims of Walters and other critics, modern research has demonstrated that there ''were'' [[Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision#No Revival Activity in 1820|religious meeting in the Palmyra area in 1820]]. The cited newspaper article did not apply to the 1820 events, but other reports are known today which would make the same point.

The evidence does not suggest that this was an attempt to deceive, but simply an error that was perpetuated between multiple authors.

Anti-Mormon authors should be well aware of this phenomenon—anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses or the primary sources. In this respect, the Church has done better than the critics—the current brief introduction to Church history, ''Our Heritage'', quotes no newspapers about the 1820 revival.<ref>See {{OurHeritage|pages=1–4|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=75e2c106dac20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0}}</ref>

{{Critical sources box:Joseph Smith's First Vision/Religious revivals in 1820/Gordon B. Hinckley cited false information/CriticalSources}}

{{endnotes sources}}

The First Vision Accounts in Church Publications

2026-04-02T15:10:24Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | [[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|The Church's Treatment of the Accounts]] | Church Publications
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' The claim is sometimes made by critics that the Church hides the various accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision that are not in its official canon. The following chronological database (compiled by FAIR volunteer Edward Jones) demonstrates conclusively that this is simply not the case. The various accounts of the First Vision have been widely acknowledged in Latter-day Saint-authored sources throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1910-1968)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''1967''' Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Deseret Book, 1967). Quotes first vision account from Wentworth letter (“a later account”), and from the canonized version interchangeably: 44-45. Quotes both versions again later in the book, again interchangeably (“another account”): 426-7.

'''1967''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Joseph Smith, Popularizer… or Restorer?”, Improvement Era (March 1967): 58-61; to be continued
Quotes from the version published in Times and Seasons April 1, 1842 [canonized in 1880]; also cites Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, ‘An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions’, from the 1841 U.S edition [first published in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1840; this is the first published version of the first vision]

'''1966''' Bruce R. McConkie, “And I Saw Another Angel,” General Conference October 1966, Improvement Era (December 1966): 1139-40. Quotes first vision and Moroni material from Wentworth letter, but without telling his audience he is doing so. [One wonders if the audience noticed the difference]

'''1966''' James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,’ Dialogue 1 (1966): 29-45. “In connection with the story of the vision, then, it is important to ask certain questions: When was it first told? When was it first published? Did it have the significant place in early Mormon thought that it has today? If not, when did it begin to take on its present significance in the writings and teachings of the Church?” (30) He mentions 1843 New York Spectator; 1844 Daniel Rupp book; Wentworth Letter; official history, begun 1838, published 1842; he mentions the Neibaur diary [1844]; 1832 which had just come to light the previous year; November 9, 1835; Orson Pratt (1840); Orson Hyde (1842 German); as well as some late reminiscences, e.g., William Smith (1883); Edward Stevenson (1893); Lorenzo Snow (1901). “In conclusion, this essay perhaps demonstrates the need for new approaches to Mormon history by sympathetic Mormon historians….. In short, the writing of Mormon history has only begun.”

'''1966''' Richard L. Anderson, “Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences”, BYU Studies 9 (1966): 373-404. There are four official accounts of the First Vision from the Prophet…. their dates of composition are 1831-32, 1835, and 1838. This 1838 account was published as the "History of Joseph Smith" in 1842. Anderson also refers to Orson Pratt 1840; Lucy Mack Smith 1853. He also discusses Oliver Cowdery 1834, and William Smith, as well as several non-LDS writers of the day.

'''1965''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., American Religions and the Rise of Mormonism (Salt Lake City, Utah Deseret Book Company1965) “ In the spring of 1820, a fourteen-year-old farm boy, Joseph Smith ….Therefore, adhering to the admonition of James, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God," Joseph sought an answer to his quest through vocal prayer. In the serenity of a beautiful grove, the boy knelt in prayer. "I was enrapt in a heavenly vision," Joseph stated, "and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness." One of the personages called him by name and said, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" Then, Christ informed Joseph that "all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom." He was promised that if he remained worthy "the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him.]" (312, citing Joseph Smith, "Latter Day Saints," Rupp's Original History, 404-5;Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, B. H. Roberts, ed. (2nd ed. rev., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1959-60) I, 3-6). [This must have been one of the earliest citations for Rupp, who had requested an account of the rise and progress of the church; it was published in 1844, and reprinted several times over the next several years. It was also published in Millennial Star 22 (1860): 102-105]

'''1965''' Paul R. Cheesman, An analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions (Master’s Thesis, BYU 1965). This thesis contained the first publication of the 1832 account.

'''1964''' William E. Berrett, The Restored Church. A Brief History of the Growth and Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Deseret Book Company 1964. 12th edition; 10th edition 1961). [Author writes that this was first published in shorter form in 1936 to be used in Seminaries; in 1944 he combined it with another book, Doctrines of the Restored Church. This is the 10th edition, now the 12th]
He begins by quoting from both the original History of Joseph Smith, which he says was begun in 1838, and published in Times and Seasons 1842, and the Wentworth letter (7). However, strangely enough, he gives the wrong dates for both these texts: The History in T&S 1843; the Letter in T&S March 15, 1842. In fact, the Letter was published March 1, 1842; the History began publication March 15, 1842.

'''1964''' Carter E. Grant, “Story of the Church. New York-Pennsylvania Period”, Improvement Era (November 1964): 932-7. First vision account from both the canonized version and the Wentworth letter, first published in March 1, 1842 (934-5).

'''1963''' “The Prophet Joseph Seen Through the Eyes of Youth”, Improvement Era (July 1963): 629. Quotes Edward Stevenson’s 1893 reminiscence of hearing the Prophet speak in 1834 in Pontiac, Michigan, testifying that the “Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them.”

'''1962''' Preston Nibley, “The Wentworth Letter,” Improvement Era (February 1962): 96-7, 114, 116, 118. First vision on page 114.

'''1961''' Hugh Nibley, “Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,” concluding installment, Improvement Era (July –November 1961). Discusses over 50 anti-LDS books and articles, and how they ‘censor’ the story by neglecting the first vision account, or by twisting it. Concludes with a Tanner publication which cited November 14, 1835, but neglects November 9, 1835, which Nibley quotes.
Begins with: “Joseph Smith's "official" account of his first vision and the visits of the angel Moroni was written in 1838 and first published in the Times and Seasons in 1842” (Era July 1961: 490). Nibley also makes reference to his grandfathers diary (Niebaur account)

'''1960''' Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness For Christ in America. The Book of Mormon. Evidence of Divine Power in the ’Coming Forth’ of the Book of Mormon (Brigham Young University 1960). First published 1942; reprinted 1943; Enlarged second edition 1947; enlarged third edition 1951. This is volume One.
Keep in mind: these two volumes deal with the Book of Mormon; first vision material is important, but tangential.
“[There] are two accounts written and compiled by Joseph Smith. The one is a long serial history of the Church containing a complete account of his own life…. And the organization and establishment of the Church in sequence down to May, 1838. It was first published in the Times and Seasons beginning March 15, 1842…. Another is a letter to Mr. John Wentworth, editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat published in the Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842” (page 17-18; the first account is quoted at length pages 45-51)
The relevant portion of the Wentworth letter is quoted page 52 note.
William Smith’s 1893 statement is quoted 43-44.
Volume 2 was published by Kirkham himself, in 1951; republished by Brigham Young University 1959.
Quotes the March 15, 1842 account extensively, 17-8
Refers to the first publication by Orson Pratt, in Scotland, 1840 (18-9)

'''1960''' Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and the Seer (Deseret Book, 1960). He quotes from William Smith interview in November 1893 (Deseret News January 20, 1894), and Oliver Cowdery letters (Messenger and Advocate Dec. 1834), both of which relate the Rev. George Lane preaching about which church to join. Andrus then quotes at length the official version; he then quotes from the Orson Pratt pamphlet of 1840, and in the footnote refers to several sermons by Pratt discussing the first vision (JD 12. 354-6; 14. 141; 15. 181; 17. 279; 22. 29). Andrus quotes several late reminiscences, including Edward Stevenson from 1893 (65-68)

'''1960''' John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations 2nd edition (Bookcraft 1960): 338
Orson Pratt, who lived for some time in the Prophet's home issued a pamphlet in 1839, in which the first vision is described, and it is there placed in 1820. (Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions, pp. 4, 5) Later in life, Orson Pratt said, "I have often heard him (the Prophet) relate it." (Journal of Discourses 7:220-221; 11:65-66; 12:302; 14:150-141; 15:180-182). Widtsoe also cites Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 version (from the 1902 edition); also from Edward Stevenson’s 1893 “reminiscence”. He also cites William Smith’s interview, published in 1894

'''1951''' John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951); Chapter 5, cites:
William Smith, Deseret News, January 20, 1894.
Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1902 edition, pp. 73-77; 1945 edition, pp. 69-74.
Edward Stevenson, Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, p. 4.
Isabella B. Horne, Young Women's Journal, vol. 32, p. 212; Relief Society Magazine, vol. 38, p. 158.
Erastus Holmes, DHC., vol. 2, p. 312; Journal History, Saturday, November 14, 1835.
Orson Pratt, Remarkable Visions, pp. 4-5; Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 220-221; vol. 11, pp. 65-66; vol. 12, p. 302; vol. 14, pp. 140-141; vol. 15, pp. 18-82; N. B. Lundwall, Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt, pp. 235-236.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 354.
Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 29;
John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p. 121;
Wilford Woodruff, Leaves from my Journal, first edition, p. 86;
George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334; vol. 13, p. 78; vol. 11, pp. 1-2.

'''1949''' Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, volume 4: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1949) With reference to the Wentworth letter Elder Smith wrote: “The Prophet was inspired in the preparation of this sketch of the rise of the Church. This is the first article, as far as we know, ever furnished by request of an outside publication portraying the rise and progress of the Church. In the year 1838, the Prophet commenced preparing his history which was written in the manuscript record of the Church. This Wentworth article was published in the "Times and Seasons" in Nauvoo, in the issue of March 1, 1842. It is a remarkable document for its breadth and the thoroughness of its contents in compact form…..The Prophet commences his story by stating where he was born, and his removal to Manchester where he engaged in farming which he was taught by his father. When he was about fourteen years of age he began to reflect upon the importance of "being prepared for a future state," and therefore sought among the ministers, for knowledge concerning the plan of salvation. He found them in hopeless confusion, "each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection." He reached the conclusion, which all men of reasoning ability should be able to reach, that they could not all be right for God could not be the author of confusion. The story is a familiar one to all members of the Church, how he sought for light and after reading the counsel of James, received the inspiration to put that prophet's words to the test. The vision of the Father and the Son which came in answer to his earnest pleading filled his soul with the deepest joy. He told it to an unbelieving world thinking that such great knowledge so essentially beneficial to all men, would be received gladly; instead it brought down persecution on his head.”

'''1948''' Elder Milton R. Hunter, Conference Report, April 1948, Morning Meeting, p.25-6
Let us consider a few examples of prophecies made by Joseph Smith and their fulfilment. When but a boy slightly past fourteen years of age, Joseph returned to the house from .the Sacred Grove on that memorable spring morning in 1820. He told the members of his family that he had seen the Eternal Father and his Only Begotten Son in a vision. During the course of that vision, he had been informed by the Savior that the true Church was not upon the earth (HC 1:2-6 ) and that if he lived a worthy life he was given. . . a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto [him] me. ("The Wentworth Letter," cited in ibid., 4:536.)

'''1948''' Milton R. Hunter PhD. Pearl of Great Price Commentary (Salt Lake City, Utah: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1948). Dr. Hunter reports that the Pearl of Great Price “gives the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own story of… the visitation of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son to the boy-prophet in answer to his humble prayer” (5) “In the spring of 1838, the Prophet Joseph Smith began to write his history…. The first of this narrative to appear came from the press on March 15, 1842…. It was published in the Times and Seasons, beginning in volume 3, number 10, page 726, and continued in succeeding issues until February 15, 1846. By the latter date, the events up to August, 1834, had been printed.” It was continued in Utah, with Deseret News November 15, 1851 (225) “In 1851 Franklin D. Richards took extracts from the Times and Seasons’ account… and published that material in the Pearl of Great Price” (226). Hunter reports that the Wentworth Letter was published in Times and Seasons March 1, 1842. “It traces in an admirable manner the story of the ‘First Vision’….” (240).

'''1944''' Preston Nibley, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City, 1944), 31, quotes New York Spectator, September 23, 1843. It was not yet known to have been a reprint of an earlier article in the Pittsburgh Gazette.

'''1917''' Brigham H. Roberts, “Christ in the Traditions of American Native Races. Part XI-Modern Visits of the Christ in America.” Improvement Era 20. 7 (May 1917). Cites both History of the Church 1. 5-6; and Wentworth Letter for first vision.

'''1910 ''' Ben. E. Rich, ed., Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, 2 vols., 2: 20-21. Quotes the Wentworth account of the first vision in its entirety. [The date of publication for this two volume collection is unknown, but early 20th century]

'''1910''' Brigham H. Roberts. “The Morning of the Restoration.” Improvement Era 14. 2 (December 1910). Cites both the canonized version (both Pearl of Great Price, and History of the Church), and the Wentworth Letter (from History of the Church, and its inclusion in George A. Smith, Answers to Questions, 1869).

Brigham H. Roberts, The Missouri Persecutions, p.i (no date given)
Uses the Wentworth account for the first vision story. Footnote to chapter one.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1969-1978)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''1978 ''' Dean Jessee, "The Spirituality of Joseph Smith", Ensign Sept 1978, 14-20. Jessee writes:
"In an early account of his First Vision, Joseph elaborated upon the struggle that preceded the event--the searching, the solemn and serious impressions, the concern for mankind, the application to scripture and teachers, the years of pondering, the parental teachings, the sorrow for sin, the serious contemplations of the works of nature, and the yearning to God for mercy, because 'there was none else to whom I could go.' He wrote the experience with his own pen: [he then quotes the 1832 version, beginning with]
'At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal soul...." (page 17-8).

'''1977''' Jeane Woolfenden, “Lovely Was the Morning,” New Era, Oct 1977, 22. She quotes from the canonized version; and then cites some “recently discovered account of the vision written by Joseph”, and refers to Dean Jessee’s “Early Accounts….” 1969.

'''1976''' Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Gold Plates and Printer’s Ink,” Ensign, Sep 1976, 71-82. “Although most Church members are familiar with the basic events surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon—the First Vision, the delivery of the gold plates, the translation, the 1830 publishing date, etc.—few know the story in all the detail that is now available, since hundreds of interesting new facts have come to light only in the last decade. Recently discovered accounts by Joseph Smith and those close to him have filled in gaps in what could formerly only be told as a partial story.
In 1831 Joseph Smith said that “it was not expedient” then to “tell the world all the particulars” about the Book of Mormon. However, he later made his history a priority project, compiling nearly a hundred pages of narrative and documents on the Book of Mormon years. Had there been no Liberty Jail, this record would have appeared earlier than 1842, when the Nauvoo Times and Seasons began serializing it as the detailed “History of Joseph Smith.”
Informed Latter-day Saints have read this account, or the condensed form in the Pearl of Great Price. But, in fact, Joseph Smith reviewed his visions many times, adding details to the official history. Here we will principally use his early 1832 narrative, some of which is in the Prophet’s own handwriting, and also his secretary’s notes of a private summary in 1835—each of these manuscripts hereinafter identified by date of writing. And just as Joseph Smith’s recollections can be multiplied, his mother’s printed history is supplemented by an early manuscript compiled from talks with her, often adding detail…..
Joseph Smith’s 1832 notes on the First Vision gave personal details unmentioned in public accounts, stressing that the Savior had appeared and assured him of forgiveness of sins, followed by Joseph’s falling “into transgression … in many things, which brought a wound upon my soul.” [after this the article deals strictly with the Book of Mormon]
[NOTE: Anderson cites 1832, Nov. 9, 1835, Lucy Mack Smith 1853 and earlier rough drafts, as well as Anderson Improvement Era 1970, and Jessee BYU Studies 1969, both elsewhere in this list, under date]

'''1976''' Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, (1976 Deseret Book Company): 7-13. After quoting extensively from the canonized version, Ludlow writes “The Prophet bore testimony many times of the sacred experience he had when he talked with the Father and the Son.” In addition to quoting the Wentworth Letter (1842), he quotes two reminiscences from Edward Stevenson, one from Joseph Grant Stevenson, Stevenson Family History [Provo: Joseph Grant Stevenson, 1955], 1:19-21; and a second one quoted in William E. Berrett and Alma H. Burton, Readings in L.D.S. Church History [Deseret Book Co., 1953], 1:17.

'''1975''' James B. Allen and Malcom R. Thorp , “The Mission of the Twelve To England, 1840-41: Mormon Apostles and the Working Classes” BYU Studies, 15. 4 (Summer 1975): 526
Refers to Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet “which contains the first version of Joseph Smith's First Vision to be published in Church sources.”

'''1971''' Review of Milton Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision, by Hyrum L. Andrus, Ensign (September 1971): 54-55. “Dr. Backman’s… book sets the first vision of the Prophet Joseph ‘Smith in its historical context and shows that the latter-day seer’s statements on the background of that divine manifestation are compatible with its historical setting at every point. This book is the most recently published response to a charge that was made a few years ago that Joseph Smith fabricated the story of the first vision several years after it allegedly occurred…. It is followed by a treatment of the several accounts of the first vision that have come down to us from Joseph Smith’s day. The full statements of these accounts are given as appendix materials, and for this reason this volume is an important source of reference materials”

'''1971''' Richard L. Anderson, "Heritage of a Prophet". Ensign February 1971, page 15-19
He begins by referring to "The Prophet Joseph Smith's first known autobiographical sketch...."; in the footnote he refers to the 1832 Manuscript History, in Dean Jessee, "The early accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision,' BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 279 [below].
He doesn't quote the first vision portion of it, but quotes the part about being born 'of goodly parents, who spared no pains to instruct me in the Christian religion'. The article then deals with his grandparents on both sides.

'''1971''' Dean C. Jessee “How Lovely Was the Morning”, Review of Joseph Smith's First Vision: The First Vision in its Historical Context. By Milton V. Backman, Jr. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1971). Dialogue, 6.1(Spring 1971): 85-88.
“Ten of the fifteen documents reproduced in the Appendix are accounts of the First Vision as recorded by Joseph Smith or those who heard him relate it. These are the 1832, 1835, 1838, and Wentworth accounts, the first publication of the event by Orson Pratt in England in 1840, a translation from a pamphlet published by Orson Hyde in Germany in 1842, a non-Mormon account based upon an interview with Joseph Smith and published in the New York Spectator in 1843, Alexander Neibaur's diary notation of his hearing Joseph relate the incident on 24 May 1844…” [the remaining accounts are late reminiscences]

'''1971''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The First Vision in its Historical Context (Bookcraft 1971; 2nd edition, revised and enlarged 1980)

'''1970''' Richard L. Anderson, “The Trustworthiness of Young Joseph Smith”, Improvement Era (October 1970): 82-9.
[primarily deals with knowledge of Moroni’s visit, not the first vision; but does refer to the 1832 version; the November 9, 1835 interview; the Wentworth letter, 1842; Lucy Mack Smith 1853, as well as two articles from the 1969 BYU Studies special issue, by Anderson and Jessee, below].

'''1970''' Richard L. Anderson, “Confirming Records of Moroni’s Coming”, Improvement Era (September 1970): 4-8. “The past few years have seen intense study of the First Vision by Latter-day Saint scholars and the consequent publication of several little-known narratives of Joseph Smith’s earliest spiritual experience. However, every major record of the First Vision continues its narrative through the coming of Moroni. Therefore, recently publicized records of the First Vision also permit the visions concerning the Book of Mormon to be told in greater depth. First it is necessary to review the five sources that detail Moroni’s first appearances:
:1.The most important account of the early visions is also the most widely used [1838, published in Times and Seasons March 14, 1842]
:2.Next in importance is the earliest known manuscript record of the early visions. Through the invaluable work of Dean Jessee, of the Church Historians Office, it has been known that this account was written in either 1831 or 1832. However, he has recently discovered that the recorder (Frederick G. Williams) did not begin to write for the Prophet until the later date. This earliest manuscript history is therefore fixed at 1832. This early attempt at official history is more detailed than any other account except the ‘History of Joseph Smith’ [1842; now in PofGP]
:3.In 1842, the Prophet approved for publication the Wentworth Letter, a summary of the main points of Church history up to that time….
:4.The spontaneous quality of a personal conversation with Joseph Smith is preserved in the 1835 record of the interview with the notorious pretender ‘Joshua, the Jewish minister…. The 1835 conversation was taken down at the time by Warren Cowdery.
:5.The first published history of the coming of Moroni appeared in letter form in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835. Its author was Oliver Cowdery, but its wealth of detail must be attributed largely to the Prophet….
Because critics of Joseph Smith have misused the Cowdery letters, it is important to stress their limitations. Like many writers, Oliver Cowdery aspired to more than he could perform. His preface envisioned ‘a full history of the rise of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the most interepesting parts of its progress….’ What he actually produced, however, was a history of the years in which the Book of Mormon was revealed and delivered for translation, 1823 to 1827. Skeptics assert that Joseph Smith did not have a First Vision because Oliver Cowdery did not narrate it…. Although Oliver Cowdery apparently began to narrate the background of the First Vision, he shifted his chronology and jumped from 1820 to 1823—we do not know why” (5)
“The records discussed above make it obvious that Latter-day Saint history is in the process of its own correlation program. Multiple narratives of major events challenge historians to the hard work of collecting and the hard thinking of comparing” (6)
In his footnotes Professor Anderson cites the following articles: BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969), articles by
Dean C. Jessee
Richard L. Anderson 1966 [see under date]
James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts…” Improvement Era April 1970.

'''1970''' President Loren C. Dunn, of the First Council of the Seventy, “A Prophet’s Story”, General Conference April 1970, Improvement Era June 1970: 48. [Quotes from BYU Studies, 9 (Spring 1969): 235: “’the sweet dream of a pure-minded boy.’”]

'''1970''' James B. Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. What do we learn from them?” Improvement Era 73.4 (April 1970): 4-13; In addition to the article itself, it contains a chart comparing the following versions: 1832, 1835, 1838, Pratt 1840, Hyde 1842, Wentworth, NY Spectator 1843, Neibaur 1843. “The differences between the accounts may be grossly overemphasized, for the truth is that there is wide and general agreement in detail among all of them” Includes a chart comparing the various versions.

'''1969''' Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969): 275-94. Contains text of 1832, Cowdery 1834, Nov. 9,1835, November 14, 1835, 1838, 1842 (Wentworth).

'''1969''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Awakenings in the Burned-Over District: New Light on the Historical Setting of the First Vision,” Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (spring, 1969): 301-320
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision(1979-1983)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''1983''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Deseret Book 1983, 1986).
“On four different occasions Joseph Smith wrote or dictated a detailed account of this marvelous and sacred experience of 1820. Three of these recitals [have been referred to in the first chapter]: the autobiography and history written in 1832 (which is the only account of the First Vision in Joseph’s handwriting, the others being dictated to scribes), the history of the Church which was initiated in 1838, and the Wentworth Letter. A fourth history is the record of a conversation between Joseph Smith and a visitor to Kirtland, Ohio, a man named Matthias. This latter account is recorded in Joseph Smith’s Kirtland diary by his scribe, Warren Cowdery, under the date Monday, November 9th, 1835” (17-8)
“In addition to the four accounts recorded by Joseph Smith regarding his visions, before the Prophet’s death in 1844, four contemporaries wrote accounts of the First Vision based upon testimonies related to them by the Prophet. The first published account of the First Vision was written by Orson Pratt, and appeared in a work entitled A Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions (Edinburgh, 1840)” ….
Orson Hyde, another apostle who was well acquainted with Joseph Smith, also prepared an account of the First Vision. His description of the early visions of Joseph Smith as written in German and was basically a translation of the English version prepared by Orson Pratt [Germany 1842].
A third early rendition of Joseph Smith’s First Vision was written by a non-Mormon newspaper editor who visited Nauvoo and, following a conversation with the Mormon prophet, published a description of what he learned from Joseph Smith in the New York Spectator of September 23, 1843 [it was not known yet that it had been previously published in Pittsburgh Gazette, by David Nye White]
On May 24, 1844, one month prior to the death of Joseph Smith, Alexander Neibaur, another convert and friend of the Prophet, listened as Joseph Smith related to him his experience in the sacred grove. Following this conversation, Neibaur recorded in his journal his impressions of what Joseph said on that occasion” (19)
Backman published these accounts in a running story, drawing from each of the various accounts (22-28).
He then quotes from Orson Pratt, JD 12. 353-5; and Orson Pratt, JD 14. 141.
He also includes a harmony in Appendix A (201-3)
He refers to “additional descriptions (by contemporaries) of what Joseph Smith saw and learned during his First Vision”, referring only to volume and page: JD 2. 170-1; 2. 196-7; 7. 220-1; 8. 354; 11.1-2; 12. 67; 12. 302; 12. 352-4; 13. 65-7; 13. 77-8; 14. 140-1; 14. 261-2; 15. 180-2; 18. 239; 20. 167; 21. 161-5; 22. 29; 24. 371-3; 25. 155-7 (32, note 41)
Backman also writes: “In the early history of the Church, some leaders referred to Jesus as an angel (a messenger from the Father)” (32, note 41)
Backman also writes the following regarding Lucy Mack Smith’s Biographical Sketches, published in 1853:
“During the winter following the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, Lucy commenced dictating this history (which included a biography of her son, Joseph) to Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, a school teacher who had married Howard Coray, one of the scribes who had assisted Joseph in writing his history. In an attempt to obtain increased accuracy in her work, Lucy directed Martha and Howard Coray to assist in rewriting her history. A copy of the revised edition of Lucy’s manuscript was obtained by her son, William. Eventually a copy of the document was secured by Isaac Sheen, a member of the Church living in Michigan. While Orson Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was traveling to England on a mission, he was shown the manuscript copy and purchased it from Sheen. This work was subsequently published in England under the title Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and his Progenitors for many Generations (Liverpool: published for Orson Pratt and S.W. Richards, 1853)” (2-3)

'''1983''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound. A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio 1830-1838 (Deseret Book 1983). “In a conversation with Robert Matthias also known as ‘Joshua the Jewish minister,’ a visitor to Kirtland in 1835 [November 9], Joseph Smith described his first vision. He said that while he was engaged in a quest for religious truth, he called upon the Lord and beheld a glorious vision. ‘A pillar of fire appeared above my head,’ he explained, ‘and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee.’ During the 1830s the Prophet identified in his writings the two personages who appeared to him in the spring of 1820 as the Father and the Son” (231-2). In the footnotes he refers us to his book Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and further states that the official version was begun in 1838, after he had moved to Missouri (422, notes 87, 88)

'''1982''' Marvin Hill “The First Vision Controversy: A Critique and Reconciliation” Dialogue, 15. 2 (Summer 1982): 31-44.

'''1982''' Richard L. Anderson, “The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators,” in Book of Mormon Authorship. New Light on Ancient Origins Edited by Noel B. Reynolds (BYU 1982): 213-37. Although this is an article about the Book of Mormon, the First Vision is included in all the recorded discussions of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith. Anderson quotes frequently from the “1832 manuscript that was the Prophet’s first attempt to give ‘an account of his marvelous experiences’”, and refers the reader to Dean Jessee, “Early Accounts…” BYU Studies 1969 (232-3, note 1. Another note refers to the 1832 manuscript which “is now the earliest priesthood restoration reference” (235, note, 28).

'''1981''' Adele Brannon McCollum, “The First Vision: Re-Visioning Historical Experience”. Neal A. Lambert, ed., Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience, (1981 Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University): 177-195. [Conference held Thursday and Friday, March 7-8, 1979, at BYU; reviewed Ensign (December 1979): 70-72] She refers to the 1832 version, and the official version; also refers to previously published items by Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971; suggesting it was time for a new edition (which happened in 1980); James Allen Improvement Era (1970, and Allen, Dialogue 1966; and to Dean Jessee and Richard L. Anderson, both in BYU Studies 1969]

'''1981 ''' Klaus Hansen, Mormonism and the American Experience (University of Chicago 1981). “Whatever power Smith may have had over other men, he emphatically insisted that he had the ability to see visions from his early youth. In 1838 he claimed in his official autobiography (later canonized) that as early as 1820, when he was a mere boy of fourteen, he had suffered from a severe religious anxiety regarding the truthfulness of various competing sects…….. Smith made things difficult for himself by writing eighteen years before setting down what was to become the official, authorized account of events that purportedly occurred in 1820…. In recent years Mormon historians have assembled fragments of earlier accounts, none can be traced back to the year 1820. Moreover, the versions differ in some of their details. While Latter-day Saint scholars tend to regard these earlier accounts as confirmation of Smith’s veracity, some non-Mormon scholars have come to exactly the opposite conclusion, seeing them as evidence of the evolution of his fertile imagination. Because of their fragmentary nature, these accounts do not support firm conclusions for either side. Circumstantial evidence, likewise, has not helped to close the case” (21-23)
He cites several earlier books and articles: Jessee, “early accounts” (1969): Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts” (1970); Anderson, “Circumstantial Confirmation” (1969) Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1979).

'''1980''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision. The First Vision in its Historical Context; second enlarged edition of (Bookcraft 1971; 2nd edition revised and enlarged 1980). This volume has full citations from 1832, 1835, 1838, 1842 (Wentworth Letter), Orson Pratt (1840), Orson Hyde (1842 German), 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, 1844 Alexander Neibaur, Edward Stevenson reminiscence (1893), John Taylor 1879. The 1980 edition includes two new appendices. One of them (Q) includes a “Reply to Critics” in which a harmonization of the various accounts is included. He also gives references to 4 sermons by Orson Pratt in later years.

'''1980''' Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Literary Form and Historical Understanding: Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 31-42.

'''1980''' Review of recent meeting of the Mormon History Association, during which James Allen delivered the paper [below], in Ensign (July 1980): 79. In that review was the following: “Another presentation on the First Vision was that of James B. Allen of BYU’s History Department. Members of the Church now see it as ‘the most central event’ of the restoration of the gospel, but he reviewed how missionaries used the Book of Mormon much more than the First Vision to prove Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission and that the First Vision did not receive strong emphasis until the 1880s when “George Q. Cannon set the tone for the next hundred years’ by suggesting it be taught to children. Dr. Allen concluded his presentation with a list of thirty-four statements by various General Authorities from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries about what the First Vision proves, including: the Father has a body of flesh and bones, he is approachable, and he answers prayers; Jesus is a being similar to the Father; and revelation is continuous” (79).
[NOTE: The Cannon connection was already made by Fawn Brodie in 1945]

'''1980''' James B. Allen, “Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,” Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61. ]

'''1979 ''' “Symposium Examines ‘Literature of Belief’,” Ensign, Dec. 1979, 70–72. [BYU Conference March 7, 8, 1979, consisting of LDS and many non-LDS scholars representing various religious traditions]
“The story of the First Vision—not only what happened there but the fact that it happened—was the subject explored by Adele B. McCollum, who teaches philosophy and religion at Montclair State College in New Jersey. “To believe in the vision of Joseph Smith is to believe that one may have to look on God and yet live. And that risk is great because one will never again live in the same way.”
She discussed in greater detail one of the most threatening aspects of that vision: the multiplicity of Gods. Part of what Joseph Smith found out is that God and man do not belong to two completely different species, that man cannot only experience God but also “experience himself as god, that is, to experience Godness. In Mormonism, man, though finite, is not completely separated from God.”
[NOTE: The book containing the papers presented at this conference was published 1981; see under date]

'''1979''' James B. Allen, “Line upon Line,” Ensign, Jul 1979, 37. “Finally, it is interesting to observe that LDS understanding of the nature of the Godhead has also seen considerable growth since the Church was organized in 1830. There was no question among the Saints from the beginning that God was a personal being, or that man had direct access to him through prayer. Joseph Smith had seen him, as well as his Son, Jesus Christ, in vision, years before the Church was organized. But in the early years, few members of the Church were fully aware of Joseph Smith’s first vision, for at first he did not widely circulate any account of it.[note 13] Only in 1838, to correct “the many reports which have been put into circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons,” would he prepare it for publication (JS—H 1:1).” [Note 13 refers to James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (1966):40–41.]

'''1979''' Marvin Hill, ‘On the First Vision and Its Import in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,” Dialogue 12 (Spring, 1979): 90-99.

'''1979''' Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience. A History of the Latter-day Saints (Random House 1979; Vintage Books August 1980). [At the time of writing Arrington was Church Historian, and Professor of History at BYU; Bitton was Professor of History at University of Utah]. Quotes from both 1832 and 1838 [=1842 publication; canonized version]. “Textual analysis shows several differences between this early version and the later ones, but these are mainly matters of emphasis” (7-8). Cites Anderson ‘Circumstantial Confirmation…” (1969); Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971); Jessee, “Early Accounts…” (1969); Paul R. Cheesman, An analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions (Master’s Thesis, BYU 1965). Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches (1853)

'''1979''' J. Christopher Conkling, A Joseph Smith Chronology (Deseret Book 1979): 3
“The first known record of the first vision was not made until 1831 or 1832”. Refers to1839 version which was eventually canonized, and Orson Pratt’s 1840 version. “For comparisons of the several early versions of the first vision, see BYU Studies, (Spring 1969), 275-96; and Improvement Era (April 1970): 413.”
Refers to Pratt’s 1840 version as “the first known time that Joseph Smith's first vision is put into print.” (147)

'''1979''' David Whittaker, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision. A Sourced Essay”, Mormon History Association Newsletter 42 (November 1979): 7-9. “Until the 1940s few in depth historical studies had dealt with the vision itself. Here are some major historical works available to the interested student. Dean Jessee (Dialogue 6 (Spring 1971): 85-8; Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reappraised,’ BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970): 283-314; Marvin Hill article continues with the following: unmentioned Hill source is Dialogue 1979; Jessee, BYU Studies (1969); Cheesman 1965; Backman, 1976; Backman (1971); JB Allen, Dialogue (1966); JB Allen Improvement Era (April 1973).
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1984-1989)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''1989''' Joseph Smith. Selected Sermons & Writings. Edited by Robert L. Millet (Paulist Press 1989).
[NOTE: This is part of a series, Sources of American Spirituality, published by a Catholic Press]
“There are four accounts of this theophany [First Vision], as recorded by Joseph Smith and his scribes…. An 1832 account; an 1835 account; an 1838 account; and an 1842 account [referring to Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith]. Some of the differences between the accounts of the First Vision have proven to be points of controversy between critics and apologists. For example, the earliest account (1832) mentions the appearance of only one heavenly personage; there is some discrepancy between the 1832 and 1838 accounts regarding the Prophet’s age at the time of the theophany (14 or 16 years); and the 1835 account indicates that ‘many angels’ were also present at the time of the vision, a detail not mentioned in the other three accounts. Critics suggest that the discrepancies point toward fabrication of the story; believers suggest that such differences no more falsify the experience than do similar differences in the accounts of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26) or the differences in the gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus” (15, note 34)
1838 cited extensively (59-61)
“Today the story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is generally the beginning point of discussion on Mormonism. Such may not have always been the case. It appears that until the 1880s the missionary appeal of Mormonism was centered in the Book of Mormon, rather than in the First Vision.” (20)

'''1989''' Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet (Bookcraft 1989). Chapter One: The First Vision and Its Aftermath: 7-18.
He refers to the 1969 issue of BYU Studies, of which he was the general editor; it “published a collection of the four known written accounts of the First Vision. One was first recorded in 1832; another in 1835, after a visit Joseph had with a Jewish visitor named Matthias; there is the 1838 statement, which has been published to the world in the Pearl of Great Price; and finally, the well-known Wentworth letter written in 1842” (8)
He cites or quotes the 1832, the 1838, 1840 by Orson Pratt; the 1835 interview with Matthias; the Neibaur diary entry in May 1844.
See also endnotes 5, 6, 9, 20, 25, 43 (131-136).

'''1989''' Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2 volumes (Deseret Book, 1989). Includes 1843 first publication of an interview with Joseph Smith, by the editor David Nye White, “The Prairies, Nauvoo, Joe Smith, the Temple, the Mormons, etc.,” Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette 58 (September 15, 1843), 1:443-4; Jessee thanks Noel Barton for finding the original; a reprint in New York Spectator had always been cited prior to this time. Later reprinted several more times, Painesville Telegraph and Quincy Whig.
[NOTE: Volume one includes 1832; 1838-9; Wentworth Letter; 1842 Joseph Smith History; Orson Pratt 1840; Orson Hyde 1842 German; 1843 Gazette interview; I. Daniel Rupp 1844; Neibaur diary 1843.
Volume two includes 9 November 1835.

'''1989''' Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, ”The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith. The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation”, Part 1. Ensign (January 1989): 27-33. A graph appears on page 32, “Early Sources Containing the Doctrinal Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”. The first one is the First Vision; the footnote to this reads: “Recorded in 1831 [1832], 1835, 1839, 1840, 1843, 1844. It has been published in many places and at many times. For a summary see Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).”
1988 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Prophets and Prophecy (Bookcraft 1988): 164. “It ‘filled me with unspeakable joy,’ Joseph Smith said in describing the feelings he experienced during the First Vision” (164, citing the November 9, 1835 version, from Milton Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 159).

'''1988''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Lo, Here! Lo, There! Early in the Spring of 1820”, in The Prophet Joseph. Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith. Edited by Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black (Deseret Book 1988):19-35. “On four different occasions, Joseph Smith wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his First Vision that have been preserved. There is a different emphasis in ach of the accounts. They were prepared at different times, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Each of them emphasizes a different aspect of his experience. These accounts have been published in…” Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984) (32, note 2). Also refers to his harmony of these versions of the first vision in Backman, Eyewitness Accounts…. (1986). In the present chapter he quotes and/or cites each of the various versions: 1832; Nov. 9, 1835; 1842 History of Joseph Smith. He also referred to others who would later report his accounts of the first vision, for which he refers his readers to Backman, “Confirming Witnesses….”, Ensign (January 1986): 32-37. He also cites Orson Pratt’s two part article on the Father and the Son as separate persons, in which he refers to the first vision: Millennial Star 11 (1849): 310.

'''1988''' Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith and the Beginning of Mormon Record Keeping”, in The Prophet Joseph. Essays on the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith. Edited by Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black (Deseret Book 1988): 138-160. Writes that the 1832 manuscript history “contained the earliest account of the Prophet’s First Vision, the only one written with his own hand” (148).

'''1988''' Paul R. Cheesman, The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo: Eagle Systems International, 1988. 205 pp. Reviewed by Larry C. Porter, FARMS Review of Books, 2 (1990), 65-6.

'''1987''' An American Prophet’s Record. The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith. Edited by Scott H. Faulring (Signature Books 1987, 1898). 1832 version quoted pages 3-6; November 9, 1835 quoted 50-52; November 14, 1835 quoted 59.

'''1987''' Breck England, “Gospel Seeds in Scottish Soil,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 26-31. Mentions Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet containing the first publication of the first vision.

'''1987''' Hoyt W. Brewster Jr., “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1987, 65–67. “On at least four occasions, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote or dictated an account of his First Vision experience” He cites 1832, 1835, 1838, and Wentworth Letter of 1842, referring the reader to Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980), and Backman “Joseph Smith’s Recitals…” Ensign 1985.

'''1987 ''' Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Personality of the Prophet,” New Era, Dec 1987, 14. He quotes from the 1832 version (from Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith 1984). He also refers to Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 book, and Lorenzo Snow’s late reminiscences.

'''1986''' Leonard Arrington, “Joseph Smith”, in The Presidents of the Church. Biographical Essays (Deseret Book 1986): 1-42. He recites the first vision with an amalgam of the canonized version, 1832, 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, and the Neibaur interview (7-8).

'''1986''' Reprint of Milton V. Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Deseret Book 1983).

'''1986''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision”, Ensign (January 1986): 32-7. This is a continuation of his January 1985 article. He cites and/or quotes from Edward Stevenson reminiscence (1893), Orson Pratt 1840 pamphlet, as well as subsequent comments by Pratt (JD 7. 20; Millennial Star (15 Sept 1849): 281-4; 309-12; Millennial Star (11 February 1865): 88: History of Orson Pratt; Orson Hyde 1842 pamphlet, in German; Pittsburgh Gazette interview first mentioned, but cited as from the reprint in the New York Spectator 1843; Alexander Neibaur diary 1843; John Taylor (JD 21. 161).

'''1986''' Richard L. Anderson, ‘A Tested Testimony’, in A Thoughtful Faith, Compiled and edited by Philip L. Barlow (Centerville, Utah: Canon Press: 1986): 277-292. “Behind events are personalities. The two that really count for Latter-day Saints are Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ, who the Prophet said appeared to him from time to time and directed his words in the revelations…. Nor can I read the earliest account of the First Vision and the revelations of 1829 without feeling Christ’s deepest concern…. [284] His forthright personal or dictated accounts of the First Vision all ring true in terms of his life and the simplicity of his words…. [285] History becomes a weapon against the Church only when one loses sight of larger historical issues. Anti-Mormon literature has long traded on character assassination and trivia. Proving Joseph Smith’s weaknesses does not invalidate his visions The great revelations of God in the scriptures came either to Christ or to those much less perfect than he” “After facts are determined, what generalizations or conclusions are to be drawn from them? All can agree that Joseph Smith told his First Vision in 1832, 1835, and 1838. A believer will see supplementing agreements, a determined critic will claim contradictions that invalidate the testimony and a humanist will downplay the experience as only subjective anyway. They all agree on step one, identifying historical data, but radically differ in interpreting it, which is step two of the process…. President Hinckley well said in a general priesthood meeting in 1985 that the Church does not object to historical scrutiny when done with accuracy and balance. Those words summarize the two stages of quality history” (286).

'''1985''' Dean C. Jessee, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, July 1985, 15–17. I have heard that Joseph Smith didn’t actually write his history—that it was prepared by clerks under his direction. If so, how reliable is it?
Uses the 1832 account, which contains the earliest statement on first vision.

'''1985''' Dean C. Jessee “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision (JS-H 1-26)”, in Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1985): 303-314 [includes 1832, Nov 9, and 14, 1835, 1838-9, Wentworth letter]

'''1985''' Kent Jackson, “The Appearance of Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS-H 27-49)”, in Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: Randall Book Co., 1985): 339-66. After quoting part of his 1832 account, Jackson writes “In his later recitations of his early experiences…. He remembered in 1832…. Six years later he clarified [1838 account]” (339-340). “During the Prophet’s lifetime he wrote or dictated four separate known accounts of the appearance of Moroni to him…. It should be noted that the first two accounts (1832 and [Nov 9] 1835) are unedited rough drafts that were not prepared for publication. The first of these is preserved in the draft of a history that the Prophet wrote and dictated between 20 July and 27 November 1832. The account of Moroni’s visit was dictated to Frederick G. Williams, and it follows his recitation of the First Vision” (341). [November 9, 1835, to Robert Matthews, “dictated to Warren Parrish”…. “After recounting the First Vision…” (342-3) [1838, which became the official version in March 15, 1842 (344)] [Wentworth Letter, March 1, 1842] (344) [Under “Other Sources”, Jackson relates briefly Oliver Cowdery 1834-5; and Orson Pratt, 1840] “Each of Joseph Smith’s four known written accounts of his experiences on the night of 21-22 September 1823….” (347) In his article, Professor Jackson refers his readers to the following work, which contains the various accounts of the First Vision:
Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984)

'''1985''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision,’ Ensign 15 (January 1985): 8-17.
Quotes and/or discusses 1832, 1835 [Nov. 9], 1838, 1842 (Wentworth), 1842 publication of 1838; plus 11 sermons delivered later by those who had known him. He also cites several previous publications: Jessee, BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969); Backman’s Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980). Backman, Jr., Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (1983), Jessee’s The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984),

'''1984''' Dean C. Jessee, “Joseph Smith Jr.—in His Own Words, Part 1,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 22.
Text and images based on his 1832 diary, including the first vision account.

'''1984''' Gordon B. Hinckley, First Presidency Message, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear”, Ensign October 1984 “I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time.”

'''1984''' James E. Faust, General Conference, April 8, 1984. “The Magnificent Vision Near Palmyra, Ensign May 1984): 67-8. ”There are several accounts of the magnificent vision near Palmyra recorded by the Prophet’s associates or friends before the Prophet’s death, who, at various times, heard the Prophet recount the First Vision. These accounts corroborate the First Vision as written by Joseph Smith himself” (67-8).
He cites Lucy 1853, and several reminiscences regarding his integrity.

'''1984''' William G. Hartley, “Snow on Fire,” New Era, Jan. 1984, 38. Author writes “Joseph Smith, 14 at the time of the First Vision, first felt spiritually troubled by age 12.” [This information is found only in the 1832 version.]

'''1984''' Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (University of Illinois 1984): 55-59.
He cites extensively from the 1832 account; refers to the 1835 and 1838 accounts. Cites the 1843 New York Spectator account. Critiques William Smith’s accounts.
Bushman cites all the previous books and articles dealing with the First Vision.

'''1984''' Richard L. Anderson, “The Organization Revelations (D&C 20, 21, and 22), in Studies in Scripture. Volume One. The Doctrine and Covenants. Edited by Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Sandy, Utah, Randall Books: 1984): 109-123. Refers to his diary accounts of 1832 and 1835 [November 9] (110-111). Also suggests D&C 20.4-5 might include reference to first vision “but in terse language that those informed would understand” (111), referring to Dean Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1990-1997)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''1996''' Kent P. Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration (Deseret Book 1996): 66-79; cf. 80-9.
“In the earliest days of the history of the Church, Joseph Smith apparently spoke less frequently about the First Vision than he did about other sacred experiences…. By the end of the Prophet’s lifetime, he may have told the story of the First Vision on many occasions. Yet his own written accounts of it have been preserved in only five places…. Because the accounts were written under different circumstances and perhaps with different readers in mind the emphasis in them varies from one to the next.” He then quotes and discusses 1832; Nov 9, 1835; 1838; 1842 Wentworth letter; 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette (reprinted in New York Spectator and at least two other papers). He also quotes the letter he wrote to I. Daniel Rupp, published by the latter in 1844. He also mentions the accounts by Orson Pratt (1840), Orson Hyde (1842 in German), and the diary entry of Alexander Neibauer 24 May 1844. He also mentions that the 1838 account was reprinted in the Church newspaper in 1842, and again in 1851 in a small missionary pamphlet titled “Pearl of Great Price.”
He also refers to several modern secondary works, which contain these accounts:Backman, Eyewitness Accounts;
Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith

'''1996''' Russell M. Nelson, “At the Heart of the Church”, in The Prophet and his Work: Essays from General Authorities on Joseph Smith and the Restoration (Deseret Book 1996): 50-65. [After quoting from the canonized version Elder Nelson writes] “The most prominent account of the First Vision, from which I have quoted, was prepared by the Prophet for publication in 1838. At least three other accounts of the vision were also recorded. These accounts were given under different circumstances to different audiences and for different purposes. Because each account emphasizes a different aspect of the same experience, some of the detractors of the Church have attempted to point out discrepancies in the several accounts. In the January 1985 Ensign appears a most noteworthy article by Milton V. Backman, Jr., entitled "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision." You will want to study this and become familiar with each of the recorded accounts of the First Vision so that you will not be disarmed if you hear that more than one account was given.” (53)

'''1996''' Richard L. Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s Testimony of the First Vision”, Ensign, April 1996. “We now know of nine contemporary reports from the Prophet himself or from those who personally heard him relate his first vision: (1) the Prophet’s handwritten description in 1832, an attempt to start a manuscript history of the Church; (2) a Church secretary’s brief 1835 journal entry of Joseph talking with a visitor who called himself Joshua, the Jewish minister; (3) the 1838 history discussed above, published in 1842 and now in the Pearl of Great Price; (4) Orson Pratt’s publication, the first publicly disseminated, of the Prophet’s vision in his Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, issued in 1840 in Edinburgh, Scotland; (5) Orson Hyde’s revision of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet, published in 1842 for German readers and adding some insights that may have come from his contact with Joseph Smith; (6) the Wentworth Letter, created in response to editor John Wentworth’s inquiry and published by Joseph Smith in 1842 in Times and Seasons; this account adapted parts of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet; (7) Levi Richards’s diary about Joseph Smith preaching in the summer of 1843 and repeating the Lord’s first message to him that no church was His; (8) a newspaper interview in the fall of 1843; (9) Alexander Neibaur’s 1844 journal entry of a conversation at the Prophet’s house.” Rest of article deals with issues between some of these.

'''1996''' Joseph Smith. The Choice Seer. The Prophet’s Greatness as Teacher, Priesthood Leader, and Restorer. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet ((Bookcraft 1996). “As a service to the reader, in the back of the book we have included three accounts of the First Vision. These are often hard to find elsewhere” (xiii) These are 1832 (369-71); November 9, 1835 (373-7); Wentworth, March 1, 1842 (375-382).
Quotes part of the interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette editor, September 1843 (=New York Spectator) (8-9)
1832 partially quoted (35)
Orson Pratt’s 1840 version cited and quoted (79-80)
Throughout the book they draw from Milton Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980); Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith 2 volumes (1989); Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984).

'''1996''' Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, Revised and Enhanced, edited by Scot Facer Proctor and Maurine Jensen Proctor 1996 by Bookcraft. . This is the 1853 work by Lucy. In the footnotes to chapter 17, dealing with the first vision, the Proctors refer to 1832, 1835, Wentworth Letter (1842), the William Smith interview in Deseret News for 1894.

'''1996''' David Paulsen, “The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives”, BYU Studies, 35. 3 (1996): Refers to Pratt (1840); Hyde 1842 German; Pittsburgh Gazette 1843; Citing Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith

'''1995''' Joseph Wirthlin, Finding Peace in Our Lives (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, Utah 1995). “A key document of the restoration of the gospel is a letter the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in reply to a request of John Wentworth, editor of a Chicago newspaper. In it, the Prophet wrote a "sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-day Saints." It apparently was the first published account of principal events that occurred in the thirty-six-year period after the Prophet's birth.” (130)

'''1994''' T. Edgar Lyon, Twelfth Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermon, Logan L.D.S. Institute of Religion, December 5, 1954. The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons Presented each year near the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. at the Logan Institute of Religion 1944-1994
Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons, copyright 1994 by Institute of Religion: Logan, Utah, as enhanced by Infobases, Inc. All rights reserved.
Lyon primarily discusses John Wentworth, but also points out the differences between the Wentworth account of the first vision, and the canonized version. [NOTE: It is not clear if this was published in 1954, or possibly 1966; but certainly in 1994]

'''1992''' Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel Ludlow (1992). Sv ‘first vision’
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/First_Vision
On several occasions between 1832 and 1842, the young Prophet wrote or dictated accounts of the vision, each in a different setting, the last two for publication. Each record omits or adds some details. In 1832, for example, Joseph Smith wrote that prior to his First Vision he searched the scriptures and concluded that no society taught New Testament Christianity (Backman, p. 156; Jessee, p. 5). In the 1838 account he notes that he often said to himself, "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?" Later in this same account he parenthetically adds "(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)" (JS-H 1:10, 18; Jessee, pp. 198, 200).

'''1992''' Did Brigham Young confirm or expound on Joseph Smith’s first vision? Milton V. Backman, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1992, 59.

'''1992''' Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, General Conference April 1992. A key document of the restoration of the gospel is a letter the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in reply to a request of John Wentworth, editor of a Chicago newspaper. In the Wentworth letter, the Prophet wrote a "sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-day Saints." (History of the Church, 4:535.) It apparently was the first published account of principal events that occurred in the 36-year-period after the Prophet's birth. The last part of the letter, the Articles of Faith, is a concise statement of fundamental beliefs of the Church. The fact that one heaven-inspired person rather than a council of scholars produced this remarkable document is another evidence of Joseph Smith's divine calling. (See History of the Church, 4:535.)

'''1992''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Defender of the First Vision,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: New York. Editors Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., Susan Easton Black (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1992): 33-46. Quotes or cites Joseph Smith’s 1832, 1838 accounts, the Wentworth account. Orson Pratt: 1840 pamphlet was the first publication of the first vision. Elder Pratt also spoke of it often, and wrote elsewhere about it: Millennial Star 1849; seven sermons by Elder Pratt: JD 12:353; 7:220; 14:140; 17:279; 22:29; 15. 181; 21. 303 ff.

'''1992''' James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. (Deseret Book 1992; first edition 1976): 164. Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet “which contained the first printed account of Joseph Smith's first vision.” (164)

'''1991''' David Whittaker, “Foreword. Responding to the Critics”, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass. The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 11. Joseph Smith and the Restored Gospel (FARMS and Deseret Book 1991): ix-xxi. “Recent work has now been done on the now available accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.” (xvi, citing Paul Cheesman, An Analysis… (MA 1965); Jessee, “The Early Accounts…” (1969); Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980 2nd edition); Marvin Hill (Dialogue 1982).

'''1990''' Kent P. Jackson, “Moroni’s Message to Joseph Smith. A look at the verses the angel Moroni quoted to the Prophet Joseph Smith on 21-22 September 1823”, Ensign (August 1990): 12-16. “During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, he wrote or dictated four separate accounts of the appearance of Moroni: one dictated to Frederick G. Williams in 1832; a journal entry in 1835 [November 9]; another, the ‘official’ account, dictated in 1838 [and published 1842]; and the Wentworth Letter, published by the Prophet in 1842.” In the footnote to this list he points out that the 1832, 1838, and Wentworth accounts followed first vision accounts. It is a fact however, that each of the others also followed first vision accounts. He also refers to the Moroni accounts in Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet, and Cowdery’s 1834-5 letters.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (1998-2003)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''2003''' Mark L. McConkie, Remembering Joseph. Personal Recollections of Those Who Know the Prophet Joseph Smith (Deseret Book Company. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2003)
“Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the vision during his lifetime, and several contemporary accounts were also produced before the Prophet's death. The picture painted by these additional, secondhand accounts helps us to see that Joseph told the story of his experience in the grove much more than had previously been imagined. The pattern that emerges is one of constant retelling of the First Vision and of Joseph deliberately using it as an aid to missionary work” (17). McConkie includes several late reminiscences (307-313)

'''2002''' Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo. A Place of Peace, a People of Promise (Deseret Book 2002). “While advising others on relocating at Commerce [soon to be renamed as Nauvoo] and conducting other church business, the Prophet found time on June 11 [1839] to sit down with his clerk, James Mulholland. On that day, Joseph Smith began a regular process of dictating his personal history, beginning with his youthful search for salvation in upstate New York” (57-8) In the footnote to this statement Leonard cites The Papers of Joseph Smith, ed. Dean C. Jessee, both volume 1.230-31, 265, 267 [editorial notes to the documents used]; and volume 2. 233, 321 [these two related to beginning dictation]. Leonard discusses the writing of the history on page 239.

'''2002''' Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith revised 2nd edition.(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 2002). Contains letters and journals.
Journals include 1832, 1835, 1838 versions; Wentworth letter reproduced here.

'''2001''' Kent P. Jackson, The Restored Gospel and the Book of Genesis (Deseret Book 2001). “The Prophet attempted to provide context for the revelations by beginning the compilation of what was called then the ‘History of Joseph Smith.’ He commenced it in 1838 by dictating an account of his early experiences…. The history was compiled by him and his clerks from available sources, including his memory, his journals, and the records of others. The publication began in 1842, with installments appearing periodically in the Church’s newspaper, the Times and Seasons. At the Prophet’s death, the history had been compiled to 1838 but was published only to 1831. The work continued, both in Nauvoo and eventually in Utah, where installments were published in the Deseret News until 1858. Decades later, Elder B. H. Roberts compiled the history into six volumes, refining it with his own careful editorial hand. It was published as History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by Joseph Smith [beginning in 1902]” (59). In a footnote Jackson writes: “The earliest narratives are found in Dean Jessee”, The Papers of Joseph Smith volume 1 (Deseret Book 1989), and Jessee, ‘The Writing of Joseph Smith’s History,’ BYU Studies 11. 3 (Spring 1971): 439-73.

'''2001''' Kent Jackson, sv. “Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions” in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001). “… the most important aspect of Elder Pratt's booklet is that it presents the earliest published account of Joseph Smith's First Vision. The tract was later republished with minor changes in the United States and in Europe.

'''2001''' Donald Q. Cannon sv Orson Pratt, in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001).
Between 1839 and 1841 Elder Pratt served in the highly successful mission of the Twelve to Britain. In 1840 in Edinburgh he published his first missionary pamphlet, entitled Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which included one of the earliest published accounts of the First Vision.

'''2001''' Milton V. Backman, Jr. sv. First Vision, in Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History Donald Q. Cannon, Richard Cowan, Arnold K. Garr, editors (Deseret Book 2001). “On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his First Vision. They were prepared at different times, under different circumstances, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Therefore, these accounts emphasize different aspects of Joseph's experience. The Prophet never prepared a complete account describing everything he learned during this vision. In his most descriptive version, an account written in 1838 and included in the Pearl of Great Price, he declared, "Many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time" (JS-H 1:20). By examining all these accounts, one can gain a more complete understanding of who appeared to Joseph Smith, as well as the message that unfolded in 1820 (Backman, Appendix A-D).
Joseph Smith also related his experience to early converts and to nonmembers of the Church, who wrote accounts of the First Vision based on what they had learned from him. Although these contemporary accounts substantiate Joseph Smith's testimony, they do not include any major concepts not found in versions prepared by the Prophet (Backman, Appendix E-J).
Citing Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980)
Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith (1989)

'''2000''' Bruce L. Olsen, “‘Out of Obscurity and Out of Darkness’,” Ensign, Jan 2000, 44-9. Orson Pratt’s “essay An Interesting Account, published in 1840, was the first publication containing the story of the First Vision.” (46)

'''2000''' Revelations of the Restoration. A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah: 2000). After quoting from the canonized version, they write “In an earlier account of his formative years…” (1832). They also cite Neibaur (1844); Wentworth (1842) (5-6). Wentworth is also repeated at 1003, along with a reference to the Rupp version (1844). William Smith 1894 account (8); Orson Hyde 1842 (9); “Orson Pratt wrote the earliest published account of the First Vision in 1840” (10). Later in the volume, when discussing the Wentworth Letter, the authors write: “It is a significant guide to those involved in missionary work that the Prophet in telling the story and teaching the doctrines of the Restoration chooses to begin with what we have come to call the First Vision. Evidence suggests that this was his pattern. At present we have nine contemporary reports of his doing so. As the circumstances in which the story was told were different, so his telling of the story differs in length and detail. As would be expected, the richest view of what he experienced is obtained by a careful reading of each of these accounts. In order they are (1) An account apparently in the handwriting of John Whitmer, then the Church historian. This 1832 account indicates that the search that led Joseph Smith to the Sacred Grove was three or four years in length. (2) A Church secretary's account of a conversation the Prophet had with a visitor in Kirtland calling himself Joshua and claiming to be a Jewish minister. In this account the Prophet tells us that he saw many angels in the vision [November 9, 1835]. (3) The formal account now found in the Pearl of Great Price and in common use in missionary pamphlets [1838]. (4) Orson Pratt's publication of the vision in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1842. (5) Orson Hyde's revision of Elder Pratt's pamphlet published in 1842 in Frankfurt, Germany. (6) The Wentworth Letter here being considered. (7) A terse diary entry by Levi Richards written in Nauvoo [1843]. (8) A newspaper interview published in the fall of 1843 [Pittsburgh Gazette]. (9) A very rough but moving account written in the diary of Alexander Neibaur, a German convert in Nauvoo [1844]. (1003)

'''2000''' Church History in the Fulness of Times. The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Prepared by the Church Educational System. Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah. 2nd edition 2000; 1st edition 1993. “Revivals and camp meetings affected young Joseph. He wrote in his personal history … [1832 account]. The volume also cites the November 9, 1835, Wentworth Letter (1842), and the 1894 interview with William Smith, as well as citing Lucy Mack Smith’s 1853 Biographical Sketches (29-36). Elsewhere the volume relates the request of John Wentworth for some information about the church. Joseph Smith “sent Wentworth a multi-page document containing an account of many of the early events in the history of the Restoration, including the First Vision….” (256-7) The reader is referred to Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, and to Milton Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

'''1998''' Elder L. Tom Perry, General Conference April 1998, Ensign (CR), May 1998, p.22
Let us review for a moment how the Articles of Faith came to be. The Prophet was often asked to explain the teachings and practices of Mormonism. John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, asked Joseph Smith to provide him with a sketch of 'the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints.' " Mr. Wentworth, originally from New Hampshire, desired this information to help a friend compile a history of his native state. "Joseph complied with this request and sent Wentworth a multi-page document containing an account of many of the early events in the history of the Restoration, including the First Vision and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The document also contained thirteen statements outlining Latter-day Saint beliefs, which have come to be known as the Articles of Faith." The information sent to Wentworth was not published in the Chicago Democrat, but in the Church newspaper, Times and Seasons, published in March of 1842. "In 1851 the Articles of Faith were included in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price published in the British Mission. After the Pearl of Great Price was revised in 1878 and canonized in 1880, the Articles of Faith became official doctrine of the Church" (see Church History in the Fulness of Times [Church Educational System Manual, 1993], 256-57).
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Latter-day-Saint-authored publications which discuss various accounts of the First Vision (2004-Present)===
| state = closed
| content =
'''2009''' Matthew B. Brown. A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (American Fork, Utah, Covenant Communications (2009). The relevant documents are published in Appendix 1 (178-194). The entire volume is a discussion of these versions.

'''2008''' Elder W. Craig Zwick, “We will not Yield, We Cannot Yield,” General Conference April 2008, Ensign (May 2008): 97-99. Quotes from both the canonized version and the Wentworth letter (97).

'''2007''' The manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007) cites:1838-9 version, throughout chapter 1, on First Vision; see page 35, note 4, which reads, in part: “On several occasions the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote or dictated detailed accounts of the First Vision. Quotations in this chapter are from the First Vision account first published in 1842 in ‘History of Joseph Smith,’ Times and Seasons, Mar. 15, 1842, pp. 726-8, Apr. 1, 18452, pp. 748-9, and later included in the Pearl of Great Price and published in the History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-8. The Prophet Joseph Smith prepared this account in 1838 and 1839 with the help of his scribes.”
The same manual also cites 1832 version page 2-3, 3; 28 [which was never published by the prophet; lost till 1965]
It also cites the Wentworth letter on pages 5, 6, first published TS March 1, 1842

'''2006''' Matthew B. Brown, Prophecies. Signs of the Times, Second Coming, Millennium (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2006): 1. “… in the spring of 1820, he viewed something that is rarely repeated and little understood: he saw a group of ‘many angels’” (1, citing Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (1984): 75-6 [=November 9, 1835]). The account then records the words of the Savior to Joseph: “’Mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to their ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. Behold and lo I come quickly, as it is written of me, in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father.” (1; the footnote reads: “This account of the words spoken by the Savior during the First Vision is written in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s own hand. These words were recorded in 1832” (5, note 2, citing Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 6)

'''2006''' Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration (Deseret Book 2006). He quotes from the canonized version, and also from Dan Jones’ 1846 account, translated from the original Welsh and published in 2001 by Ronald Dennis, Dan Jones, History of Latter-day Saints (BYU 2001). (340-1)

'''2006''' Kelly Ogden and Andrew Skinner, The Four Gospels. Verse by Verse (Deseret Book. 2006). Paraphrases the 1838 version, page 344-5; paraphrases the Wentworth letter, page 380.

'''2005''' W. Jeffrey Marsh, The Eyewitness History of the Church. Volume One. The Restoration (Springville, Utah: CFI, 2005): 81-99. “Only a small number of first-hand accounts of the First Vision exist. Of the ten described below, four were penned by the Prophet Joseph himself or dictated to a scribe (the 1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842 [Wentworth] accounts). The other six were written by those who heard him relate his experience, either in a sermon or in a private interview (two accounts from Orson Pratt and one each from Orson Hyde, Levi Richards, David Nye White [Pittsburgh Gazette], and Alexander Neibaur)” (82). He also identifies a sermon by Orson Pratt delivered in 1869 [Journal of Discourses 12. 353-5] (98-99). All of these accounts are published in full.

'''2005''' Larry C. Porter, “The Youth of the Grove and the Prophet of the Restoration,” in Joseph. Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet. Edited by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner (Deseret Book 2005):36-46.
“Over a succession of years, the Prophet described to varied audiences the circumstances associated with the First Vision. These contemporary accounts were sometimes dictated to scribes, recorded by the press, or preserved in the writings of individuals who heard his recounting of the event. From their content we are able to assemble an invaluable array of details that help us to assess the immediate circumstances associated with the vision and the long-range significance of this singular moment. It is most doubtful that a young man in his fifteenth year could fully comprehend the meaning of what he had just seen, and it was likewise most improbable that he would have been able to analyze the ultimate implications of that which he had witnessed. With the passage of time, however, the Prophet attained an undeniable comprehension of the nature of God and his interaction with man. This understanding caused him to alter his own life in compliance to the will of the Master” (41)
He quotes or cites 1832, November 9, 1835, Oliver Cowdery in 1834, 1840 (Orson Pratt), the 1843 Pittsburgh Gazette, William Smith from 1883 and 1894; as well as John Taylor in JD 21. 161. He also quotes the Dec. 1842 emendations by Willard Richards (41, citing Dean Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, volume 1. 273, note 1)

'''2005''' Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Continuing the Program of the Prophet”, in Joseph Smith and the Doctrinal Restoration. The 34th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Deseret Book 2005): 34-45.
“Based on records that have survived, Joseph Smith’s personal involvement in writing history began in November 1832 when he commenced an autobiography that he wrote partly with his own pen and dictated other portions to his clerk, Frederick G. Williams….He also wrote an account of his First Vision in this manuscript, which is the only account of that vision in his own handwriting” (35).
“Although the 1832 autobiography was not published during the life of Joseph Smith, concepts included in that recorded were included in a missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt in 1840. This pamphlet, entitled ‘An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions,’ was based upon information that Elder Pratt had learned from Joseph Smith and was the first publication by a Latter-day Saint of the Prophet’s First Vision” (35-6)
Backman points out that portions of Orson Pratt’s pamphlet “were included in Joseph Smith’s Wentworth Letter”, published in March 1, 1842 (36).
Cites 1838 history (40)

'''2005''' Guy Dorius, “’Now This Caused us to Marvel’: The Breadth of God’s Heaven and the Depth of His Mercy”, in Joseph Smith and the Doctrinal Restoration. The 34th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Deseret Book 2005): 144-156. “Of some eight contemporary accounts of the First Vision, five of them reveal that Joseph had a concern for the state of his soul and his future status, and that he longed for a forgiveness of his sins” (147). “Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve commented on this fact after studying different versions of the vision: ‘I read an account that I had not seen before in which he emphasized that he went to the grove, not simply to know which church to join. In fact, in that particular account, that’s hardly mentioned. It was that he felt overcome by the need to be forgiven and to have his sins washed away and a sense that there was no way he knew how to do that. In the visitation, he was told that his sins were forgiven’” (147, citing “the transcript of remarks made at the unveiling of The Vision statue in the Joseph Smith Building, Brigham Young University, on October 17, 1997” (156, note 10).
Cites William Smith, 1893 (148)
He refers his readers to Backman, “Awakenings …. “ BYU Studies 1969 and James Allen, “Eight Contemporary Accounts….” Improvement Era 1970.

'''2005 ''' Stephen C. Harper, “On the Eve of the First Vision,” in Joseph. Exploring the Life and Ministry of the Prophet. Edited by Susan Easton Black and Andrew C. Skinner (Deseret Book 2005): 28-35. He cites William Smith account of 1883; Lucy Mack Smith’s account, and the New York Spectator of 1843.

'''2005''' Dean Jessee, “The Earliest Documents Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,’ in Opening the Heavens. Accounts of Divine Manifestations. 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch (Deseret Book and BYU, 2005): 1-33.

'''2005''' James B. Allen and John W. Welch, “The Appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith in 1820”, in Opening the Heavens. Accounts of Divine Manifestations. 1820-1844, edited by John W. Welch (Deseret Book and BYU, 2005): 35-75.

'''2005''' Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith. Rough Stone Rolling. A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder (New York: Alfred E. Knopf 2005): 35-41.

'''2005''' The LDS Church website Josephsmith.net was announced in the Ensign October 2005: 78; full discussion, Ensign (October 2006): 46-9.
Website includes references to the following First Vision accounts: 1832, 1842 (Wentworth Letter), 1840 (Orson Pratt), 1851 (Pearl of Great Price). 
:CHURCH INSTITUTE MANUAL - Church History in the Fulness of Times—Joseph Smith; Chapter Three, The First Vision
:http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/ChrchHstryInst32502000/Chapters/ChrchHstryInst32502000_06.pdf

'''2005''' Ronald O. Barney, “The First Vision. Searching for the Truth”, Ensign (January 2005): 14-19. “During the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the story of his First Vision was told in print several times, by him (in 1832, 1835, 1838–39, and 1842), or by others who had heard his account and retold it (in 1840, 1842, 1843, and 1844). All originals of the Prophet’s accounts are located in the Joseph Smith Papers, Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Photocopies or transcripts of the Prophet’s originals appear in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, ed. Dean C. Jessee (2002).” (18, note 2). He also quotes from Lucy Mack Smith (1853), but not in reference to the first vision, but rather to his meditative state as a child.

'''2004''' Robert L. Millet, Getting at the Truth Responding to Difficult Questions about LDS Beliefs (Salt Lake City, Utah Deseret Book Company 2004), 143-45. “3. Aren't there differences in detail between the varying accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision? There are several accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision, four of which were dictated by him. These four accounts were recorded in 1832, 1835, 1838 (the canonized account contained in the Pearl of Great Price), and 1842 (from the Wentworth Letter). The few differences between the accounts are minute and in most cases reflect a variation in tone or intent dependent upon the audience.” Millet then quotes the passage from Anderson, “Parallel Prophets” (1985).

'''2004''' David Whittaker, “Orson Pratt’s [An] Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions: A Seminal Scottish Imprint in Early Mormon History”, Mormon Historical Studies 5.2 (Fall 2004): 79-100.
“Prior to Orson Pratt’s Edinburgh pamphlet, [1840] the account had not appeared in print, although there were at least three earlier manuscript accounts of it”. The footnote to this lists the 1832, and Nov. 9, 1835 accounts. Whittaker also refers his readers to Dean Jessee, ‘Early Accounts (1969); James Allen “The Significance…” (1966); James Allen “Emergence…” (1980); Milt Backman, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1980); James Allen “Eight Contemporary Accounts…” Improvement Era (1970); Alexander Baugh, ‘Parting the Veil” BYU Studies (1999). He also refers to “tantalizing references to early visions through oral presentations by Joseph Smith before 1840”, citing letters by W.W. Phelps in 1835, and Parley Pratt in 1836.

'''2014''' "First Vision Accounts," ''Gospel Topics'', LDS.org {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng}}
}}

Joseph F. Smith's Attempt at Suppressing the 1832 Account of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:09:48Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | [[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|The Church's Treatment of the Accounts]] | Joseph F. Smith
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Critics allege that Joseph F. Smith suppressed the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision.
----
====It is not known who removed the pages from the book or why, nor is it known when or why they were restored to the book. The removal may have been done by Joseph Fielding Smith, Earl E. Olson, or A. William Lund.====

From [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832#!/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832&p=3 ''History, circa Summer 1832''] on the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' site (click the Source Notes tab):
<blockquote>
Photocopy and microfilm images of the book, as well as an inspection of the conservation work now present in the volume, indicate that the text block separated from the binding at some point. Also, the initial three leaves containing the history were excised from the volume. The eight inscribed leaves in the back of the volume may have been cut out at the same time. Manuscript evidence suggests that these excisions took place in the mid-twentieth century. A tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930. The three leaves of the history certainly had been removed by 1965, when they were described as “cut out,” although they were archived together with the letterbook. The size and paper stock of the three excised leaves match those of the other leaves in the book. Also, the cut and tear marks, as well as the inscriptions in the gutters of the three excised leaves, match those of the remaining leaf stubs, confirming their original location in the book. The three leaves were later restored to the volume, apparently in the 1990s. This restoration was probably part of a larger conservation effort that took place, in which the entire volume was rebound, including binding the formerly loose index of letters. The first gathering, which contains the history, was slightly trimmed in connection with this conservation work. The volume shows marked browning, brittleness, and wear. It is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody. <ref>[http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832#!/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832&p=3 History, circa Summer 1832], ''The Joseph Smith Papers''.</ref>
</blockquote>

Stan Larson adds more perspective following that of the Joseph Smith Papers team:

<blockquote>
Although the editors of the Histories volume of the Joseph Smith Papers do not discuss why the 1832 history was excised, we can speculate about who might have removed the leaves, and why. Because we know that the missing pages were kept in the office safe of Joseph Fielding Smith, it is unlikely that the leaves were removed simply in accordance with the archival practice of separating collectionsbased on content. We can also surmise that one of the senior members of the Church Historian’s Office would have been responsible for the decision to keep the pages separate; it was probably Joseph Fielding Smith himself, but could possibly have been Earl E. Olson or A. William Lund.<ref>Robin Jensen, lead archivist for ''The Joseph Smith Papers Project'',
confirmed in an informal telephone [to Larson] conversation on December 20, 2012, that
this is a plausible scenario.</ref> There are no available records of the reasoning behind the decision to keep the 1832 account from becoming widely known, but the history of denying researchers access to the account suggests some uneasiness about its contents. Some time during the 1940s or early 1950s, Joseph Fielding Smith<ref>When Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the LDS Church in 1970, the personal safe in his office was moved into the First Presidency’s walk-in vault. The exact time that the 1832 account was put into the Joseph Fielding Smith office safe and the date that he showed the history to Levi Edgar Young
would probably be found in the Joseph Fielding Smith Collection, catalogued as Ms 4250 at the Church History Library Archives. On December 11, 2012 the writer sent to Richard E. Turley a written request for permission to read the diaries (either photocopies or microfilm) of Joseph Fielding Smith from 1930 to 1954, but this request was denied.</ref>showed Levi Edgar Young (who was then the senior president of the First Council of the Seventy) this 1832 account of the First Vision. LaMar Petersen, an organist and music teacher by profession but an amateur Mormon historian by avocation, had a meeting with Young on February 3, 1953, and took the following notes:

"A list of 5 questions was presented. Bro. Young indicated some surprise at the nature of the questions but said he heartily approved of them being asked. Sa[i]d they were important, fundamental, were being asked more by members of the Church, and should be asked. Said the Church should have a committee available where answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding (Smith) because he was laughed at and put off. His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History reference to “documents from which these writings were compiled.” Asked to see them. told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a “strange” account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. remains unused, unknown.<ref>Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, ''Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision; Also a Critical Study of the First Vision'' (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Co., [1965]), 4, with the quotation being based on notes made by Petersen of the interview with Levi Edgar Young. Emphasis is in the original, but that emphasis is probably due to the Tanners, who added the full caps and underlining. Levi Edgar Young was wrong about the date of the “Strange” account of the First Vision, since we now know that it was written in 1832, not 1837 or 1838. </ref>"

Thirty-four years later, Petersen wrote his memories of this same episode:

"The most noteworthy [meetings with LDS General Authorities] were six sessions in which my wife and I spent with Levi Edgar Young in 1952. He was forthright in discussing Mormon problems in history and theology, but always in loyal church terms. He told us that he had been defended before the First Presidency by his “buffers”—Apostles [Joseph F.] Merrill, [Charles A.] Callis, and [John A.] Widtsoe. He told us of a “strange account” (Young’s own term) of the First Vision, which he thought was written in Joseph’s own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years in a locked vault. He declined to tell us details, but stated that it did not agree entirely with the official version. Jesus was the center of the vision, but God was not mentioned. I respected Young’s wish that the information be withheld until after his death.<ref> LaMar Petersen, The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry (Salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 2000), xii. Petersen gave the year as 1952, instead of February 3, 1953. Since he had six separate sessions with Levi Edgar Young, these meetings could have covered late 1952 as well as early 1953. The other option is that the 1952 date is an error in the memory of the nonagenarian Petersen.</ref>"

Even though Levi Edgar Young told LaMar Petersen that he had read the “strange account” of the First Vision, he had been instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained,” and accordingly did not divulge the contents to anyone. However, while not providing any detailed information about this “strange account” of the First Vision, Young did disclose that it described a vision of only Jesus, without any mention of God. Petersen kept this information confidential until Young’s death in December 1963. In early 1964, Petersen told Jerald and Sandra Tanner about this “strange account” of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith, asking for an opportunity to see this early account. Joseph Fielding Smith did not know exactly what Levi Edgar Young had told LaMar Petersen, and he refused to let the Tanners see the 1832 history. However, about this same time Joseph Fielding Smith relinquished the three leaves of the excised 1832 history from his private custody within his office safe and transferred it back to the regular Church Historian’s collection. Then he authorized Earl E. Olson, his Assistant Church Historian, to show the newly available leaves to Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU graduate student working on his thesis. Cheesman explained that Olson demonstrated how the pages “matched with [the] edge of the journal to prove location” in the Joseph Smith letterbook.<ref>Paul R. Cheesman, “An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions” (unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965), 126. Cheesman thought that this six-page account was written about 1833. In a telephone conversation with the writer on December 15, 2012, his widow, Millie Foster Cheesman, stated that in contrast to the complete restriction placed on Fawn M. Brodie (a niece of President David O. McKay), Cheesman was given full access, allowing him to transcribe the 1832 account of the First Vision.</ref> As the result of this assistance, Cheesman prepared a typescript in his 1965 BYU master’s thesis on Joseph Smith’s visions.<ref> Two decades later Cheesman published his thesis as a hardback book, ''The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith'' (Provo: Eagle Systems International, 1988).</ref> Later that same year Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner were the first to publish the text of the 1832 account, using Cheesman’s imperfect transcript. Four years later Dean C. Jessee published his important article in Brigham Young University Studies, with an accurate transcript of the text.<ref>Dean C. Jessee, “The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” ''BYU Studies'' 9 (Spring 1969): 275–94.</ref><ref> Stan Larson, "Another Look at Joseph Smith's First Vision" ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'', 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014): 37-62 (41-43).</ref></blockquote>

Anti-Latter-day Saints Jerald and Sandra Tanner made a similar statement in their book ''Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?'':
<blockquote>
"Strange" Accounts

For years the Mormon leaders publicly maintained that Joseph Smith told only one story concerning the First Vision. Preston Nibley declared: "Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story--..." (Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1944, page 30)

At the very time that Preston Nibley made this statement the Mormon leaders were suppressing at least two accounts of the First Vision which were written prior to the account which Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons. Levi Edgar Young, who was the head of the Seven Presidents of Seventies in the Mormon Church, told LaMar Petersen that he had examined a "strange" account of the First Vision and was told not to reveal what it contained. The following is from notes by LaMar Petersen of an interview with Levi Edgar Young which was held on Feb.3, 1953:

"A list of 5 questions was presented. Bro. Young indicated some surprise at the nature of the questions but said he heartily approved of them being asked. Said they were important, fundamental, were being asked more by members of the Church, and should be asked. Said the Church should have a committee available where answers to such questions could be obtained. He has quit going down with his own questions to Brother Joseph Fielding (Smith) because he was laughed at and put off.

"His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts' Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown." <ref>Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Chapter 8: The First Vision," Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?</ref>
</blockquote>

====Response to the critical perspective====

It does seem very likely that someone from the Church Historian's Office was responsible for the excision of the leafs from the notebook. We don't know exactly who did it, but it does seem reasonable to assume that it was kept in the safe because of a discomfort with the 1832 accounts' content. We can be certain that at least the keeping of the account in the safe wasn't contested by Joseph Fielding Smith. But would this be for entirely nefarious purposes? Not necessarily. We might consider the words of Latter-day Saint historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bushman Richard L. Bushman]:

<blockquote>
Now the Church Museum is going beyond this one familiar account to draw on multiple accounts of the First Vision. This may surprise some Church members. Not everyone has been aware of the existence of these other records and may be startled to discover that other versions exist. Contemplating what to say to you today, I thought you might be interested in hearing how it came about that we have these other accounts when for so long there was just one. Even more important, how does this new knowledge affect our understanding of Joseph Smith and the Gospel?
 
The discovery of nine versions of the First Vision is the result of work by historians in response to a challenge from critics of the Church. The standard account found in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church is so rich and interesting that for many years we were content to rely on it alone. Then in the middle of the twentieth century, a number of critics of Joseph Smith, including Fawn Brodie author of a biography of the Prophet, asked why was the account of the First Vision not written until 1838. Brodie thought that so spectacular an event should have been recorded earlier--if it had actually happened. Brodie hypothesized that Joseph Smith made up the whole story in 1838 to reinvigorate belief at a time when many of his followers were falling away. The first vision, she argued, was a fabrication meant to strengthen the faith of his wavering followers.
 
Church historians of course could not leave that challenge unanswered. They thought Brodie made a weak argument but without evidence of an earlier account, her conjecture might persuade some. And so the hunt was on. The historians began to scour the archives for earlier references to the First Vision. And sure enough, one by one, other accounts began to turn up, one in 1835, another as early at 1832, and others scattered through his life. Brodie’s claim that Joseph had said nothing about the First Vision until 1838 was effectively dispelled. He wrote the first of these accounts in 1832 as a start on a history of the church which he hoped to continue in a daily journal.<ref>Richard Bushman, "[https://devotional.byuh.edu/node/1514 What Can We Learn From the First Vision]" ''BYU Hawaii Speeches'' (15 November 2016).</ref></blockquote>

We might now consider the words of Stan Larson in conjunction with Richard Bushman's comments here. Could it be that Joseph Fielding Smith, upon learning that Paul Cheesman was writing his work on the First Vision and that faithful historians were trying to answer charges against the Church in the Gospel, surrendered the account knowing that it would be in trusted hands? It's a theory that at the least fits the evidence but to speculate about his motives without explicit evidence can be tricky so this theory should be considered as just that for now, a theory--but a theory that we can use to counter those critics that seek to deliberately assign nefarious motives without evidence to malign past presidents of the Church.

A final question we can deal with is if the discomfort exhibited towards the 1832 account and its supposed mention of only Jesus Christ was warranted. That is discussed more in detail elsewhere on the wiki:
{{Main|Joseph Smith's First Vision/Accounts/1832/Only one Personage appears}}
</onlyinclude>
{{endnotes sources}}
[[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]

[[es:Pregunta: ¿José Fielding Smith eliminar la cuenta de 1832 de José Smith Primera Visión desde su letterbook original y ocultarla en su caja fuerte?]]
[[pt:Pergunta: Será que Joseph Fielding Smith remover a conta de 1832 de Joseph Smith A Primeira Visão de seu original carta-livro e escondê-lo em seu cofre?]]

The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:09:05Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | The Church's Treatment of the Accounts
{{Header}}
Critics allege that Joseph F. Smith sought to suppress the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision. They also allege that the Church has sought to hide information regarding the different accounts from Church members. The following two pages respond to those arguments.
----
* [[Joseph F. Smith's Attempt at Suppressing the 1832 Account of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
* [[The First Vision Accounts in Church Publications]]
* [[Gordon B. Hinckley's Claims in ''Truth Restored'']]

Joseph Smith's First Vision and Latter-day Saint Relations with Other Christians

2026-04-02T15:08:52Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Latter-day Saint Relations with Other Christians
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Christians take umbrage to the fact that Joseph Smith's canonized account of his First Vision has Jesus Christ saying that all the Christian creeds of Joseph Smith's day were an "abomination" in his sight. This page clarifies the Lord's words in the account with the hope of building better relationships with other Christians.
----
One of the most frequently cited—and often misunderstood—statements in Latter-day Saint scripture appears in Joseph Smith–History 1:19, where Joseph Smith records:

<blockquote>I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Joseph Smith–History 1:19)</blockquote>

Later in 1842, Joseph Smith expressed the same idea in language that appears deliberately restrained, likely reflecting sensitivity to his broader public audience. Rather than repeating the sharper wording of earlier accounts, he summarized the message of the heavenly personages by stating that existing religious denominations held incorrect doctrines and that none were recognized by God as His Church or kingdom.

Critics sometimes interpret this language as a blanket condemnation of historic Christianity or an expression of hostility toward Christians generally. A closer reading of the historical context, the nature of creeds, and Latter-day Saint theology suggests a more nuanced interpretation.

The statement comes specifically from Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 account of the First Vision, written nearly two decades after the experience and during a period of intense persecution and institutional consolidation for the early Church. This account differs in tone from earlier narratives, placing greater emphasis on apostasy, authority, and doctrinal corruption. As with other historical documents, the rhetorical force of this account must be understood within its context rather than read as a systematic theological judgment on all Christian belief across time.

Historically, Christian creeds are formal statements of belief designed to define orthodoxy and establish doctrinal boundaries. From the Latter-day Saint perspective, the problem is not that creeds attempt to articulate belief, but that they function as fixed, authoritative formulations that limit future revelation. Joseph Smith later criticized creeds for “setting up stakes” that restrict how far divine understanding may progress. In this sense, the objection is structural rather than personal: creeds are seen as replacing continuing revelation with inherited formulations.

Additionally, several creedal definitions—particularly those concerning the nature of God—conflict directly with distinctive Latter-day Saint teachings. Classical formulations of God as immaterial, without body, parts, or passions differ fundamentally from the restored doctrine of an embodied Father and Son. From within Latter-day Saint theology, such differences are not minor interpretive disagreements but reflect what is understood as a post-apostolic departure from original gospel truths.

The nineteenth-century religious environment also plays an important role in understanding the language of “abomination.” Joseph Smith lived amid intense denominational competition, fragmentation, and polemic. By his day, multiple confessions and theological systems claimed exclusive authority while sharply disagreeing with one another. Since Jesus condemns contention (3 Nephi 11:29), the First Vision account frames this condition as evidence of religious confusion resulting from reliance on human tradition rather than divine revelation.

Importantly, Latter-day Saint thinkers have long cautioned against reading the passage as a condemnation of individual Christians or as a denial that truth exists outside the restored Church. Latter-day Saints have consistently affirmed that other Christian traditions possess elements of truth, moral insight, and sincere devotion to God. The criticism, therefore, is aimed at systems that claim finality and authority without priesthood keys or ongoing revelation, not at the faith or sincerity of believers themselves.
Modern scholarship further emphasizes that the phrase “all their creeds” should not be read as a technical evaluation of every historical confession, nor as an attempt by Joseph Smith to engage in patristic theology. Rather, it reflects the prophetic claim at the heart of the Restoration: that God had spoken again, and that existing religious frameworks were insufficient to contain that revelation.

Thus, the characterization of Christian creeds as an “abomination” emerges from a specific historical moment and theological perspective within the Restoration. It reflects Latter-day Saint objections to creedal finality, inherited authority, and certain doctrinal formulations, rather than an indiscriminate rejection of Christianity or Christian believers. When read carefully and in context, the statement underscores the Restoration’s emphasis on continuing revelation rather than serving as a polemical dismissal of the broader Christian tradition.
{{Back to Top 2}}

Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:08:27Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Historical Challenges
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Critics allege that there are anachronisms or other historical problems in the accounts that make the reality of the Vision unlikely. This page gathers challenges to the reality of Joseph Smith's First Vision and responds to them.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Smith Family Presence in Palmyra in 1820===
| state = closed
| content = It is claimed that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible. Specifically, it has been claimed that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported.

Documentary evidence came to light in 1970 to show that the Smiths were living in a log cabin within the Palmyra borders as late as April 1822.<ref name="tax"> Palmyra, N.Y., Copies of Old Village Records, 1793–1867 (Salt Lake City: Church Genealogical Dept., 1970), film 812869</ref> This discovery led Donald Enders, of the Church’s Historical Department, to do an in-depth study of this matter and publish an article in the Church’s Ensign magazine that concluded "Although the farm was located on the Manchester side of the Palmyra-Manchester township line, the Smith’s inadvertently built their cabin on the Palmyra side" on property owned by someone else.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Donald L. Enders|article=[=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/08/a-snug-log-house?lang=eng A Snug Log House]|date=August 1985|start=16}}</ref>

Road tax records that the Church's Genealogical Department copied indicates Joseph Smith, Sr. was in Palmyra Road District #26 from 1817 till 1822.<ref name="tax"></ref> Since the road tax records were done in April, this indicates that Father Smith did not arrive in Palmyra to stay until after April 1816 and yet before April 1817.

The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property. Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.

Moving to Manchester, it seems probable that the Smiths did not formally move to the new frame house on the east side of Stafford Road until after the winter of 1822. The log house that everyone says they built in 1818 or 1819 was inadvertently built on the wrong side of the Farmington (Manchester)-Palmyra line. Such an "accident" is entirely possible in a day when boundary lines may not have been well established. This would mean that the Smith family did not actually dwell on the Manchester side of the line until after November of 1822, when according to Mother Smith, "the frame was raised, and all the materials necessary for its [their frame house] speedy completion were procured."<ref>{{Biosketch1|start=87}}</ref> "An unidentifiable newspaper article on microfilm at Brigham Young University library" mentions that after some time, it was discovered that the cabin originally built by the Smiths was not on the land originally contracted by them. Arrangements were then made with Samuel Jennings to purchase the land on which the log cabin was erected.<ref>Rand Hugh Packer, "History of Four Mormon Landmarks In Western New York: The Joseph Smith Farm,…," A Thesis Presented to the Department of Church History and Doctrine (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, August 1975), 43.</ref>

Finding the Smiths not on their property by just under 60 feet, the Palmyra road tax overseers recorded the Smiths on their road tax lists until 1822 when the Smiths were able to raise the frame of a larger house (this time, on their property), move into the house, and work to complete the house after the move.<ref>{{LucyMackSmith-Nibley| start=86|end=87}}; See also Packer, thesis, 43.</ref> This move occurred before the tax liens were completed in 1823. The tax liens on the property increased $300 to reflect the move.<ref>Manchester, New York, Assessment Roll, Ontario County Historical Society, 16–17.</ref> The move to the log house by the Smiths in 1818 was considered a move to Manchester by Joseph Jr., in his history, for it was a move to their farm where he was going to labor for many years to come. An imaginary line separated them from physically being in Manchester.

Contemporary eyewitnesses, who were critical of Joseph Smith, do indeed verify that the Smiths were in the area where Joseph said they were. Modern critics now try to claim that he was not there. The evidence proves these new critics wrong.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Becoming Affiliated with Methodism After 1820===
| state = closed
| content = The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contains the assertion:
<blockquote>
While [Joseph] almost certainly never formally joined the Methodist church, he did associate himself with the Methodists eight years after he said he had been instructed by God not to join any established denomination.
</blockquote>

In one critical work, the author claims:
<blockquote>

Although Joseph later wrote that his "Father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith,"—rather than emphasizing his mother’s membership—the death of Alvin and the arrival of Stockton seem to have driven both Smith and his father (who glided easily between religious skepticism and folk mysticism) farther from the Presbyterian church and its Calvinistic
doctrine. It was probably during this period that Joseph "became partial to the Methodist sect," whose opposition to Reformed doctrine was notorious.<ref>{{CriticalWork:Matzko:Young Joseph Smith|pages=71}}</ref>
</blockquote>

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Joseph was telling the truth when he said that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" in 1820. Critics who attempt to place this event later in Joseph's life do so in order to discredit the story of the First Vision.

====A contemporary account places the date in the 1819-1820 timeframe====
The following is taken from a hostile source, Orsamus Turner (Orsamus Turner, ''Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase'' (Buffalo 1849), p. 429):
<blockquote>
And a most unpromising recipient of such a trust was this same Joseph Smith, Jr., afterwards Jo Smith." He was lounging, idle, (not to say vicious,) and possessed of less than ordinary intellect. The author's own recollections of him are distinct. He used to come into the village of Palmyra, with little jags of wood, from his back-woods home; sometimes patronizing a village grocery too freely; sometimes finding an odd job to do about the store of Seymour Scovell; and once a week he would stroll into the office of the old Palmyra Register for his father's paper. How impious in us young "dare devils" *
</blockquote>

Turner then inserts a footnote which dates this to 1819-1820:
<blockquote>
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Here the author remembers to have first seen the family, in the winter of '19, and '20, in a rude log house, with but a small spot of underbrush around it.
</blockquote>

Turner continues:
<blockquote>
...to once in a while blacken the face of the then meddling, inquisitive lounger—but afterwards prophet—with the old-fashioned balls, when he used to put himself in the way of the working of the old-fashioned Ramage press! The editor of the Cultivator at Albany—esteemed as he may justly consider himself for his subsequent enterprise and usefulness—may think of it with contrition and repentance, that he once helped thus to disfigure the face of a prophet, and, remotely, the founder of a state.

But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.
</blockquote>

It is also known that the Methodists held at least one camp meeting in the Palmyra area in mid-1820, prior to their purchase of the property on Vienna Road.

Does this mean Joseph became a Methodist?

Turner's source is not talking about Joseph Smith acting as an exhorter in evening meetings of the Methodist denomination, but rather the evening meetings spoken of were the gatherings of the juvenile debate club. This conclusion is supported by a newspaper article in the Western Farmer which announced that the Palmyra debate club would begin meeting in the local schoolhouse on 25 January 1822.<ref> {{Periodical:Western Farmer:1822}}</ref> We learn from firsthand witnesses that children attended school in Palmyra during the winter months and through the end of March.<ref>{{Book:Anderson:History of Joseph Smith by His Mother|pages=433}} {{CitationSource:John H. Gilbert:1892|pages=2-3}}</ref> Since school was in session during the same time period when the debate club was meeting it would not be possible for them occupy the same building at the same time. Therefore, the debate club would have to meet at the schoolhouse during evening hours.

It should also be noted that no critic or advocate of this theory has ever bothered to explain just how Joseph Smith became a Methodist exhorter without first becoming a Methodist. And remember, Pomeroy Tucker stated quite clearly in his book that even though Joseph attended Methodist meetings he did not convert to that faith.<ref>{{CriticalWork:Tucker:Origin Rise and Progress of Mormonism|pages=17-18}} Reproduced in {{Book:Vogel:EMD:Short|pages=94-95|vol=3}}</ref>

====When Did Methodists Acquire Property Near Palmyra to Hold Their Camp Meetings?====
Some wish to discount the story of the First Vision by asserting that Joseph's claim that the "unusual excitement" about religion that "commenced with the Methodists" could not have occurred. Specifically, it is claimed that Methodist camp meetings would not have occurred until after July 1821, since the Methodists did not acquire property in the area until that time.

The Wikipedia article "First Vision" (as of May 18, 2009) contained the unsupported assertion in a footnote (the assertion that this was Joseph's "first dabble with Methodism" has since been removed):
<blockquote>
Bushman, 69-70. The Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, so it is likely that Smith's first dabble with Methodism occurred during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra.
</blockquote>

The Bushman reference (''Rough Stone Rolling'') states nothing about the Methodists' acquisition of property, nor does it claim that Joseph's "first dabble" with Methodism occurred during the 1824 revival. The statement was simply asserted by the editor of the wiki article. (Note: Sometime prior to September 2009, another Wikipedia editor has since replaced the unsupported assertion above with the citation by Dr. Matzko below).

Matzko makes the same assertion regarding the property on Vienna Road, however, he backs up it with a citation. According to Matzko:
<blockquote>
Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost
certainly held after that date. [citing Wesley Walters, "A Reply to Dr. Bushman," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'' 4, no. 1 (Spring 1969): 99.]
</blockquote>

====The Methodists were already holding "camp meetings" in 1820====
In contrast to the Wikipedia article, however, Matzko does provide a balancing reference to the 1820 Methodist camp meeting:
<blockquote>
D. Michael Quinn argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of 1820 can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land.<ref>{{DialogueP | author=D. Michael Quinn | article=Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist "Camp Meeting" in 1820|date=December 20, 2006|num=3|pdf=http://dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/e4.pdf}} expanded version ("definitive") (accessed March 6, 2007).</ref>palm
</blockquote>

One need not refer to Quinn, however, to demonstrate that at least one Methodist camp meeting took play near Palymra in 1820. The ''Palymra Register'' notes the occurrence of a Methodist camp meeting in the area in June 1820. From the ''Palmyra Register'' June 28, 1820:
<blockquote>
''Effects of Drunkenness.''—DIED at the house of Mr. Robert M'Collum, in this town, on the 26th inst. ''James Couser'', aged about forty years. The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. M'Collum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication. He with his companion who was also in the same debasing condition, called for supper, which was granted. They both stayed all night—called for breakfast next morning—when notified that it was ready, the deceased was found wrestling with his companion, whom he flung with the greatest ease,—he suddenly sunk down upon a bench,—was taken with an epileptic fit, and immediately expires.—It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of the community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.<ref>''Palmyra Register'' (June 28, 1820): 2.</ref>
</blockquote>

We find in the subsequent issue that the Methodist's objected to the paper's implication of what happened at their camp meeting, and the ''Register'' published something of a retraction. From the ''Palmyra Register'' July 5, 1820:
<blockquote>
"'''Plain Truth'''" is received. By this communication, as well as by the remarks of some of our neighbors who belong to the Society of Methodists, we perceive that our remarks accompanying the notice of the unhappy death of James Couser, contained in our last, have not been correctly understood. "Plain truth" says, we committed "an error in point of fact," in saying the Couser "obtained his liquor at the camp-ground." By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of ''them'', but at the grog-shops that were established at, or ''near'' if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for worship of their God. Neither did we intend to implicate ''them'' by saying that "the intemperate, the dissolute, &c. resort to their meetings."—And if so we have been understood by any one of that society, we assure them they have altogether mistaken our meaning.<ref>''Palmyra Register'' (July 5, 1820): 2.</ref>
</blockquote>

====The Methodists were clearly holding camp meeting prior to their acquisition of property on Vienna road in 1821====

*The ''Palmya Register'' clearly records that the Methodist's were holding a camp meeting in June 1820. This contradicts the assertion that "Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
*The newspaper did not report on this meeting directly—the camp meeting only became notable when a complaint was made by the Methodists regarding the association of the meeting with the death of a drunken man. This contradicts the critics' assertion that the [[No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications?|absence of mention of a camp meeting or "revival" in the local newspaper means that one never occurred]].
* If the meetings were common then they were not news—they were only reported when something unusual happened, like a death. This suggests that not only were Methodists meeting locally in 1820 (something proven by the ''Palmyra Register'' account), but such meetings were probably a frequent occurrence.

====Did Joseph Smith join the Methodists as an "exhorter" years after being told not to join another church during the First Vision?====

Joseph was not a "licensed exhorter" for the Methodists, but instead participated in a "juvenile debating club." Although the ''Palmyra Register'' does not specify the location of the Methodist camp meeting in 1820, we do have evidence that meetings were indeed occurring on Vienna Road. John Matzko cites Orsamus Turner,

<blockquote>
At some point between 1821 and 1829, Smith served as "a very passable exhorter" at Methodist camp meetings "away down in the woods, on the Vienna Road."<ref>{{Dialogue1|author=John Matzko|article=The Encounter of the Young Joseph Smith with Presbyterianism|vol=40|num=3|date=Fall 2007|start=78 note 2, citing Orsamus Turner, ''History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, and Morris' Reserve'' (Rochester, N.Y.: William Alling, 1851), 214, in {{EMD|vol=3|pages=50}}}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

It should be noted that Matzko's assertion that this occurred "between 1821 and 1829" is not supported by the source, since Turner never specifies the timeframe during which Joseph acted as an "exhorter." Despite the fact that Turner is a hostile source , the full quote does contain some important additional information,

<blockquote>
But Joseph had a little ambition, and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school-house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; amid, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.<ref>Orsamus Turner (1801-1855) "Origin of the Mormon Imposture," ''Littell's Living Age'' Vol. XXX, No. 380 (August 1851): 429.</ref>
</blockquote>

Joseph could not have been a "licensed exhorter" without being a member of the Methodist Church. This quote presents critics with a dilemma (as can be seen in the Wikipedia article "First Vision"). Critics wish to demonstrate the Joseph was associated with the Methodists after being instructed during the First Vision not to join any church. They attempt to do this by minimizing the mention of a "debate club" and instead imply that Joseph was a formal "exhorter" in Methodist meetings. It is noteworthy, however, that even critic Dan Vogel states that Joseph "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite."<ref>{{EarlyMormonDocs1|vol=3|start=50, n. 15}}</ref>

This is consistent with Joseph Smith's own history, in which he stated that he became "partial to the Methodist sect" and that he "felt some desire to be united with them."

<blockquote>
During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.<ref>Joseph Smith - History 1:8.</ref>
</blockquote>

====Did Joseph Smith become a member of Emma Hale Smith's Methodist congregation in 1828, eight years after the First Vision?====
When the procedures and policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church are examined, it is not possible that Joseph could have joined as related in the story given by one of his critics.

Joseph and Hiel Lewis were cousins of Emma Hale Smith; they would have been aged 21 and 11 respectively in 1828, and in 1879 reported:

<blockquote>
...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in. <ref>{{CitationSource:Joseph and Hiel Lewis:1879}}</ref>
</blockquote>

However, the Lewis' account of Joseph's three-day membership leaves him neither the time, nor the searching assessment required to become a member of the Methodists. This scenario simply does not match how Methodists admitted or expelled members. At best, he was probably regarded as "on probation" or (in modern LDS parlance) "an investigator". The means by which the Methodists separated themselves from Joseph are inconsistent with him being a full member; they do, however, match how probationaries were handled, though in Joseph's case he seems to have had more abrupt and preemptory treatment than was recommended.

This, coupled with the late date of the reminiscences, the clearly hostile intent of the witnesses, and [[Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches#Sources_which_contradict_the_critics|multiple reports]] from both friendly and skeptical sources that claim Joseph never formally joined another religion make the critics' interpretation deeply suspect.

There is a marked absence of any ''other'' witnesses of Joseph's supposed membership and involvement.

The Lewis witness is late. There is a marked absence of any ''other'' witnesses of Joseph's supposed membership and involvement, even though there are many witnesses who ''could'' have given such testimony.

For example, Nathaniel Lewis, another family member, was a Methodist minister. In his 1834 affidavit against Joseph, he emphasized his "standing in the Methodist Episcopal Church" which led him to "suppose [Joseph] was careful how he conducted or expressed himself before me." Yet, though anxious to impugn Joseph's character, this Lewis said nothing about membership in (or expulsion) from the Methodists. <ref>{{CitationSource:Nathaniel C. Lewis:1834}}</ref>

Likewise, none of Emma's other family members said anything about a Methodist connection, though they were closest to and most aware of Joseph's actions at this juncture than at any other time. Yet, Isaac Hale, Alva Hale, Levi Lewis, and Sophia Lewis are silent on the matter of Joseph's Methodism.

====How quickly could one join the Methodists in the 1830s?====
As we examine Osmon Cleander Baker's ''A guide-book in the administration of the discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church'', we will discover that the scenario described by Joseph and Hiel Lewis of Joseph Smith's ejection from the Methodists simply does not match how Methodists admitted or expelled members. <ref>{{Book:Baker:Methodist Guide Book}} All citations in this article are from this work, unless otherwise footnoted. All italics are original; bold-face has been added.</ref> (This work dates to 1855, but it often invokes Wesley himself, and is a good first approximation of how Methodists saw such matters.)

The ''Guide-Book'' is clear that considerable time needs to elapse before one is formally admitted as a member. A six month probationary period was required in order to join the Methodists:

<blockquote>
[23] The regularly-constituted pastor is the proper authority to admit suitable persons to the communion of the Church. The preacher in charge, acting at first under the authority of Mr. Wesley, received members into the society, and severed their relations from the Church, according to his own convictions of duty. In 1784 the assistant was restricted from giving tickets to any, until they had been recommended by a leader with whom they had met, at least two months, on trial. In 1789 the term of probation was extended to six months....Hence, [24] since the organization of our Church, none could be received into full communion who had not previously been recommended by a leader; and, since 1840, it has been required that the applicant pass a satisfactory examination before the Church, respecting the correctness of his doctrine and his willingness to observe the rules of the Church....
</blockquote>

Joseph's experience would predate the 1840 requirement, but clearly the requirement of at least a six month probationary period was required, and this required a leader to meet with them and be recommended for membership. The Lewis' three days certainly make this impossible.

Orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived, but this still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph Smith did not have.

The ''Guide-Book'' indicates that orthodox Christians may have the waiting period waived:

<blockquote>
6. "Persons in good standing in other ''orthodox'' Chruches, who desire to unite with us, may, by giving satisfactory answers to the ''usual inquiries'', be received at once into full fellowship."....
</blockquote>

This still requires membership in an orthodox denomination, which Joseph did not have. Further, he clearly could not give the "satisfactory answers" to the types of questions which the ''Guide-Book'' recommends, since the Lewis brothers insist that he was unwilling to do so only three days later. Furthermore, Joseph's views were clearly not "orthodox" by Methodist standards.

Those who were not full members of the church were called "probationers," and at least six months was required to end a probationary period. The ''Guide-Book'' is again specific about the length of time required to pass this stage, and the searching examination of conduct and belief that Methodist groups required:

<blockquote>
[28]...it is a matter of vital importance to test, with deep scrutiny, the moral and Christian character of those who propose to enter her holy communion. No proselyte was admitted to Jewish fellowship without being well proved and instructed. The same care was observed by the early Christian Church. "None in those days," says Lord King, "were hastily advanced to the higher forms of Christianity, but according to their knowledge and merit, gradually [29] arrived thereto."...It is the prerogative of the preacher in charge alone to receive persons on trial. No one whose name is taken by a class-leader can be considered as a member on trial until the preacher recognizes the person as such....

[30] As the minister may not know whether the candidate makes a truthful declaration of his moral state, he is authorized "to admit none on trial except they are well recommended by one you know, or until they have met twice or thrice in class." As they are not supposed, at the time of joining on trial, to be acquainted with our doctrines, usages, and discipline, they are not required, at that time, to subscribe to our articles of religion and general economy; but if they propose to join in full connexion, "they must give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church."...

The Discipline does not specify the time when the probation shall terminate, but it has [31] fixed its minimum period. "Let none be received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met ''at least six months''."...
</blockquote>

Again, at least six months was required to end a probationary period. One could not even be a trial, or probationary member unless they were "well recommended" (which seems unlikely, given the reaction to those who ''did'' know about Joseph as soon as they heard) or had attended "twice or thrice in class"--this too seems unlikely given only three days of membership.

An earlier account from a Methodist magazine ''prior'' to 1828 also supports this reading. In a letter to the editor from a Methodist missionary in Connecticut, the missionary responds to the accusation by others (usually Calvinists) who claim the Methodists falsify their membership records: they are accused of counting only those who have been added, but subtracting those who had left. Part of the response includes line: ".... though the first six months of their standing is probationary, yet they are not during that time denied any of the privileges of our church" (page 33-34).

The letter writer speaks of a revival in New Haven, where he is based, in 1820. "My list of probationers, commencingt June 25, 1820, to this date [March 16, 1821], is one hundred and forty; between twelve and twenty of these have declined from us, some to the Congregationalists, and some back to the world, and some have removed, and one died in the triumphs of faith. I think we may count about one hundred and twenty since June last." (36-7)<ref>''The Methodist Magazine'' 5 (January 1822). Citation provided by Ted Jones. </ref>

It seems likely, then, that the same procedures would have been in place in Joseph's 1828 encounter with Methodism, which occurred squarely between this 1822 letter and the 1855 manual.

Methodists also regarded baptism as an essential part of becoming a member, and specifically barred probationers who were not baptized from full membership and participation:

<blockquote>
[32] Nor is it the order of the Church for probationers, who have never been baptized, to partake of the holy sacrament. The initiatory rite should first be administered before the person is admitted to all the distinguishing rites of the new covenant.
</blockquote>

Since we have no record that Joseph was baptized into Methodism or any other faith prior to his revelations and founding of a new religious movement, this is another bar to his membership with the Methodists. How did he compress his six-month probation, proper answers to all the questions, searching interview by his fellow parishioners, and his baptism, only to abandon the faith without complaint, all within three days?

The Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined. The ''Guide-Book'' was also clear that (save for immorality in preachers), the Methodist Church had no jurisdiction over acts committed before the member had joined:

:[90] Any crime, committed at however remote a period, if it be within the time in which the accused has been a member of the Church, is indictable; but it cannot extend to any period beyond membership....

Thus, nothing that Joseph had said or done prior to his membership could have been grounds for action. Thus, only the events of a scant three days were under the jurisdiction of the Methodists, ''if'' he had been accepted as a full member. (The Lewises even admit that nothing Joseph had said or done was cause for suspicion, because those who did not know him saw no cause for concern. It was only those who knew his past who were concerned.)

If, however, he was seen as a probationary or "person on trial," then the church and its leaders and members had every right to assess anything about him and decide if he merited membership.

Those who have not formally joined the Methodists could leave the group relatively easily. The ''Guide-Book'' is clear that those who have not formally joined the Methodists can leave the group relatively easily:

<blockquote>
[30] A mere probationer enters into no covenant with the Church. Every step he takes is preliminary to this, and either party may, at any time, quietly dissolve the relation between them without rupture or specific Church labour.

The Lewis brothers claim they gave Joseph a choice: (1) repent and change his ways; or (2) remove himself from association with them, by either (a) telling the class publicly that he was doing so; or (b) being subject to a disciplinary investigation. This matches how the ''Guide-Book'' recommends that probationers or "person[s] on trial" be handled:

[32] A person on trial cannot be arraigned before the society, or a select number of them, on definite charges and specifications. "If he walk disorderly, he is passed out by the door at which he came in. The pastor, upon the evidence and recommendation required in the Discipline, entered his name as a candidate, or probationer, for membership, and placed him in a class for religious training and improvement; now if his conduct be contrary to the gospel, or, in the language of our rule, if he 'walk disorderly [33] and will not be reproved,' it is the duty of the pastor to discontinue him, to erase his name from the class-book and probationers' list. This is not to be done rashly, or on suspicion, or slight evidence of misconduct. It is made the duty of his leader to report weekly to his pastor 'any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved.' This implies that the leader, on discovering an impropriety in his conduct, first conversed privately with him, and, on finding that he had done wrong, attempted to administer suitable reproof that he might be recovered. Had he received reproof, this had been the end of the matter; but he 'would not be reproved,'--would not submit to reproof,--and the leader therefore reports the case to the pastor. But it is evidently the design that after this first failure on the part of the leader, further efforts should be made by the pastor; for the rule, after providing that such conduct shall be made known to the pastor, adds: 'We will admonish him of the error of his ways. We will bear with him for a season. But, then, if he repent not, he hath no more place among us.' The pastor, on consultation with the leader and others when convenient in country societies, and with the [34] leaders' meeting, where there is one, determines on the proper course, and carries the determination into effect. Here is a just correspondence between rights and duties." - ''Plat. Meth.'', p. 87.
</blockquote>

In contrast to probationers, full members were ''required'' to undergo a disciplinary procedure. The ''Guide-Book'' is very clear:

<blockquote>
[35] When a Church relation is formed, the member, virtually, promises to observe the rules and usages of the society, and if he violates them, to submit to the discipline of the Church. And hence none can claim a withdrawal from the Church against whom charges have been preferred, or until the Church has had an opportunity to recognise the withdrawal. A solemn covenant cannot be dissolved until the parties are duly notified....
</blockquote>

How is this discipline to be handled? The ''Guide-Book'' contains extensive rules for managing such trials, and insists that such a trial is the only way to challenge the membership of a full member:

<blockquote>
[83] It is a principle clearly recognised by the Discipline of our Church, that no member, in full connexion, can be dropped or expelled by the preacher in charge until the select committee, or the society of which he is a member, declares, in due form, that he is guilty of the violation of some Scriptural or moral principle,, or some requisition of Church covenant....[96] The Discipline requires that an accused member shall be brought before "the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them." In either case it should be understood that '''only members in full connexion are intended'''....
</blockquote>

The "select committee" was a quasi-judicial body of church members assembled to hear such charges, assess the evidence, and affix punishment if necessary. The ''Guide-Book'' emphasizes that this important right had been explicitly defined after Joseph's time (in 1848). For full members, it is clearly seen as a privilege which cannot be abridged:

<blockquote>
[83] The restrictive rules guarantee, both to our ministers and members, the privilege of trial and of appeal; and the General Conference has explicitly declared that "it is the right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any member of said right."—''Rec. Gen. Con.'' [89] 1848, p. 73. The fact that the member is guilty of the violation of the rules of the Church must be formally proved before the body holding original jurisdiction in the case. If the administrator personally knows that the charges are substantially true, it does not authorize him to remove the accused member. The law recognises no member as guilty until the evidence of guilt is duly presented to the proper tribunal, and the verdict is rendered....
</blockquote>

Thus, even if the Lewis brothers had personal knowledge of Joseph's guilt, if he had been a full member, they could not have simply told him to leave.

Could Joseph just withdraw as a full member? The ''Guide-Book'' seems to rule this option out for full members:

<blockquote>
[108] If an accused member evades a trial by absenting himself after sufficient notice has been given, and without requesting any one to appear in his behalf, it does not preclude the necessity of a formal trial....
</blockquote>

Furthermore, the public removal in front of the congregation seems to be out of harmony with another rule regarding trials for full members:

<blockquote>
[110] It is highly improper, ordinarily, to conduct a trial in a public congregation. None should be present except the parties summoned; at least, unless they are members of the Church....
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Lucy Mack Smith's Alleged Late Affiliation with Presbyterianism===
| state = closed
| content = The Reverend Wesley Walters attempts to place Lucy's association with the Presbyterians at 1824, to coincide with the formal 1824 revival. If Lucy Mack Smith joined the Presbyterian Church in 1823, then this contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision (if he indeed had one) to no earlier than 1823. Critics act as if the matter has been settled the way the Reverend Wesley Walters hoped it would be--insisting that the 1824 date was the only viable one. This is false, and the weight of evidence is probably on the side of the "traditional" understanding of Lucy and at least some children as Presbyterians prior to an 1820 First Vision.

In 1987, Richard Bushman summarized the debates about Lucy's Presbyterianism to that point:

<blockquote>
In recounting her baptism around 1803, Lucy Smith by implication suggested a date for her membership in the Presbyterian church in Palmyra. She had searched for a minister who would baptize her without the requirement of commitment to one church. She found such a man, who left her "free in regard to joining any religious denomination." After this, she says, "I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year." Biographical Sketches, pp. 48-49. Alvin was twenty-two in 1820. Unfortunately, the Presbyterian records that could confirm this date are lost. In an 1893 interview William Smith said that Hyrum, Samuel, and Catherine were Presbyterians, but since Catherine was only eight in 1820, and Sophronia, whom Joseph named, was seventeen, Sophronia was more likely to be the sister who joined....All the circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue plausibly that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824. <ref>Richard L. Bushman, ''Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism'' (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press; Reprint edition, 1987), 53. </ref>
</blockquote>

The most serious challenge to this argument is that Lucy Mack Smith did ''not'' say in her autobiography that she joined the Presbyterian church after her son Alvin died. The original manuscript of the autobiography (including the crossed-out portion) actually says:

*Alvin Smith died (19 November 1823).
*"lamentation and mourning filled the whole neighborhood".
*Those from Alvin's immediate circle felt "more than usual grief".
*The funeral and the interment took place.
*"The circumstances of [Alvin's] death aroused the neighborhood to the subject of religion".
*The Smith family "could not be comforted" because of Alvin's loss.
*"About this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meetinghouse to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our overcharged feelings."
*One man was laboring in the area "to effect a union of all the churches that all denominations might be agreed to worship God with one mind and one heart".
*Lucy Mack Smith thought that this idea "looked right" and tried to persuade her husband to "join with them" (i.e., the unionized group of "all denominations").
*Lucy Mack Smith "wished" to join herself with this group.
*All the Smith children were "inclined" to join this group except Joseph (who refused from the first to attend the meetings).
*Joseph told his mother that he did not wish to prevent her or any member of the Smith family from attending any church meeting or "joining any church" that they liked but stated his own desire not to go with them. Joseph also stated that if they did join any church they would not be with them long because of "the wickedness of their hearts".
*Father Smith attended one meeting of the unionized church group but declined thereafter. He said that he did not object if Mother Smith and the children wanted to attend these meetings or join with the group.

There are several observations that will help to clarify the meaning of this text.

Alvin's funeral was conducted by a Presbyterian clergyman named Benjamin B. Stockton. <ref>{{CitationSource:BoM Witnesses:Other:William Smith:1893}}</ref> This detail raises the strong possibility that someone in the Smith household had an affiliation with the Presbyterian church by November 1823 (Stockton did not become the official pastor of Palmyra's Western Presbyterian Church until 18 February 1824). <ref>See {{Book:Backman:Joseph Smith's First Vision|pages=69}} Also see Dan Vogel, ''Early Mormon Documents'' 5 vols (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003) 487n13</ref> Indeed, in one of William Smith's recountings of Church history he seems very clearly to say that his mother and some of his siblings were members of the Presbyterian church at the time of Alvin's funeral. <ref>''Zion’s Ensign'', vol. 5, no. 3, 13 January 1894.</ref> And in another recounting he states that they had this affiliation in the year 1820. <ref>{{CitationSource:BoM Witnesses:Other:William Smith:1883}}</ref>

Lucy Mack Smith does not say in her autobiography that she actually joined with the religious group that was composed of "all the churches." She only says that she desired to join with them. She may well have already been associated with the Presbyterians.

One Presbyterian author claims that "when Lucy reached Palmyra, she developed a connection with the Presbyterian church, even though she held aloof from membership." As support for this assertion, he cites Bushman, ''Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling'', 11-13 and notes that "Solomon Mack, Lucy's father, was a Universalist during her childhood but converted to orthodox Christianity in 1810." The author does not clarify the nature of Lucy's connection to the Presbyterian church after her arrival in Palmyra. Although he notes that Lucy "had sought spiritual comfort from a noted Presbyterian minister" while in Randolph, Vermont (citing Lucy's autobiography), he fails to note that this same autobiography provides the timeframe for when she was baptized. She says, "I concluded that my mind would be easier if I were baptized and I found a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free from membership in any church after which I pursued the same course until my oldest son [Alvin] attained his 22nd year" - which took place on 11 February 1820.

The "great revival in religion" that is mentioned in Mother Smith's autobiography appears to take place not long after Alvin's death in November 1823. In fact, it seems that it was Alvin's death that instigated this particular event. A disparity in timeframes (a one-year gap) calls any perceived connection between this event and Palmyra's 1824-25 revival into doubt. A ministerial eyewitness says that nothing much like a recognizable revival even took place in the village of Palmyra until December 1824 (''The Methodist Magazine'', vol. 8, no. 4, April 1825). Mother Smith does not mention any conversions during the December 1823 '''denomination-welding''' event which she describes while the December 1824 revival garnered more than 150 converts who joined themselves with various '''separate churches'''.

Church records confirm that Lucy's family was suspended from fellowship in the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra on March 10, 1830. The charge was 18 months of inactivity, which indicates that they had not attended since September 1828. This was one year after Joseph had received the plates. <ref>Milton V. Backman and James B. Allen, "Membership of Certain of Joseph Smith's Family in the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra," ''BYU Studies'' 10 no. 4 (1970): 482-484.</ref>

Joseph Smith's comments to his mother about joining "any" church are significant. He said that taking such an action would be a mistake because of what was in the hearts of the adherents. During the First Vision the Lord told Joseph that the hearts of the members of the Christian denominations were far from Him ([[Primary_sources/Joseph_Smith,_Jr./First_Vision_accounts/1832|1832 account]]). Joseph also told his mother that if she did decide to join one of the churches she would not be long with them. This make perfect sense when it is remembered that just a few months prior to this time Joseph had informed his family that an angel had told him about golden plates and indicated that God was about to reveal "a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation and the redemption of the human family" (Lucy Mack Smith, ''History of Joseph Smith'', rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], chapter 18).

The facts contained within the primary source documents do not support the conclusions of the critics. Joseph Smith said that his mother and siblings were members of the Presbyterian church in 1820 when he had the First Vision and the writings of his mother and brother support that statement. Joseph Smith was not in a state of confusion or bent on deception when he recorded the occurrences of his past. Readers of the Prophet's history can have confidence in what is presented before them.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Oliver Cowdery Saying that Joseph Smith was Not Sure a Supreme Being Existed in 1823===
| state = closed
| content = ==== In the first installment of his history published in December 1834, Oliver established Joseph's age as 14 and very accurately described the religious excitement leading up to the First Vision ====

Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in the ''Messenger and Advocate'' in December 1834 which is commonly misunderstood:

<blockquote>
In 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a history of the Church in installments in the pages of the ''Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate''. The first installment talks of the religious excitement and events that ultimately led to Joseph Smith’s First Vision at age 14. However, in the subsequent installment published two months later, Oliver claims that he made a mistake, correcting Joseph’s age from 14 to 17 and failing to make any direct mention of the First Vision. Oliver instead tells the story of Moroni’s visit, thus making it appear that the religious excitement led to Moroni’s visit.

This curious account has been misunderstood by some to be evidence that the "first" vision that Joseph claimed was actually that of the angel Moroni and that Joseph invented the story of the First Vision of the Father and Son at a later time. However, Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in 1832 in which he stated that he saw the Lord, and there is substantial evidence that Oliver had this document in his possession at the time that he wrote his history of the Church. This essay demonstrates the correlations between Joseph Smith’s 1832 First Vision account, Oliver’s 1834/1835 account, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry on the same subject. It is clear that not only did Oliver have Joseph’s history in his possession but that he used Joseph’s 1832 account as a basis for his own account. This essay also shows that Oliver knew of the First Vision and attempted to obliquely refer to the event several times in his second installment before continuing with his narrative of Moroni’s visit.<ref>{{Interpreter:Nicholson:The Cowdery Conundrum Olivers Aborted Attempt To Describe:2013}}</ref>

</blockquote>

==== Two months later in the second installment published in February 1835, Oliver abruptly "corrects" Joseph's age from 14 to 17 years old, skips the First Vision and then proceeds instead to describe Moroni's visit ====

After spending the previous installment leading up to the First Vision, Oliver abruptly skips three years ahead and does not mention the vision directly. However, before describing Moroni's visit, Oliver even takes the time to minimize the importance of the religious excitement that Joseph Smith described in the previous installment, stating,

<blockquote>
And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. 
Oliver Cowdery, ''Messenger and Advocate'' (February 1835)
</blockquote>

==== The religious "excitement" that Oliver is describing is now portrayed as an event in the past, during which Joseph desired to know "if a Supreme being did exist" ====

Note carefully what Oliver is saying. The religious "excitement," and the event that Oliver described in the first installment when he said that Joseph was 14 years of age, was when Joseph was seeking a "full manifestation of divine approbation" with the desire to know "if a Supreme being did exist." Oliver then alludes to the First Vision in the past tense by saying,

<blockquote>
This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that for him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely. 
Oliver Cowdery, ''Messenger and Advocate'' (February 1835)
</blockquote>

Oliver is stating that something of significance happened in Joseph’s life prior to the events that Oliver would be describing next, and he assures the reader that "this, most assuredly, ''was correct''." Oliver then proceeds to describe Moroni's visit to Joseph at age 17.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Retellings of First Vision Prior to 1832===
| state = closed
| content = *It is claimed that "there is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832." <ref>Jeremy Runnells, ''Letter to a CES Director''. <nowiki>www.cesletter.com</nowiki></ref>
*It is claimed that there is "no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s."
*It is claimed that "Not a single piece of published literature (Mormon, non-Mormon, or anti-Mormon) from the 1830s mentions Smith having a vision of the Father and Son."
*If Joseph Smith's First Vision actually occurred, then why wouldn't it have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time? Since no such record exists, is this evidence that the vision must not have actually occurred?

==== There is evidence that Church members were aware of elements of the First Vision story as early as 1827 ====

Several LDS commentators - including one member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - agree that D&C 20:5 (part of the Articles and Covenants of the Church) is the earliest published reference to the First Vision story. <ref>See Hyrum M. Smith, ''Doctrine and Covenants Commentary'' (Liverpool: George F. Richards, 1919), 139; Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds., ''Studies in Scripture, Volume 1: The Doctrine and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), 110–11; Grant Underwood, "First Vision," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:410; Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, ''A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 1:130.</ref> The Articles and Covenants of the Church were presented to the Church membership and then published in the following order

*April-June 1829 - The Book of Mormon gave the first elements of the First Vision when translated in April-June 1829 and published in 1830. In 2 Nephi 27:24-27 we read:
<blockquote>
24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—

26 Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid.
</blockquote>

:This scripture from Isaiah is exactly the scripture that Joseph either quotes or paraphrases in the 1832 and 1838 Account of the First Vision. Critics may dismiss this saying that it is simply a part of Joseph's fraudulent composition of the Book of Mormon but the verse still throws a huge wrench in their theories about there being no early mentions of the First Vision.
*The Articles and Covenants of the Church are first verbally presented by Joseph Smith for approval at a Church conference held in Fayette, New York on 9 June 1830 (see Cannon and Cook, ''Far West Record'', 1). The following sequence is found in the Articles and Covenants: (1) forgiveness of sin, (2) entanglement in vanities of the world, (3) visit of an angel with regard to the Book of Mormon plates. This is the exact same sequence presented in the Prophet's unpublished 1832 history and the forgiveness of sins comes during the First Vision event in that document.
*The Articles and Covenants of the Church were read out loud by Oliver Cowdery during a Church conference on 26 September 1830 (see Cannon and Cook, ''Far West Record'', 3).
*The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in a non-LDS newspaper in Painesville, Ohio (''Telegraph'', 19 April 1831)
*The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in an LDS newspaper in Independence, Missouri (''Evening and Morning Star'', vol. 1, no. 1, June 1832).
*The Articles and Covenants of the Church were published in an LDS newspaper in Independence, Missouri (''Evening and Morning Star'', vol. 2, no. 13, June 1833).
*The Book of Commandments—which contained the Articles and Covenants—was published in July 1833 in Independence, Missouri (chapter 24, verses 6-7, page 48).
*January 1835 Kirtland, Ohio reprint of an ''Evening and Morning Star'' article containing the "Articles and Covenants" (reprint of ''Evening and Morning Star'', vol. 1, no. 1, June 1832, 2; reprinted by Frederick G. Williams).
*The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants - which contained the Articles and Covenants - was published in September 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio (part 2, section 2, verse 2, pages 77-78).
*June 1836 Kirtland, Ohio reprint of an ''Evening and Morning Star'' article containing the "Articles and Covenants" of the Church (reprint of ''Evening and Morning Star'', vol. 2, no. 1, June 1833, 1; reprinted by Oliver Cowdery).

====Why didn't the newspapers in Palmyra take notice of Joseph Smith's First Vision?====
{{POGPCentralJSH|title=Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Reluctant to Tell Others About the First Vision?|url=https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/why-was-joseph-smith-initially-reluctant-to-tell-others-about-the-first-vision/|number=12}}

This claim by critics is indeed strange. We are apparently to believe that the newspapers of the area would consider a claim from a 14-year-old boy as newsworthy. We know that Joseph didn't even tell his family about the vision at the time that it occurred—when his mother asked him, all he said to her was that he had found that Presbyterianism was not true.

Joseph did, however, make mention of his vision to a Methodist preacher. According to Richard Bushman, Joseph's perceived persecution for telling his story may not have actually been because it was a unique claim, but rather because it was a common one. According to Bushman,

<blockquote>
The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."<ref>{{RSR1 | start=41}}</ref><ref>For an in-depth discussion of how the preacher's rejection of Joseph caused him to not speak of the event for many years and the affects the rejection had on Joseph's memory (and which refutes this criticism), see Steven C. Harper, "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019) 9-12.</ref>
</blockquote>

====References to the First Vision Prior to the 1830s====
{{POGPCentralJSH|title=Why Was Joseph Smith Initially Reluctant to Tell Others About the First Vision?|url=https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/why-was-joseph-smith-initially-reluctant-to-tell-others-about-the-first-vision/|number=12}}

There are several significant references to the First Vision in published documents from the 1830s.

'''1827'''
* A skeptical account from Rev. John A. Clark mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],—-).

* A hostile account from someone who knew Joseph in 1827 reported:

::I, Joseph Capron, became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Sen. in the year of our Lord, 1827. They have, since then, been really a peculiar people—fond of the foolish and the marvelous—at one time addicted to vice and the grossest immoralities—at another time making the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God. The family of Smiths held Joseph Jr. in high estimation on account of some supernatural power, which he was supposed to possess.<ref>Joseph Capron affidavit, 8 November 1833; in {{CriticalWork:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=258-259}}</ref>

:Capron obviously disliked and distrusted the Smiths, but he makes it clear that there were claims of holy intercourse (i.e., "communication" with)<ref>{{Book:Webster:Dictionary:1828|word=intercourse}} defines the term as simply "[1] Communication....[2] Silent communication or exchange."</ref> "Almighty God."

'''1829 -1830'''
*The Book of Mormon gave the first elements of the First Vision when published in 1830 (and translated in 1829). In 2 Nephi 27:24-27 we read:
<blockquote>
24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men—

26 Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent shall be hid.
</blockquote>

This scripture from Isaiah is exactly the scripture that Joseph either quotes or paraphrases in the 1832 and 1838 Account of the First Vision. Critics may dismiss this saying that it is simply a part of Joseph's fraudulent composition of the Book of Mormon but the verse still throws a huge wrench in their theories about there being no early mentions of the First Vision.

'''1831'''
*LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith "had seen God frequently and personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (''The Reflector'', vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).<ref>Regarding the reference in the ''Palmyra Reflector'', Richard Abanes, in his anti-Mormon work ''Becoming Gods'', boldly declares in the main body of his text on page 34 that "[n]ot a single piece of published literature" mentions the First Vision, yet in an endnote at the back of the book on page 338 acknowledges this newspaper account. He attempts to dismiss this by claiming that the reference is "vague," yet acknowledges that "as early as 1831 Smith ''might'' have been starting to privately tell select persons that he had at some point seen God."</ref>

'''1832'''
*LDS missionaries were teaching with regard to Joseph Smith: "Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer" (''The Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
* In October 1832, another Protestant minister wrote to a friend about the Latter-day Saints in his area: "They profess to hold frequent converse with angels; some go, if we may believe what they say, as far as the third heaven, and converse with the Lord Jesus face to face."<ref>Rev. B. Pixley, ''Christian Watchman'', Independence Mo., October 12, 1832; in ''Among the Mormons. Historic Accounts by Contemporary Observers'', Edited by William Mulder and A. Russell Mortensen (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958): 74. This article by Pixley was reprinted in ''Independent Messenger'' (Boston, Mass.) of November 29, 1832; also in ''Missouri Intelligencer'' (Columbia, Mo.), and the ''American Eagle'' (Westfield, New York). Cited also in Hyrum Andrus, ''Joseph Smith, The Man and The Seer'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1960), 68, note 46. It is not clear what Rev. Pixley was referring to by the comment about the third heaven, though it may refer to the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory [{{s||D&C|76||}}], which had been received February 1832, and published in July in the ''Evening and Morning Star'', in Kirtland, Ohio. Verse 20 indicates that "we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father…."</ref>

'''1833'''
* A few months later, in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles."<ref>Richmond Taggart to the Reverend Jonathan Goings, 2 March 1833, 2, Jonathon Goings Papers, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, New York, quoted in Hurlbut. {{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=1|pages=205}} See also {{Book:Prince:Power From On High|pages=8}}</ref> Here is a clear reference to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Joseph’s ‘conversations’ with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other ‘miracles’.
* A Missouri newspaper contains an article on a mass meeting of Latter-day Saints in July 1833, and refers to the Saints’ "pretended revelations from heaven… their personal intercourse with God and his angels… converse with God and his angels…."<ref>''Missouri Intelligencer'' (August 10, 1833); quoted in {{Book:Widtsoe:Evidences and Reconciliations|pages=337}}</ref>
* Philastus Hurlbut, following his excommunication from the Church in 1833, went east to Palmyra. He there interviewed many who claimed to have known Joseph Smith before the organization of the Church. Among those interviewed were some who left statements which give us more information on what the Prophet had been claiming at that early period. On November 3, 1833, Barton Stafford testified that Joseph had "professed to be inspired of the Lord to translate the Book of Mormon." Stafford claimed to have known them "until 1831 when they left this neighborhood." Five days later, on November 8, Joseph Capron testified that Joseph had made "the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God."<ref>{{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=2|pages=22, 24}} Original in {{CriticalWork:Howe:Mormonism Unvailed|pages=251&ndash 252, and 258–260, respectively}}</ref> In 1884 and 1885 Arthur B. Deming collected affidavits in the Painesville, Ohio area, regarding the early Saints, and their recollection of Joseph Smith. Cornelius R. Stafford had been born in Manchester, NY, in 1813. He testified that Joseph Smith "claimed to receive revelations from the Lord."<ref>{{Book:Vogel:EMD|vol=2|pages=107}} Original in {{CriticalWork:Deming:Naked Truths About Mormonism|date=January 1888|pages=3}}</ref>

'''1834'''
*Oliver Cowdery published the beginning elements of the First Vision story as part of a history of the Church ({{MAfairwiki|vol=1|num=3|date=December 1834|start=43}})

'''1835'''
*William W. Phelps published a reference to the First Vision in October 1835 in the Church's newspaper ({{MAfairwiki|vol=2|num=1|date=October 1835|start=208}})

'''1836'''
*The First Vision reference by William W. Phelps was republished as part of hymn #26 in the Saints' first hymnal—March 1836 (see ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism,'' 1176).

When the published 1830s fragments of the First Vision story are compared to the as-yet-unpublished 1838 recital, it becomes apparent that the Prophet's account of things stayed steady during this time frame and was probably known among a wider cross-section of the contemporary LDS population than has been previously acknowledged.

:1834 - "the 15th year of his life" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "I was at this time in my fifteenth year"

:1834 - "There was a great awakening, or excitement raised on the subject of religion" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion"

:1834 - "our brother's mind became awakened" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "my mind was called up to serious reflection"

:1834 - "his mother, one sister, and two of his natural brothers, were persuaded to unite with the Presbyterians" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "My Fathers family were proselyted to the Presbyterian faith"

:1834 - "his spirit was not at rest day nor night" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "great uneasiness . . . extreme difficulties . . . my anxieties"

:1832 - "not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them" [Missionaries]
:1838 - "I kept myself aloof from all these parties"; "no small stir and division"

:1834 - "he was told they were right, and all others were wrong" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "who was right and who was wrong"

:1834 - "a general struggle was made by the leading characters of the different sects" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "priest contending against priest"

:1834 - "Large additions were made to the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches" [Cowdery]
:1838 - "multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties"

:1835 - "the world in darkness lay" [Phelps]
:1838 - "I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness"

:1835 - "he sought the better way" [Phelps]
:1838 - "I was one day reading the Epistle of James"

:1832 - "being in doubt what his duty was" [Missionaries]
:1838 - "I often said to myself, what is to be done?"

:1832 - "he had recourse [to] prayer" [Missionaries]
:1838 - "I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God"

:1831 - "he had seen God . . . personally" [Missionaries]
:1838 - "I saw two personages . . . One of them spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him'"

Here then are several early testimonies from friendly ''and'' non-LDS sources, confirming that Joseph Smith and/or the missionaries were talking about Joseph conversing with Jesus Christ, angels, Apostles (Peter, James and John?), and "Almighty God." Evidently the early Saints were doing a lot more talking about these things than the critics want their readers to know about.

====Mention of the First Vision in non-Latter-day Saint literature before 1843====
One critic claimed that there was no mention of the First Vision in non-Latter-day Saint literature prior to 1843.

The historical record supports the claim that the First Vision was mentioned in non-Latter-day Saint literature prior to 1843:

* Report in a non-LDS newspaper of Mormon missionaries teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God personally and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (''The Reflector'', vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).

* The "Articles and Covenants" of the Church - which contained a reference to something that happened during the First Vision - were published in a non-LDS newspaper (''Telegraph'', 19 April 1831).

* Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (''Fredonia Censor'', vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).

* In April 1841 the British publication ''Athenæum'' (a literary weekly) reprinted material from Orson Pratt’s ''Interesting Account'' pamphlet.

* A non-LDS newspaper printed the first elements of the First Vision story. They were first reported in the ''Congregational Observer'' [Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut] and then reprinted in the ''Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer'', vol. 5, no. 23, 3 September 1841.

* First Vision story elements from Orson Pratt's 1840 pamphlet were reprinted in ''The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art'', vol. 14 (new series), no. 42, July 1841, 370. Philadelphia: E. Littell and Co. (copied from the 1841 ''Athenæum'' article called "The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites").

* When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, ''Gleanings by the Way'' [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],—-).

* A non-LDS college professor published the beginning story elements of the First Vision (Jonathan B. Turner, ''Mormonism in All Ages'' [New York: Platt and Peters, 1842], 14).

The majority of these reports are garbled, fragmentary, and out of proper context but this evidence still shows non-Latter-day Saints knew about the First Vision prior to 1843.

==== If the First Vision story was known by the public before 1840, then would anti-Mormons "surely" have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture? ====

The claim that critics of Joseph would have used the vision accounts is negated by the following evidence

* Daniel P. Kidder, ''Mormonism and the Mormons'' (New York City: Lane and Sandford, 1842), 334. The appendix heading explains that the author was drawing material from the January through June editions of the 1842 ''Times and Seasons'' (two separate First Vision stories were found in the March and April editions). Joseph Smith, as editor of the ''Times and Seasons'', Kidder said, "commenced publishing his autobiography. It is, however, nothing but the old story about the plates and the angel, with a few emendations to save appearances."

* ''Quincy Whig'', vol. 4, no. 46, 12 March 1842 – Acknowledgment that the "Wentworth Letter" had recently been published in the ''Times and Seasons'' on 1 March 1842. No mention is made of the First Vision story.

* ''The Morning Chronicle'', vol. 1, no. 190, 24 March 1842 [Pittsburgh] – quotes from the "Wentworth Letter" directly before and after the First Vision material but completely ignores the story (focuses on Joseph Smith’s birthday and the Book of Mormon instead).

* John Hayward, ''The Book of Religions'' (Boston: John Hayward, 1842), 260-65, 271. This author indicates that he has possession of the Wentworth Letter and says, "we . . . are now enabled to tell [the] story [of the Latter-day Saints] in their own words." But he paraphrases the material about Joseph Smith's birth and background, completely skips over the First Vision story, provides lengthy quotes about the angel and the plates and even includes the Articles of Faith.

This is clear evidence that even if an anti-Mormon had multiple authoritative, unambiguous, printed copies of the First Vision story sitting right in front of them they would NOT necessarily seize upon it as evidence of an imposture. Some of them simply did NOT pay close attention to what Joseph Smith was saying openly.

Hugh Nibley pointed out years ago that anti-Mormon authors often went to great lengths to distort, ignore, or omit Joseph's telling of the visit of the Father and the Son.<ref>See, for example, "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story," in {{Nibley11|start=55|end=96}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?book_doc_id=275562}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===No Revival Activity in 1820===
| state = closed
| content = Some claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/5#5 Joseph Smith—History 1:5] Joseph Smith talked of observing, as a 14-year-old, "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" in the Palmyra area during the Spring of 1820. Joseph notes that "It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country."

Abundant evidence of religious excitement exists to substantiate Joseph’s account. This has been thoroughly summarized by Pearl of Great Price Central. Their analysis may be accessed by clicking on the hyperlinked text.

One should keep in mind that Joseph Smith ''never'' used the term "revival" in his description - he simply described it as "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion." To a 14 year old who had been concerned about religion starting at age 12 after the 1817 revival, the ongoing camp meetings in the town in which he lived would certainly qualify.

====References in 1820 Newspapers to Revival Activity====
References to regional revival activity in the ''Palmyra Register'', a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident.

A Presbyterian historian on Wikipedia comments on this FAIR Wiki article:
<blockquote>
FAIR disagrees with your assessment and stubbornly holds to an 1820 date, Methodist camp meetings as interdenominational revivals, no date conflation, and local newspapers not reporting local news. The FAIR page never suggests that the time and place of the interdenominational religious awakening is irrelevant...<ref>Wikipedia editor "John Foxe", (9 December 2007)</ref>
</blockquote>

Indeed, we "stubbornly hold" to the 1820 date, and we do not consider the time and place of religious awakening irrelevant. This claim by critics that there is no record of revival activity in the region surrounding Palmyra during the 1820 timeframe has simply not stood up to historical scrutiny. References to regional revival activity in the ''Palmyra Register'', a newspaper which Joseph's family would have read, are clearly evident. While these revivals did not occur in Palmyra itself, their mention in the local newspaper would have given Joseph Smith the sense that there was substantial revival activity in the region. <ref>These primary sources, not surprisingly, are omitted from the "First Vision" Wikipedia article. For further information, see: [[Mormonism and Wikipedia/First Vision|An analysis of Wikipedia article "First Vision"]]</ref>

*GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—''Palmyra Register'', June 7, 1820 (Ballston, NY - 196 miles away from Palmyra)
*REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—''Palmyra Register'', August 16, 1820 (Homer, NY - 76 miles away from Palmyra)
*REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—''Palmyra Register'', September 13, 1820 (Saratoga, NY - 193 miles away from Palmyra)
*FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...''Palmyra Register'', October 4, 1820 (Bloomingsgrove, NY - 209 miles away from Palmyra)

There wasn't even any mention of the 1818 revival in Palmrya in the local newspaper. Critics often wish to place the revival which Joseph spoke about in 1818. However, even though we know that a revival occurred in Palmyra during June 1818, there is no mention of it in the town paper, despite the fact that it was attended by Robert R. Roberts, who was one of "only three Methodist bishops in North America." <ref> Discussed and cited on pages 9–10 of {{DialogueP | author=D. Michael Quinn | article=Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp-Meeting'|date=12 July 2006|num=3|pdf=http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/e3.pdf}}</ref>

Once again, the commonality of such an event did not ensure that it would get a mention—yet, by the critics' same argument, this "silence" in the newspaper should mean that the 1818 revival didn't happen either.

====Evidences from Non-Latter-day Saint Sources====
Non-Mormon evidence demonstrates that there was a considerable increase in membership among some Christian sects. One source goes so far as to point out the growth over a given period ''without'' explicit revivals:

:1817 to 1830 increase from 6 to 80 '''without revival''', in a particular circuit {{ea}}. <ref>Francis W. Conable, ''[https://archive.org/details/cu31924029471152 History of the Genesee Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church]'', 2nd edition (New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1885), 317.</ref>

David Marks was born the same year as Joseph Smith, 1805. His parents moved to Junius, not far from Palmyra, when he was a teenager. He became very religious very early, and left home to become an itinerant Baptism minister. He published his memoirs in 1831. Here are some things he has to say about happenings in Junius and Phelps [Vienna], in 1819:

:In the fall of the year 1818, upon relating my experience to the Calvinistic Baptist church in Junius, they received me as a candidate for baptism;….

:I continued to attend the Baptist covenant meetings, and was treated with the same studied coldness as before. Six months had passed [i.e., sometime in spring 1819], since the church received me as a candidate for baptism,….

:In the month of July, 1819, Elder Zabulon Dean, and his companion, having heard of my situation, and feeling interested, sent an appointment to our neighborhood; and came thirty miles, accompanied by brother Samuel Wire, then an unordained preacher, Deacon C., and Brother S. They were all Free-Will Baptists, and the first of whom I had any knowledge. On Saturday, July 10th, I meet with them, learned their sentiments, spirit and humility; which so well accorded with my own views and feelings, that desiring to be baptized, I related to them my experience and sentiments, also the manner in which my application to unite with the Baptist church had been received and afterwards rejected. They expressed satisfaction with my experience, approved of my sentiments, and the next day, being the Sabbath, a meeting was appointed for preaching and examination, at the house where the Baptist church usually met for worship (29).

:On the 17th of the same month [July 1819], I attended the Benton Quarterly Meeting of the Free-Will Baptists, in the town of Phelps, eighteen miles from my father’s, and was there received a member of the church in that place. Five were baptized, communion and washing feet attended to, and a profitable season was enjoyed. After this, Elder Dean and brother Wire frequently preached in Junius, and a good reformation followed their labors; in which some of my former persecutors were converted to the faith of the gospel. In the ensuing autumn, brother Wire was ordained. He and Elder Dean baptized fifteen in Junius, who united with the church in Phelps; but in January following [1820], they were dismissed and acknowledged a church in Junius, taking the scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice. Being absent at the time of its organization, I did not become one of its members till the ensuing Spring. This church walked in gospel order several months, and enjoyed many happy seasons. But the summer of prosperity passed, and the winter of adversity succeeded. New and unexpected trials brought heaviness and mourning. Seven or eight, who first united and were well engaged, soon turned aside after Satan and walked no more with us. Iniquity abounding, the love of some waxed cold. Every feeling of my soul was pained, when those with whom I had taken sweet counsel, thus wounded the innocent cause of Jesus and brought it into reproach. But while our number decreased by [31] excommunications, the Lord more than supplied the vacancies by adding to the church of such as should be saved. <ref>David Marks, ''The Life of David Marks, To the 26th year of his age. Including the Particulars of His Conversion, Call to the Ministry, and Labours in Itinerant Preaching for nearly Eleven Years'' (Limerick, Maine: Printed at the Office of the Morning Star, 1831), 30-31.</ref>

Clearly, there was extensive religious excitement in the Palmyra area. A young man of Joseph's age was likewise much taken by it, as Joseph himself was.

Joseph states that about 1820 "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion" had commenced, and that "[i]t commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country." The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the "burned-over" district. The ''Palmyra Register'' recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820. <ref>''Palmyra Register'' (Palmyra, NY), 28 July 1820.</ref> Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet in the woods on Vienna Road. <ref>Orsamus Turner, ''History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve'' (Rochester, New York: William Alling, 1851), 212–213.</ref> Pomeroy Tucker (a witness hostile to Joseph Smith) states that "protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…" <ref>Pomeroy Tucker, ''Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism'' (New York: D. Appleton, 1867), 17–18.</ref> These revivals in 1820 must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings.<ref>George W. Cowles, ''Landmarks of Wayne County'' (Syracuse, New York: D. Mason & Company, 1895), 194.</ref> The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823. <ref>Cowles, ''Landmarks of Wayne County'', 194.</ref> In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an eastern group and a western group. The eastern group used the only actual church building that was in Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled in the town hall. <ref>Cowles, ''Landmarks of Wayne County'', 191–192.</ref>

====Were revivals and religious excitement too common to be noticed by newspapers?====
{{POGPCentralJSH|title=Religious Excitement near Palmyra, New York, 1816–1820|url=https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/religious-excitement-near-palmyra-new-york-1816-1820/|number=7}}

Ironically, evidence for local religious meetings was less likely to be documented in the newspapers because they were so ''common.'' One report of a Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra only made it into the local newspaper because of a fatality due to alcohol consumption. The paper, in a less politically correct time, pointed out that the deceased was Irish and had died due to alcohol at the Camp-ground outside Palmyra:

<blockquote>
The deceased, we are informed, arrived at Mr. McCollum's house the evening preceding, from a camp-meeting which was held in this vicinity, in a state of intoxication....It is supposed he obtained his liquor, which was no doubt the cause of his death, at the Camp-ground, where, it is a notorious fact, the intemperate, the lewd and dissolute part of community too frequently resort for no better object, than to gratify their base propensities.<ref>''Palmyra Register'' (Palmyra, NY), 28 June 1820.</ref>
</blockquote>

The Methodists strenuously objected to the implication that their camp meetings where places where people came to get drunk. The ''Palmyra Register'' printed a clarification about a week later:

<blockquote>
By this expression we did not mean to insinuate, that he obtained it within the enclosure of their place of worship, or that he procured it of them, but at the grog-shops that were established at, or near if you please, their camp-ground. It was far from our intention to charge the Methodists with retailing ardent spirits while professedly met for the worship of their God.<ref>''Palmyra Register'' (Palmyra, NY), 5 July 1820.</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, Joseph's recollection of religious excitement in Palmyra is confirmed at the very edge of the Spring of 1820; very close to the time when he said he prayed to God about religion. <ref>This episode in the ''Palmyra Register'' was noted in Walter A. Norton, "Comparative Images: Mormonism and Contemporary Religions as Seen by Village Newspapermen in Western New York and Northeastern Ohio, 1820-1833" (Ph.D. Diss., Brigham Young University, 1991), 255. Discussed in footnote 3 by {{FR-6-2-8}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Other Visionary Experiences in Joseph Smith’s Environment===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The type of event that we now refer to as Joseph Smith's First Vision was not entirely uncommon at the time ====
{{POGPCentralJSH|title=The Visionary World of Joseph Smith|url=https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-visionary-world-of-joseph-smith/|number=19}}
There were at the time people who went to the wood to pray after reading the Bible, and as a result received visions and epiphanies. ''The Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' (1992; 2007) noted that "[i]nitial skepticism toward Joseph Smith's testimony was understandable because others had made similar claims to receiving revelation from God."<ref>William O. Nelson, "[https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Anti-Mormon_Publications Anti-Mormon Publications]," ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'' Daniel H. Ludlow ed. (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992; 2007) 45-46.</ref> Similarly, the Church's new narrative history ''Saints'' (2018) notes that after Joseph's vision when he spoke to the reverend about his vision that "[a]t first the preacher treated his words lightly. People claimed to have heavenly visions from time to time."<ref>Matthew J. Grow, Richard E. Turley Jr., Steven C. Harper, Scott A. Hales eds., ''Saints Volume 1 - The Standard of Truth'' (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2018), 17. The book cites Richard Bushman, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/visionary-world-joseph-smith The Visionary World of Joseph Smith]," ''BYU Studies'' 37:1 (1997-1998): 183–204.</ref>
Visionaries are not that uncommon in environments where people are routinely open to the divine. Even the famous Charles Finney had one. Finney, after retiring to the woods to pray, described the experience:

<blockquote>
Just at this moment I again thought I heard someone approach me, and I opened my eyes to see whether it were so. But right there the revelation of my pride of heart, as the great difficulty that stood in the way, was distinctly shown to me. An overwhelming sense of my wickedness in being ashamed to have a human being see me on my knees before God, took such powerful possession of me, that I cried at the top of my voice, and exclaimed that I would not leave that place if all the men on earth and all the devils in hell surrounded me. "What!" I said, "such a degraded sinner I am, on my knees confessing my sins to the great and holy God; and ashamed to have any human being, and a sinner like myself, find me on my knees endeavoring to make my peace with my offended God!" The sin appeared awful, infinite. It broke me down before the Lord.

Just at that point this passage of Scripture seemed to drop into my mind with a flood of light: "Then shall ye go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. Then shall ye seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." I instantly seized hold of this with my heart. I had intellectually believed the Bible before; but never had the truth been in my mind that faith was a voluntary trust instead of an intellectual state. I was as conscious as I was of my existence, of trusting at that moment in God's veracity. Somehow I knew that that was a passage of Scripture, though I do not think I had ever read it. I knew that it was God's word, and God's voice, as it were, that spoke to me. I cried to Him, "Lord, I take Thee at Thy word. Now Thou knowest that I do search for Thee with all my heart, and that I have come here to pray to Thee; and Thou hast promised to hear me."

That seemed to settle the question that I could then, that day, perform my vow. The Spirit seemed to lay stress upon that idea in the text, "When you search for me with all your heart." The question of when, that is of the present time, seemed to fall heavily into my heart. I told the Lord that I should take Him at his word; that He could not lie; and that therefore I was sure that He heard my prayer, and that He would be found of me.

He then gave my many other promises, both from the Old and the New Testament, especially some most precious promises respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. I never can, in words, make any human being understand how precious and true those promises appeared to me. I took them one after the other as infallible truth, the assertions of God who could not lie. They did not seem so much to fall into my intellect as into my heart, to be put within the grasp of the voluntary powers of my mind; and I seized hold of them, appropriated them, and fastened upon them with the grasp of a drowning man.

I continued thus to pray, and to receive and appropriate promises for a long time, I know not how long. I prayed till my mind became so full that, before I was aware of it, I was on my feet and tripping up the ascent toward the road. The question of my being converted, had not so much as arisen to my thought; but as I went up, brushing through the leaves and bushes, I recollect saying with emphasis, "If I am ever converted, I will preach the Gospel."<ref>Charles G. Finney, [https://archive.org/stream/memoirsofrevchar1876finn#page/12/mode/2up "Memoirs of Charles G. Finney,"] (1876) 16-18.</ref>
</blockquote>

Although Finney doesn't claim to have seen any personages, he does describe a communication with God. Joseph Smith describes his experiences in much the same way as others in his environment did.

==== Joining a church at that time required one to explain one's standing with God to a preacher ====

Keep in mind that Joseph prayed to find out if his sins had been forgiven. And he discovered that they had. This pleased him greatly. Why did he pray about this matter? The reason is that joining a church at that time often required that one explain one's standing with God to a preacher. We are dealing with Protestant sects. And conservative Protestants believe that one is saved (justified) at the moment one confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. So Joseph, as he faced the competing Protestant sects, was deeply concerned about his sins. One had to demonstrate to oneself and also convince a preacher that one had been saved—that is, justified. And there were many instances in which prayers were answered by visions in which the person learned that God had forgiven their sins.

==== One difference between Joseph's vision and others is that Joseph was told not to join any denomination ====

The difference between Joseph's experience and many other accounts by visionaries, is that, in addition to being told that his sins were in fact forgiven, he was also told not to join any denomination. When he told that part of his visionary experience, it got him into big trouble with preachers. It was not the vision that was a problem for preachers, but his reporting that he should not join some sect.

So the fact is, contrary to our current way of telling his story, the First Vision was not the beginning of Joseph's call as Seer, Prophet, Revelator and Translator. His vision signaled the ''beginning'' of the restoration. It did not begin the ''work'' of the restoration.It steered him away from joining one of the competing denominations. It was Joseph's subsequent encounters with Moroni that made him a Seer, and eventually the founding Prophet of a fledgling Church, and not his initial vision, which was initially for him a private event about which he was reluctant to talk, though eventually he dictated some accounts that were found and published during our lifetime. Joseph told a few people about it, word got around, and this caused him much trouble with Protestant preachers.

==== Neither Joseph nor others at that time offered the First Vision as a reason to become Latter-day Saints ====

Joseph eventually wrote the account of that early vision late in his life because rumors about it had circulated and caused him difficulty. But neither Joseph nor any of the
other early Saints offered that vision as a reason for others to become Latter-day Saints during his lifetime. It was only much later that what we now call the First Vision began to take on a special importance for the Saints. One reason is that Americans soon did not live in a visionary environment. The great Charles Dickens, writing in England, explained why. He called Joseph Smith vision an absurdity—"seeing visions in the age of railways."

Wilford Woodruff came into the Church of Jesus Christ because he had known earlier in his life someone he believed was a prophet who had alerted him to the soon to be restoration of primitive Christianity. This remarkable story, which was included in the lesson manual on President Woodruff, illustrates the visionary world in which Joseph was raised. Though there were a few—one or two—instances in which the visionary reported encounters with two heavenly messengers, it was most often God the Son who they reported appearing to them.

But there have been and still are peoples not impacted by post-enlightenment skepticism about divine things who are open to visions and other dramatic encounters with the divine, though they often do not speak in public
about such things, since they tend to see them as strictly private blessings and not something about which one ought to be gossiping and boasting.

==== The establishment of the restored Church of Jesus Christ began with the Book of Mormon ====

The first missionaries in the Church used The Book of Mormon, not the First Vision, as a witness that the heavens were open, and that each individual, by applying the promise in Moroni 10:3-5, can receive a direct manifestation from Heavenly Father, through the Holy Ghost, that The Book of Mormon is true. After that testimony is gained, it follows that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, as he brought The Book of Mormon forth and restored the fullness of the Gospel under the direction of the Savior.

The fledgling Church of Christ began with the Book of Mormon, the witnesses to the plates, the restoration of priesthood keys, and not directly with what we call the First Vision, though that initial experience assisted in Joseph avoiding what could be perceived as damaging sectarian contamination. The historical record shows that Joseph never gave any attention to the creeds or arguments of quarreling preachers. This was the purpose served by the First Vision.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Early Church Figures' Awareness of the First Vision===
| state = closed
| content = Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

====Oliver Cowdery====
Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the ''Messenger and Advocate''. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

====Brigham Young====
Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

<blockquote>The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)</blockquote>

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining ''how'' the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

====Lucy Mack Smith====
Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ.
Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

*D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)
:(verse 5) "'''After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins''', he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."({{s||D&C|20|5-8}}

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

*LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)
<blockquote>
"'''Joseph, after repenting of his sins''' and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."
</blockquote>

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

*FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)
<blockquote>
"'''I felt to mourn for my own sins'''....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] ''''thy sins are forgiven thee''''....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."
</blockquote>

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion.<ref>{{CriticalWork:Reflector:14 February 1831:Gold Bible 4}}</ref> It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who ''do'' acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."<ref>For example, Richard Abanes, in his anti-Mormon work ''Becoming Gods'', boldly declares in the main body of his text on page 34 that "[n]ot a single piece of published literature" mentions the First Vision, yet in an endnote at the back of the book on page 338 acknowledges this newspaper account. He attempts to dismiss this by claiming that the reference is "vague," yet acknowledges that "as early as 1831 Smith ''might'' have been starting to privately tell select persons that he had at some point seen God."</ref>

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”,<ref>{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=32}}</ref> he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.<ref>''Elders Journal'' 4 (1 November 1906): 60-62 [Southern States Mission, Chattanooga, Tenn.]. It was later published in Rich, ''Scrap Book of Mormon Literature'', 2 volumes (Chicago: Henry C. Etten and Co., no date [Vogel suggests 1913]): 543-5; also by Francis Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America. The Book of Mormon'', 2 Volumes, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Brigham Young University 1942; 1960), 1:66.</ref>

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the ''Elders' Journal'' states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was '''presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago''' by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved."<ref>''Elders' Journal'' 4/3 (1 November 1906): 59</ref> The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

====John Taylor====
Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

<blockquote>“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)</blockquote>

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, ''Times and Seasons'', in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled ''Life of Joseph Smith''. In that letter, he wrote:

<blockquote>God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world</blockquote>

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

<blockquote>When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)</blockquote>

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

====Orson Pratt====
Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

<blockquote>“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)</blockquote>

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

<blockquote>By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)</blockquote>

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs.
At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

====Wilford Woodruff====
Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son.<ref>Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]</ref> The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

:"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world" <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Wilford Woodruff|vol=2|disc=33|start=196|end=197}}</ref>

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

:"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. '''That same organization and gospel that Christ died for''', and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, '''is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ''ANGEL'' from God''', out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. '''The ''ANGEL'' taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world'''; and ''THE LORD'' gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. '''''HE'' told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of ''HIS'' kingdom in the world''', that the people had turned away from ''HIS'' true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. ''HE'' told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ''ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS''). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the ''angel'' who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper was published<ref>{{HoC1|vol=4|start=513}}</ref> and remained there through at least 8 November 1843.<ref>{{HoC1|vol=6|start=63}}</ref> These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the ''Times and Seasons'' and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

* {{TS|vol=3|num=9|date=1 March 1842|start=706|end=707}} [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
* {{TS|vol=3|num=11|date=1 April 1842|start=748|end=749}} [''History of the Church'' official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

====George A. Smith====
Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

*'''7 April 1854:''' Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

*'''9 August 1855:''' Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the ''Deseret News'' on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (''Deseret News'', vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

*'''15 August 1855:''' The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official ''History of the Church''. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.<ref>See {{DN1|vol=5|num=23|date=15 August 1855|start=1}}</ref>

*'''6 August 1862:''' Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the ''Deseret News''. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon<ref>''Deseret News'', vol. 12, no. 6, 6 August 1862, 2.</ref>

*'''15 November 1864:''' In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|vol=11|disc=1|start=2|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>

*'''15 November 1868:''' President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:
::1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old
::2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists
::3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts
::4. Unpleasant feelings were the result
::5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings
::6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5
::7. The Lord sent an '''angel''' to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer
::8. Joseph Smith asked the '''angel''' which church was right and the '''angel''' said they were all wrong
::9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it
::10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=12|disc=63|start=334|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>
*'''20 June 1869:''' President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:
::1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians
::2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion
::3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation
::4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5
::5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy '''angel'''
::6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right
::7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness
::8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them
::9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=13|disc=12|start=77|end=78|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>
*'''1869:''' President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Rise Progress and Travels|pages=37}}</ref>

*'''20 November 1870:''' President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.
::1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith
::2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines
::3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts
::4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of {{b||James|1|5}}
::5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way
::6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=13|disc=34|start=293|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.
====Orson Hyde====
Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was '''committed''' to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are '''committed''' into your hands" (v. 16). They also "'''committed''' the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "'''committed''' unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

*'''15 June 1841:'''
<blockquote>
When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”<ref>{{TS1|author=Orson Hyde|vol=2|num=23|date=1 October 1841|start=551}}</ref>
</blockquote>

:Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions'', which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

*'''1842:''' Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called ''Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde'' (''A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth''). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

*'''6 February 1851:''' Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.<ref>{{BioLS1|start=176}}</ref>

:From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

::1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],
::2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and
::3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.
====Heber C. Kimball====
Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

<blockquote>Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.</blockquote>

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

<blockquote>
If God confers '''gifts''', and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the '''gifts''', and treasure them up, and '''practice upon those gifts'''? And He gives those '''gifts''', and confers them upon you, and will have us to '''practice upon them'''. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but '''He sent Peter to do it'''. Do you not see? '''He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph''', and told him that he had got the plates. '''Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni''' and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a '''gift''' upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the '''gift''' that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, '''Peter came along to him and gave power and authority''', and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see '''his works were in exercise'''? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see '''the works, how they manifest themselves'''?

Well, then Peter comes along. '''Why did not God come? He sent Peter''', do you not see? '''Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business''', and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=6|disc=4|start=29|end=30, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the ''Pearl of Great Price'' inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple.<ref>Brigham Young Journal, 13 August 1857, Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.</ref> This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:
* Lorenzo Snow's ''The Voice of Joseph''
* Various tracts from Orson Pratt
* Franklin D. Richards's ''Compendium''
* John Jaques's ''Catechism for Children''
* ''Millennial Star'', vol. 14 supplement
* ''Millennial Star'', vol. 3
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Embellishments in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:08:16Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Embellishments
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
The accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision have come under scrutiny by many critics of the Church. These critics allege that there are several problems with the accounts. One of these supposed problems is that the accounts contain likely embellishments on the part of Joseph Smith.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Persecution After the First Vision===
| state = closed
| content = In Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, he relates (v. 20):

<blockquote>It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?

Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.</blockquote>

Joseph's memory of persecution has come under skepticism. As evidence, critics complain that Joseph Smith's vision was not reported in local newspapers, that Joseph did not recall persecution in the 1832 account of the Vision, and that there is otherwise no documentary evidence that Joseph experienced the persecution he describes in the canonized account.

====Milton Backman recounts the events surrounding the death of Alvin, Joseph's elder brother====

<blockquote>
After the death of Joseph's brother, Alvin, who died November 19, 1823, someone circulated the rumor that Alvin's body had been "removed from the place of his interment and dissected." In an attempt to ascertain the truth of this report, Joseph Smith, Sr., along with neighbors gathered at the grave, removed the earth, and found the body undisturbed. To correct the fabrication, designed in the opinion of Joseph's father to injure the reputation of the Smith family, Joseph, Sr., placed in the Wayne Sentinel (which appeared on successive Wednesdays from September 30 to November 3, 1824) a public notice reciting his findings that the body was undisturbed. <ref>{{Book:Backman:Joseph Smith's First Vision|pages=114}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Richard Bushman noted:

<blockquote>
What Joseph said explicitly was that the vision led to trouble, though his youthful sensitivity probably exaggerated the reaction. The talk with the minister, he remembered, brought on ridicule by "all classes of men, both religious and irreligious because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision." Local people seemed to have discussed his case, even though he said nothing to his parents. Eighteen years later when he wrote his history, the memories of the injustices still rankled.<ref>ManH A-I, in PJS, 1:273, 275. The only other evidence of persecution are a reminiscence by Thomas H. Taylor of Manchester about Joseph being dcuked in a pond for teaching what he believed, and an inexplicable attempt on his life recorded by Lucy Smith. She said an unknown attacker took a shot at Joseph one day as he entered the yard. The times of both incidents are uncertain. Thomas H. Taylor, Interview (1881), in EMD, 2:118; BioS, 73.</ref> For what ever reason, his father's family suffered "many persecutions and afflictions," he recalled, deepening a previous sense of alienation. William Smith remembered people throwing dirt, stones, and sticks against the Smith house. Later, after Alvin died, it was rumored someone had disturbed his body, and Joseph Sr. published a notice in the paper that the body had been exhumed and found to be untouched. Once someone fired a short at young Joseph for no apparent reason.<ref>Wayne Sentinel, Sept. 30, 1824; W. Smith, Mormonism, 13; Backman, First Vision, 119; BioS, 73</ref><ref>Richard Bushman, "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" (New York, NY: Knopf Publishing, 2005) 43. Internal endnotes retained for reference.</ref>
</blockquote>

This kind of malicious gossip is cruel and requires some motive. The notice that Joseph Smith Sr. placed in the ''Wayne Sentinel'' appeared four years after the first vision and one year after the first visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith, the visit in which Joseph was first shown the location of the plates but was not allowed to obtain them. This event is thus three years before Joseph's more-widely-known acquisition of the plates and five years before the publication of the Book of Mormon. If the Smith family could be the subject of such malicious gossip when faced with a tragedy like Alvin's death, without any other known motive for the ill treatment, can we reasonably presume that Joseph's vision had something to do with it? This should be considered in assesments of Joseph's claims to persecution<ref>For a much more scholarly discussion of how the preacher's rejection of Joseph caused him to not speak of the event for many years, see Steven C. Harper, "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins" (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019) 9-12.</ref>

====Lucy Smith Recalled Persecution====
Lucy Mack Smith recalled,
<blockquote>
From this time [the First Vision] until the twenty-first of September, 1823 [when he saw the angel Moroni] Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists. <ref>{{Book:Smith:Biographical_Sketches_of_Joseph_Smith_and_Progenitors|pages=78}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====William Smith Recalled Persecution====

William Smith, Joseph's brother remembered:

<blockquote>
We were all very much scoffed at and persecuted during all this time, while Joseph was receiving his visions and translating the plates. <ref>{{CitationSource:BoM Witnesses:Other:William Smith:1883b}}</ref>

It has generally been stated that my father's family were lazy, shiftless and poor; but this was never said by their neighbors, or until after the angel appeared and the story of the golden Bible was told.... <ref>{{CitationSource:BoM Witnesses:Other:William Smith:1884}}</ref>

It is said that Joseph and the rest of the family were lazy and indolent. We never heard of such a thing until after Joseph told his vision, and not then by our friends. Whenever the neighbors wanted a good days work done they knew where they could get a good hand and they were not particular to take any of the other boys before Joseph either. We cleared sixty acres of the heaviest timber I ever saw. We had a good place, but it required a great deal of labor to make it a good place. We also had on it from twelve to fifteen hundred sugar trees, and to gather the sap and make sugar and molasses from that number of trees was no lazy job. We worked hard to clear our place and the neighbors were a little jealous. If you will figure up how much work it would take to clear sixty acres of heavy timber land, heavier than any here, trees you could not conveniently cut down, you can tell whether we were lazy or not, and Joseph did his share of the work with the rest of the boys.

["]We never knew we were bad folks until Joseph told his vision. We were considered respectable till then, but at once people began to circulate falsehoods and stories in a wonderful way." <ref>{{CitationSource:BoM Witnesses:Other:William Smith:1893}}</ref>
</blockquote>

With William's accounts, we again see that the persecution was largely verbal, in the form of gossip and slander.

====Thomas H. Taylor said that some people "ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else" ====

Thomas H. Taylor, was asked, ""What did the Smiths do that the people abused them so?" He replied:

<blockquote>
They did not do anything. Why! these rascals at one time took Joseph Smith and ducked him in the pond that you see over there, just because he preached what he believed and for nothing else. And if Jesus Christ had been there, they would have done the same to him. Now I don't believe like he did; but every man has a right to his religious opinions, and to advocate his views, too; if people don't like it, let them come out and meet him on the stand, and shew his error. Smith was always ready to exchange views with the best men they had. [Why didn't they like Smith?, asked the interviewer.]

To tell the truth, there was something about him they could not understand; someway he knew more than they did, and it made them mad. <ref>{{CitationSource:Thomas H. Taylor:1881}} Also in {{Book:Backman:Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision|pages=119}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The raw notes for the Taylor interview likewise mention Joseph Smith being "ducked in the creek in Manchester" despite the fact that the Smiths "did nothing" and "nothing has been sustained [a]gainst [Joseph] Smith". <ref>{{CitationSource:Thomas H. Taylor:1881:Notes}}</ref>

Here too, then, we see an element of physical persecution, though the gossip and slander identified by William and Lucy was likely far more common.

==== The Prophet's 1832 history of the Restoration talks about persecution in very close proximity to the First Vision recital ====

Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account does not explicitly say that he was persecuted for relating his spiritual manifestation to others. Some have claimed that this stands as evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time—probably to add a sense of drama. However, the Prophet's 1832 history of the Restoration talks about persecution in very close proximity to the First Vision recital. The persecution is situated squarely between the First Vision experience and the angel Moroni visitations. The documentary evidence demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Smith did not see anything wrong with telling the basic elements of his First Vision story and either giving a passing reference to other elements or leaving them out altogether. Regardless, it was still a record of the very same experience that took place at the Smith homestead near Palmyra, New York.

==== "My father's family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions" ====

Joseph Smith made some remarks in his 1832 First Vision account that have a marked degree of relevance to the argument being put forward by his critics. In relation to the period of time between the First Vision and the appearance of the Book of Mormon angel he said,

*"I could find none that would believe the heavenly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart"
*"there were many things which transpired that cannot be written"
*"my father's family have suffered '''many persecutions''' and afflictions"

Since it is explicitly stated by Joseph Smith that nobody believed his story, it would be unreasonable to assume that all of the responses to it were friendly in nature. In fact, the Prophet says right in this text that before the Book of Mormon angel visited him his family was persecuted and afflicted for some unspecified reason(s). He did not elaborate upon the nature of the "many persecutions" that took place against his family because—as far as this particular document was concerned—he had elected not to write down "many things which transpired."

====Documentary evidence from the 1838 First Vision account====

The following documentary evidence from the 1838 First Vision account strengthens the argument that the 1832 text is referring to some type of persecution that took place because of Joseph's initial spiritual experience.

*Back "then" (i.e., between 1820 and 1823) Joseph's mind was engaged in "serious reflection" over the notion that he had been the recipient of "the bitterst persecution and reviling" by adherents of religion, simply because he had spoken about his First Vision.
*Persecution over the vision was also heaped upon Joseph Smith by "irreligious" persons.
*His words were treated not only lightly but also with great contempt.
*It was implied that he was a liar.
*He was told that his experience originated with the Devil.
*People became prejudiced against him. They spoke "all manner of evil against [him] falsely". He was "hated".
*The persecution increased over time and even became "severe".
*Some people tried to get Joseph Smith to "deny" his vision.
*The Prophet relates: "I was led to say in my heart, 'Why persecute me for telling the truth?'"

This 1838 description corresponds very well with the "many persecutions and afflictions" that are mentioned in the 1832 account. It also matches closely with the 1832 statements that nobody would believe Joseph's story and he reflected upon this adverse situation in his heart.

====The persecution aspect of the 1838 account is rarely mentioned in subsequent accounts====

It should be pointed out that even though the 'persecution' theme is very pronounced in the 1838 account it is a piece of the story that was not always mentioned or emphasized in subsequent retelling (both published and verbal).

*It is missing in Orson Pratt's 1840 missionary tract called ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions''.
*It is missing in the Prophet's 1842 Wentworth Letter recital.
*It shows up again in David White's 1843 newspaper interview with the Prophet where an interesting insight is provided about the reason for the pronounced negative reaction by some of those who heard the story. The Prophet said, "When I went home and told the people that I had a revelation, and that all the churches were corrupt, they persecuted me, and they have persecuted me ever since."
*Rejection, but no outright persecution, is mentioned in Alexander Neibaur's 1844 diary notes. There Joseph is said to have "told the Methodist priest [about the experience], [but he] said this was not a[n] age for God to reveal Himself in vision[. The priest said that] revelation ha[d] ceased with the New Testament."

This last example is especially significant because it is an obvious reference to the Methodist minister who is spoken of in the 1838 ''History of the Church'' account. The 1844 rehearsal of events is less detailed but it is, nevertheless, the same exact story. The 1844 document clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not always include an equal amount of story elements in his recitals of the First Vision. Critics of this manifestation should, therefore, not expect any such thing when they scrutinize the pertinent documents. If an element of the story was not known by one particular audience it cannot be automatically assumed that it was not known by another.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Angels in the 1835 account of the First Vision===
| state = closed
| content = In the 1835 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith related:

<blockquote>I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon my <me> head, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God;70 <and I saw many angels in this vision><ref>Journal, 1835–1836, p. 24, ''The Joseph Smith Papers'', accessed October 31, 2025, online at <nowiki>josephsmithpapers.org</nowiki></ref></blockquote>

Critics correctly claim that the inclusion of "many angels" is anomalous. Joseph does not mention these other angels in his other accounts of the First Vision. However, the conclusion that they draw—that this constitutes an embellishment on the part of Joseph Smith—is not necessarily justified. In relating this event to others, Joseph Smith is going to emphasize the most important parts of the experience i.e. the visitation of God the Father and Jesus Christ, their message to him that he should not join any other churches, etc. The "many angels" appear to have only played a minor role in the overall experience of the vision and, if that is true, it is not at all surprising that Joseph Smith gives them short shrift in the other accounts of his Vision.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph's Struggle with Satan===
| state = closed
| content = In his 1838 account of the First Vision recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith relates that, prior to the visitation of God the Father and Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith had a struggle against Satan:

<blockquote>After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.</blockquote>

Critics allege that this is an embellishment on the part of Joseph Smith since this struggle with Satan does not appear in all accounts of the First Vision. It is true that the struggle with Satan does not appear in Joseph's 1832 account of the First Vision. Is this evidence that this visionary tale evolved over time by becoming more dramatic and elaborate?

While the 'struggle motif' is absent from Joseph Smith's 1832 account, it is also absent from his self-written Wentworth Letter account (1842). It is clear from the available documentary evidence that the Prophet did not feel constrained by the arbitrary rule of his modern critics that he must include every aspect of his First Vision story in every single retelling of it, and no reasonable person should be bothered that he doesn't.

The timeline below displays the 'struggle' material found in First Vision recitals that were produced during the Prophet's lifetime. The corresponding text from the 1832 document is also provided for purposes of comparison.

Several observations about the information presented below may prove useful.

* It is obvious that Joseph Smith did not mention the 'struggle' element of the First Vision story every time he rehearsed it - even after the official Church history account was written down (1838) and published (1842). He opted not to speak about that aspect of the story in the Wentworth Letter (1842), in a speech given before the Saints at the Nauvoo Temple (1843), and also when he conducted an interview with a non-Mormon newspaper editor (1843). Yet, he did briefly refer to that part of the story in a subsequent private conversation with a convert (1844).

* A careful comparison of texts indicates that the Prophet's Wentworth Letter was likely constructed by utilizing the content of Orson Pratt’s ''Interesting Account'' pamphlet.<ref>{{InterestingAccount|start=1|end=31 }}</ref> But even though Elder Pratt’s account refers directly to the 'struggle' theme, Joseph Smith chose not to include it within the Wentworth Letter.

* Even after Joseph Smith revealed details about his 'struggle' with the Adversary he did not include some of them in subsequent accounts. For instance, in 1835 he told of hearing somebody walking up behind him but this detail didn't ever appear again in the known recitals. Gathering darkness and the dread of sudden destruction are mentioned in the official 1838 rendering of events but then it disappears and is not seen in any later sources which were produced during the Prophet's lifetime.

====Timeline of the 'Struggle Motif' in the accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision====
'''September–November 1832'''
<blockquote>
I cried unto the Lord for mercy. . . and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord . . . a pillar of fire [or] light above the brightness of the sun at noonday came down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the Spirit of God.
</blockquote>
'''9 November 1835'''
<blockquote>
I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray. My tongue seemed to be swollen in my mouth, so that I could not utter. I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not. The noise of walking seemed to draw nearer. I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed. I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head, which presently rested down upon me and filled me with unspeakable joy.
</blockquote>
'''2 May 1838'''
<blockquote>
I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God, I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction, not to an imaginary ruin but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world who had such a marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being, just at this moment of great alarm I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound.
</blockquote>
'''September 1840'''
<blockquote>
He therefore, retired to a secret place in a grove, but a short distance from his father's house, and knelt down, and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him; but he continued to seek for deliverance, until darkness gave way from his mind, and he was enabled to pray in feverency of the spirit, and in faith. And while thus pouring out his soul, anxiously desiring an answer from God, he at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him.
</blockquote>
'''June 1841'''
<blockquote>
He, therefore, retired to a secret place, in a grove, but a short distance from his father's house, and knelt down and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavored to overcome him. The adversary benighted his mind with doubts, and brought to his soul all kinds of improper pictures and tried to hinder him in his efforts and the accomplishment of his goal. However, the overflowing mercy of God came to buoy him up, and gave new impulse and momentum to his dwindling strength. Soon the dark clouds disappeared, and light and peace filled his troubled heart. And again he called upon the Lord with renewed faith and spiritual strength. At this sacred moment his mind was caught away from the natural objects with which he was surrounded, and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision.
</blockquote>
'''1 March 1842'''
<blockquote>
I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision.
</blockquote>
'''11 June 1843'''
<blockquote>
he went into the grove & enquired of the Lord which of all the sects were right.
</blockquote>
'''29 August 1843'''
<blockquote>
I kneeled down, and prayed, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? Directly I saw a light.
</blockquote>
'''24 May 1844'''
<blockquote>
Went into the Wood to pray, kneels himself down, his tongue was close[d,] cleave[t]h to his roof—could utter not a word, felt easier after awhile—saw a fire toward heaven came near and nearer. . . . the fire drew nigher, rested upon the tree, enveloped him[, and] comforted [him].
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===The Mention of the Destruction of the Wicked in the 1832 Account and its Omission in the 1838 Account===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Prophet's own statement about the omission of certain items can be legitimately utilized to account for several differences in the two documents ====

One discrepancy between the 1832 First Vision account and the official 1838 recital is that it portrays Jesus Christ as prophesying that He will return to earth quickly to destroy wicked mortals. The 1838 story makes no mention of the impending doom of this planet's depraved inhabitants.

The claim that there is a discrepancy between the 1832 and 1838 First Vision accounts on the point of the Second Coming and destruction of the wicked appears to be a desperate attempt at sowing discord. It is a charge without much substance. The Prophet's own statement about the omission of certain items can be legitimately utilized to account for several differences in the two documents.

==== This criticism loses its negative effect when it is weighed in the balance against the content of the relevant historical documents ====

This criticism loses its negative effect when it is weighed in the balance against the content of the relevant historical documents. In the 1832 account the Lord says:

<blockquote>
mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them ac[c]ording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father.
</blockquote>

There is, indeed, no reference to this specific prophecy in the First Vision portion of the 1838 document. However, Joseph Smith clearly states in that very narrative that '''Jesus Christ told him "many other things" during the First Vision that he decided not to write down at that time'''! Thus, an argument from silence (on the part of the critics) is utterly unconvincing. A close look at the remainder of the 1838 historical text reveals that the angel Moroni did, in fact, speak to Joseph Smith about prophecies of the Savior's return and the destruction of the wicked. The Prophet reports:

<blockquote>
[The angel] first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as reads in our books he quoted it thus, 'For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud <yea> and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble, for <they> that cometh shall burn them saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' And again he quoted the fifth verse thus, 'Behold I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.' . . . . He also quoted the second chapter of Joel from the twenty eighth to the last verse. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled but was soon to be.
</blockquote>

The 1832 and 1838 histories present the very same prophecy of the destruction of the wicked at the time of the Lord's Second Coming. The 1832 account portrays the Lord speaking it personally; the 1838 account portrays an angel relaying the words of the Lord as recorded in prophetic, biblical texts. Either way, the message is the same.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:08:06Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Contradictions
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Critics have routinely asserted that Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision contain contradictions. This page gathers all the alleged "contradictions" and clarifies each, showing that Joseph Smith's accounts can easily be harmonized. Critics have challenged the First Vision on other grounds. They argue that there are [[Alleged Embellishments in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|embellishments]] and that there are [[Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision|historical anachronisms]] in the accounts. If you do not find what you're looking for on this page, be sure to visit those two pages that address embellishments or historical anachronisms.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===One or Two Personages?===
| state = closed
| content =Joseph Smith wrote several accounts of the First Vision. In his earliest written account from 1832, he speaks clearly about seeing “the Lord.” In later accounts, especially those from 1835 and 1838, he says that he saw two personages—God the Father and Jesus Christ. Some people claim this means Joseph changed his story. A closer look shows there are good reasons for the difference.

====1. The 1832 Account Does Not Leave God the Father Out====
Even though Joseph does not clearly describe God the Father appearing in the 1832 account, he still refers to Him. At the start of the history, Joseph says that the First Vision was when he was “receiving the testimony from on high.” In Joseph’s later accounts, that “testimony” is when God the Father introduces Jesus Christ and tells Joseph who He is.

In the Bible and other scripture, a voice that comes “from heaven” or “from on high” usually means God the Father. Joseph used this same kind of language both before and after 1832. Because of this, many scholars believe Joseph understood the voice “from on high” to be the Father, even if he did not describe seeing Him clearly in that part of the story.

There is also a line in the 1832 account that says, “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” Some readers think this could mean two beings—one who opens the heavens and another who appears.

====2. Scripture Often Describes Visions This Way====
Joseph’s way of writing in 1832 matches how visions are described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi sees God on His throne, but Jesus Christ is the one who comes down and speaks to him. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes seeing Jesus Christ in a vision, but he does not say he saw God the Father.

Joseph appears to have modeled part of his 1832 account after Paul’s experience. Since Paul focused on Christ and not the Father, Joseph may have done the same in his first written telling.

====3. The 1832 Account Focuses on Jesus Christ====
In the 1832 account, the main message is that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. In later accounts, Jesus Christ is the one who delivers that message after the Father introduces Him. This suggests that Joseph focused on Jesus in 1832 because Jesus was the one speaking to him and forgiving his sins. The account is centered on what mattered most to Joseph at that moment.

====4. Writing Was Harder for Joseph Than Speaking====
Joseph wrote the 1832 account himself, and it was the first time he tried to write his life story. Later accounts were mostly spoken and written down by others. Joseph once said that writing felt limiting and difficult for him. Because of this, the 1832 account is shorter and less detailed. As time went on, Joseph became better at explaining what happened and used clearer language.

====5. The Accounts Are More Alike Than Different====
Three of Joseph’s four main accounts clearly say that two personages appeared. The 1832 account can still be read in a way that fits with the others. The differences mostly come from what Joseph chose to emphasize, not from changing what he experienced.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Fire or Light?===
| state = closed
| content = Critics sometimes argue that Joseph Smith contradicted himself by saying that a “pillar of fire” appeared in some accounts of the First Vision and a “pillar of light” in others. A closer look at scripture, language, and Joseph’s own explanations shows that this difference is not a real contradiction.

First, in the Bible and other scriptures, fire and light are often used to describe the same divine presence. God appears to Moses in a burning bush that gives light but does not burn the bush (Exodus 3). The Lord leads Israel with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), showing that fire can function as a source of light. Heavenly beings are also described as shining, glowing, or appearing “like fire.” Because of this, describing a divine manifestation as either “fire” or “light” fits well within biblical language.

Second, Joseph’s own descriptions connect fire and light, rather than treating them as opposites. In the 1832 account, he says he saw a “pillar of fire, light above the brightness of the sun at noon day.” This wording already blends the two ideas. Joseph appears to be using familiar biblical imagery to describe something intensely bright and powerful, not trying to give a scientific description of its physical makeup.

Third, different words can describe the same experience, especially when someone is trying to put an extraordinary event into ordinary language. A blazing light can look like fire. Fire itself gives off light. When Joseph told or wrote about his experience in different settings and for different audiences, he used different words that pointed to the same reality—a brilliant, heavenly manifestation coming from God.

Fourth, Joseph’s later accounts aim for clarity, not correction. As he retold the story over time, he often chose words that would help listeners better understand what he saw. “Light” may have been clearer and less confusing than “fire” for later audiences, especially since the pillar did not burn anything. This is the same way people today might describe the same event differently depending on context, without contradicting themselves.

In short, the use of “pillar of fire” in one account and “pillar of light” in another reflects biblical style, natural language variation, and growing clarity, not a contradiction. Both expressions describe the same overwhelming divine glory and are completely consistent with each other and with scripture.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===The Lord or an Angel?===
| state = closed
| content = Critics have occasionally asserted that early Latter-day Saint sources understood Joseph Smith’s First Vision to involve only an angel rather than God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is based on selective quotations from early leaders, secondary retellings, and the use of the term angel in some historical contexts. Joseph Smith’s own early accounts also contribute to the confusion. In his 1835 journal, Joseph referred to his youthful experiences as involving the “first visitation of angels” and stated that “many angels” were present. Importantly, the same account also explicitly describes the appearance of two personages, one of whom testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. A careful examination of the primary sources, however, shows that these references do not reflect a doctrinal misunderstanding of the First Vision, but instead arise from differences in terminology, abbreviated retellings, and occasional conflation of distinct visionary events.

====Oliver Cowdery====
Oliver Cowdery wrote an early history of Joseph Smith in 1834–1835 for a Church newspaper called the ''Messenger and Advocate''. Critics often point to this account to claim that Cowdery believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. A closer and simpler reading of Cowdery’s writing shows that this conclusion goes beyond what Cowdery actually said.

In his account, Cowdery explained that Joseph Smith was confused by the many churches around him and wanted to know whether God really existed. Joseph prayed, and an angel appeared and told him that his sins were forgiven. Cowdery then moved directly into a story that closely matches later accounts of the angel Moroni and the gold plates. Because Cowdery did not clearly separate these events, some readers assume he believed there was only one vision.

However, Cowdery’s goal was not to give a detailed timeline of every vision Joseph experienced. He was writing a brief introduction to Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet for readers who already believed Joseph was inspired by God. To keep the story simple, Cowdery combined Joseph’s early spiritual experiences into one shortened account focused on forgiveness and calling.

Cowdery even corrected himself in a later issue after realizing he had listed the wrong age for Joseph. This shows that the history was informal and not meant to be a carefully edited record. At no point did Cowdery say that Joseph had only one vision, nor did he deny later accounts that describe God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing to Joseph.

Cowdery’s writing also fits well with Joseph Smith’s own 1832 account, which focused more on Joseph seeking forgiveness than on explaining exactly who appeared to him. At the time, people often used the word angel in a general way to describe messages from heaven.

There is no evidence that Oliver Cowdery rejected or misunderstood the First Vision. His use of the word angel reflects a short, simplified retelling of Joseph Smith’s early experiences, not a different belief about what Joseph actually saw.

====Brigham Young====
Critics sometimes claim that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quotation taken from one of Young’s sermons, where he said, “The Lord did not come… but He did send His angel.” When read by itself, this line can sound like Brigham Young was denying the First Vision as it is taught today. However, reading the full sermon shows that this interpretation is incorrect:

<blockquote>The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)</blockquote>

In the full statement, Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord never came to Joseph Smith. Instead, he was explaining ''how'' the Lord chose to reveal Himself. Young specifically said that the Lord did not come “with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory.” In other words, God did not appear with overwhelming display, grandeur, or force. Instead, He worked through humble means that matched Joseph Smith’s situation and character.

Brigham Young then explained that the Lord “did send His angel” to Joseph Smith. Importantly, the sentence continues by saying that the Lord informed Joseph that he should not join any of the religious sects because they were all wrong. Grammatically and logically, Brigham Young is describing the angel as the messenger, while the message itself comes from the Lord. This fits well with how divine communication is described throughout the Bible, where God often teaches or commands through angels.

It is also important to remember that Joseph Smith experienced multiple angelic visitations, especially from the angel Moroni. Brigham Young frequently spoke in broad, summarized language about Joseph’s early calling, often blending different events together to make a general point about divine authority rather than to give a detailed history lesson. His sermon was focused on showing that God chose a humble young man and guided him step by step, not on listing every vision in precise order.

There is strong evidence elsewhere that Brigham Young accepted Joseph Smith’s account of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ. He taught openly that God the Father and the Son were separate beings and fully supported Joseph Smith’s prophetic testimony. The selective use of one sentence from a longer sermon does not reflect Young’s overall beliefs.

When read in full and in context, Brigham Young’s words do not show confusion or disagreement about the First Vision. Instead, they show his effort to explain that God did not appear with dramatic display, but worked through angels and personal revelation to call Joseph Smith in a quiet and humble way.

====Lucy Mack Smith====
Some critics claim that Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, said his First Vision was only of an angel — and not of God the Father and Jesus Christ. This idea usually comes from a letter she wrote in January 1831. However, when her words are read carefully and in context, it is clear that she was not trying to describe the First Vision itself, and she did not deny that Joseph saw God and Christ.
Lucy’s letter was not written to explain every vision Joseph had. Instead, she wrote it to introduce the Book of Mormon to her siblings and explain how that book came forth. In that letter, she quoted language that closely matches a passage in the Church’s Articles and Covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 20:5–8) — language that refers to God ministering to Joseph by an angel who gave him commandments and assistance to translate the plates.

Critics sometimes point to this and say Lucy was referring to the First Vision. But her letter does not say that the visit of the angel was Joseph’s first spiritual experience, nor does it suggest that he only saw an angel instead of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, her wording reflects the common devotional style and biblical language of the time — where an angel is described as a messenger of God who brings instruction or revelation.

In her letter, Lucy actually echoes Doctrine & Covenants 20, received in 1830, that already assumes the First Vision had taken place and that Joseph had received a mission from the Lord. The letter closely paraphrases that text.

*D&C 20:5-8 (April 1830)
:(verse 5) "'''After it was truly manifested unto this first elder [i.e., Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins''', he was entangled again in the vanities of the world; (verse 6) But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness; (verse 7) And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; (verse 8) And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon."({{s||D&C|20|5-8}}

Compare this with Mother Smith's letter:

*LUCY'S LETTER (January 1831)
<blockquote>
"'''Joseph, after repenting of his sins''' and humbling himself before God, was visited by an holy angel whose countenance was as lightning and whose garments were white above all whiteness, who gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high; and who gave unto him, by the means of which was before prepared, that he should translate this book."
</blockquote>

Compare both of the above sources with the Prophet's 1832 First Vision narrative:

*FIRST VISION ACCOUNT (September–November 1832)
<blockquote>
"'''I felt to mourn for my own sins'''....[The Lord said during the First Vision,] ''''thy sins are forgiven thee''''....after many days I fell into transgression and sinned in many things....I called again upon the Lord and he shewed unto me a heavenly vision for behold an angel of the Lord came and stood before me....the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters."
</blockquote>

Critics also fail to point out that almost exactly two months before Lucy Mack Smith wrote her letter, four Latter-day Saint missionaries (Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Peter Whitmer Jr. and Ziba Peterson) were publicly teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and had received a commission from Him to preach true religion.<ref>{{CriticalWork:Reflector:14 February 1831:Gold Bible 4}}</ref> It is specifically stated in the newspaper article that records this information that the missionaries made their comments about 1 November 1830 - shortly after the Church was formally organized. Some critics who ''do'' acknowledge this newspaper article attempt to dismiss it by calling it a "vague" reference, despite the clear wording that the missionaries taught that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."<ref>For example, Richard Abanes, in his anti-Mormon work ''Becoming Gods'', boldly declares in the main body of his text on page 34 that "[n]ot a single piece of published literature" mentions the First Vision, yet in an endnote at the back of the book on page 338 acknowledges this newspaper account. He attempts to dismiss this by claiming that the reference is "vague," yet acknowledges that "as early as 1831 Smith ''might'' have been starting to privately tell select persons that he had at some point seen God."</ref>

Although one critic of the Church indicates that the letter was “unpublished until 1906”,<ref>{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=32}}</ref> he does not indicate where, or by whom. First published by Ben E. Rich, President of the Southern States Mission, the letter has been long available to interested students of Latter-day Saint history.<ref>''Elders Journal'' 4 (1 November 1906): 60-62 [Southern States Mission, Chattanooga, Tenn.]. It was later published in Rich, ''Scrap Book of Mormon Literature'', 2 volumes (Chicago: Henry C. Etten and Co., no date [Vogel suggests 1913]): 543-5; also by Francis Kirkham, ''A New Witness for Christ in America. The Book of Mormon'', 2 Volumes, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Brigham Young University 1942; 1960), 1:66.</ref>

It should be noted that the Lucy Mack Smith letter was not even available for publication until just shortly before it appeared in print because it was in a descendant's possession. The introduction to the letter published in the ''Elders' Journal'' states: "The following very interesting and earnest gospel letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, mother of the Prophet Joseph, to her brother, Solomon Mack and his wife, was '''presented to President Joseph F. Smith a few weeks ago''' by Mrs. Candace Mack Barker, of Keene, N[ew] H[ampshire], a grand-daughter of Solomon Mack, to whom the letter is addressed. Mrs. Barker stated that it was her desire to place the letter in the hands of those who would appreciate its contents and preserve it as she felt it properly deserved."<ref>''Elders' Journal'' 4/3 (1 November 1906): 59</ref> The idea that Lucy Mack was trying to hide a First Vision story is not supported by the historical record.

In short, Lucy Mack Smith’s 1831 letter does not say that Joseph’s First Vision was of an angel instead of God and Christ. Instead, she was summarizing part of the early Church’s understanding of how revelation came to Joseph — in this case, through an angelic messenger connected with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon — and she did not intend to give a full history of every heavenly manifestation Joseph experienced.

====John Taylor====
Some critics point to a statement by John Taylor in an 1879 sermon where he referred to Joseph Smith asking an angel which church was right. They claim this shows that Taylor was confused about the First Vision. While the quotation itself is accurate, it does not show confusion when it is placed in its full historical setting.

<blockquote>“…just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right.” (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)</blockquote>

John Taylor was deeply familiar with the First Vision account. In fact, he served as the editor of the Church’s newspaper, ''Times and Seasons'', in 1842–1843. During that time, he oversaw the publication of Joseph Smith’s history, which included the clear account of the First Vision describing the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is not reasonable to believe that Taylor could publish this material without understanding or accepting it.

Taylor also had direct involvement with the Pearl of Great Price. The First Vision account was included in the Pearl of Great Price when the Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851, and John Taylor approved a new American edition in 1878—only one year before the sermon critics quote. This shows that he was well aware of the official First Vision narrative.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half before his 1879 sermon, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled ''Life of Joseph Smith''. In that letter, he wrote:

<blockquote>God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world</blockquote>

Even more telling is that on the same day as the 1879 sermon where Taylor used the word angel, he also spoke of the Father, the Son, and Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith:

<blockquote>When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)</blockquote>

This shows that Taylor was not denying or forgetting the First Vision. Instead, he was speaking in a brief and informal way during part of his remarks and then referring more fully to Joseph’s experiences elsewhere.

So why did John Taylor use the word angel at all? The most likely explanation is that he was either speaking generally about divine messengers or using biblical language, where heavenly beings are sometimes called angels even when they act with God’s authority. In the Bible, for example, God Himself is sometimes called an “angel” because the word means messenger.

When all of John Taylor’s writings and sermons are considered together, it becomes clear that he fully understood and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The single reference to an angel does not reflect confusion, but rather a brief or symbolic use of language taken out of context.

====Orson Pratt====
Some critics claim that Orson Pratt believed Joseph Smith saw only an angel and not God the Father and Jesus Christ. This claim is usually based on a short quote from an 1869 sermon where Pratt said that “God had sent an angel” to Joseph Smith:

<blockquote>“By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)</blockquote>

When this short quote is read by itself, it can sound like Pratt misunderstood the First Vision. But reading the full sermon shows that this is not true. In the same sermon, Orson Pratt clearly explained what Joseph Smith said he saw.

<blockquote>By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, ‘This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.’ This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. ‘What!’ said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. ‘The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.’ This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)</blockquote>

Pratt taught that Joseph saw a pillar of fire come down from heaven and that he saw two glorious personages inside that light. He described their faces shining like the sun and said that Joseph heard one of them speak while pointing to the other and saying, “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye him.” This is a clear and accurate description of the First Vision as Joseph Smith later recorded it.

Pratt’s use of the word angel at the beginning of the sermon does not replace or contradict this description. Instead, Pratt was summarizing Joseph’s message to the world in simple terms before explaining the details. In the 1800s, Church leaders often used the word angel to mean a messenger sent by God, especially when speaking to audiences who were unfamiliar with Latter-day Saint beliefs.
At the end of the sermon, Pratt also spoke about Joseph Smith being visited “four years afterwards” by another angel. This clearly refers to the visit of the angel Moroni, showing that Pratt understood Joseph Smith had more than one heavenly experience and that these events were separate.

When the full sermon is read, it is clear that Orson Pratt knew and taught that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the First Vision. The claim that Pratt was confused comes from quoting only a small part of his words and leaving out the section where he gives a detailed and correct explanation of the vision.

====Wilford Woodruff====
Wilford Woodruff is claimed to have said in an 1855 sermon that the Church had been established in the last days only by "the ministering of an holy angel", and not by the Father and the Son.<ref>Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]</ref> The following text is the one used by critics of the Church to try and make it look like Apostle Wilford Woodruff taught something other than the traditional storyline of the First Vision.

:"That same organization and gospel that Christ died for...is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God...The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world...He told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world" <ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Wilford Woodruff|vol=2|disc=33|start=196|end=197}}</ref>

An examination of the original text of the sermon in question reveals that Wilford Woodruff's words are being taken out of context by critics. The bolded words below show which sections of the paragraph have been selected by detractors to try and rewrite history.

:"The gospel has gone forth in our day in its true glory, power, order, and light, as it always did when God had a people among men that He acknowledged. '''That same organization and gospel that Christ died for''', and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, '''is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy ''ANGEL'' from God''', out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world, and unfolded unto him the gross darkness that surrounded the nations, those scenes that should take place in this generation, and would follow each other in quick succession, even unto the coming of the Messiah. '''The ''ANGEL'' taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world'''; and ''THE LORD'' gave him commandments, and sealed upon him the Priesthood, and gave him power to administer the ordinances of the house of the Lord. '''''HE'' told him the gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of ''HIS'' kingdom in the world''', that the people had turned away from ''HIS'' true order, changed the ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, and inherited lies and things wherein their was no profit. ''HE'' told him the time had come to lay the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom of God among men for the last time, preparatory to the winding up scene" (emphasis added).

When critics break the above quotation into pieces in the manner that they have, they create an unrecognized problem for themselves. A careful reading of this material indicates that it was not the angel who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information (see the capitalized/italicized words above: ''ANGEL, THE LORD, HE, HIS''). The anti-Mormons have, through their editing of the text, made it falsely appear as if the words of the angel and the Lord were one and the same. Woodruff's quote does not state that it was the ''angel'' who told Joseph Smith that "the gospel was not among men"; it was the "the Lord" who provided this information

The attempt to use Wilford Woodruff's words to obscure the details of Mormon history is a misguided one because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that critics advocate. Elder Woodruff was in the second highest leadership quorum of the Church during the lifetime of Joseph Smith and never once did he mention that the Prophet told two different tales about the founding of the last gospel dispensation.

It is difficult to believe that Elder Wilford Woodruff did not have an accurate knowledge of the traditional First Vision story prior to his 1855 remarks since on 3 February 1842 he became the superintendent of the printing office in Nauvoo, Illinois where the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper was published<ref>{{HoC1|vol=4|start=513}}</ref> and remained there through at least 8 November 1843.<ref>{{HoC1|vol=6|start=63}}</ref> These dates are significant because in-between them the Prophet Joseph Smith had two separate accounts of the First Vision printed on the pages of the ''Times and Seasons'' and so Elder Woodruff would have been the person who was ultimately responsible for their production and distribution.

* {{TS|vol=3|num=9|date=1 March 1842|start=706|end=707}} [Wentworth Letter First Vision account].
* {{TS|vol=3|num=11|date=1 April 1842|start=748|end=749}} [''History of the Church'' official First Vision account].

It should also be noted that before Elder Woodruff made his 1855 remarks six other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published First Vision accounts: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852). It seems highly unlikely that Elder Woodruff would have remained unaware of these publications, which were made available to the public by his closest associates.

====George A. Smith====
Apostle George A. Smith said on two separate occasions that Joseph Smith's First Vision was of an "angel"—not of the Father and the Son. However, the argument that George A. Smith was simply not aware of a Father-and-Son First Vision account when he made his "angel" statements is nonsense since it can be shown from a documentary standpoint that he did indeed have prior knowledge of such a thing. An argument of ignorance is also untenable in light of the fact that Brother Smith's close associates in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had published orthodox recitals of the First Vision on nine different occasions long BEFORE he made his verbal missteps at the pulpit: (Orson Pratt - 1840, 1850, 1851); (Orson Hyde - 1842); (John E. Page - 1844); (John Taylor - 1850); (Lorenzo Snow - 1850); (Franklin D. Richards - 1851, 1852).

This does not mean that Brother Smith was not aware of the Father and the Son appearing to the Prophet at the time that he made his anomalous remarks. The following timeline demonstrates that the Prophet's cousin was well aware of the official version of events. His out-of-place comments need to be evaluated from that perspective.

*'''7 April 1854:''' Elder George A. Smith was appointed at General Conference to be the new Church Historian.

*'''9 August 1855:''' Elder George A. Smith wrote to the editor of the ''Deseret News'' on 9 August 1855 and gave permission to publish a short Church history that was originally requested for inclusion in a non-Mormon publication, but which ultimately did not appear in print. When Elder Smith told the First Vision story in this history he said that Joseph Smith beheld "two glorious Beings" during the experience. The capitalization of the word "Beings" indicates that the two individuals were considered to be Deity. Elder Smith then went on to tell the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which, he said, was instigated by an "angel" who was commissioned of God (''Deseret News'', vol. 5, no. 26, 5 September 1855, 2).

*'''15 August 1855:''' The First Vision account as found in the Wentworth Letter (1 March 1842) was published in Salt Lake City in connection with the official ''History of the Church''. This account speaks of "two glorious personages" and then later speaks of the single "angel" who was involved in revealing the existence of the Book of Mormon plates. Since Elder Smith was the Church Historian at this time he likely would have known about the content of this publication.<ref>See {{DN1|vol=5|num=23|date=15 August 1855|start=1}}</ref>

*'''6 August 1862:''' Elder George A. Smith's short Church history (see 9 August 1855 above) was reprinted on the pages of the ''Deseret News''. In this First Vision account Elder Smith referred to "two glorious Beings" and then later spoke of the single "angel" who was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon<ref>''Deseret News'', vol. 12, no. 6, 6 August 1862, 2.</ref>

*'''15 November 1864:''' In a discourse on historical matters, Elder George A. Smith quoted directly from the official First Vision account, which was first published in the ''Times and Seasons'' newspaper on 15 March 1842 and 1 April 1842. Elder Smith recited the line, “This is my Beloved Son, hear Him” – leaving no doubt that he knew the specific identities of the two "personages" who appeared to Joseph Smith during the First Vision event.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|vol=11|disc=1|start=2|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>

*'''15 November 1868:''' President George A. Smith (now a counselor in the First Presidency) accurately related many First Vision story elements - as published in the Church’s official history - but mistakenly mixed them together with several accurate angel Moroni story elements - as published in the Church’s official history. He said:
::1. Joseph Smith was 14 or 15 years old
::2. There was a revival involving Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists
::3. There was a scramble after the revival to secure converts
::4. Unpleasant feelings were the result
::5. Joseph Smith had attended those meetings
::6. Joseph Smith prayed because of James 1:5
::7. The Lord sent an '''angel''' to Joseph Smith in answer to his prayer
::8. Joseph Smith asked the '''angel''' which church was right and the '''angel''' said they were all wrong
::9. The vision was repeated several times and Joseph Smith was commanded to tell his father about it
::10. Joseph Smith’s father told him to observe the instructions that were given to him.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=12|disc=63|start=334|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>
*'''20 June 1869:''' President George A. Smith mistakenly mixed together accurate First Vision story elements with accurate angel Moroni story elements. He said:
::1. Some members of Joseph Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians
::2. Joseph Smith reflected much on religion
::3. Joseph Smith was astonished at the bad feelings manifested at the end of the reformation
::4. Joseph Smith was led to pray because of James 1:5
::5. Joseph Smith had a vision of a holy '''angel'''
::6. Joseph Smith asked which of the denominations in the vicinity was right
::7. Joseph Smith was told that they had all gone astray and wandered into darkness
::8. Joseph Smith was instructed not to join any of them
::9. Joseph Smith was told that God was about to restore the gospel in its simplicity and purity.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=13|disc=12|start=77|end=78|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>
*'''1869:''' President George A. Smith published a small pamphlet which contained the Wentworth Letter account of the First Vision.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Rise Progress and Travels|pages=37}}</ref>

*'''20 November 1870:''' President George A. Smith accurately related several First Vision story elements at the pulpit. This time he did NOT mistakenly include any angel Moroni story elements in his narrative.
::1. The Lord revealed Himself to Joseph Smith
::2. Joseph Smith was puzzled by hearing learned men preach about different doctrines
::3. Joseph Smith saw the learned men quarrel over converts
::4. Joseph Smith prayed humbly, with faith, because of {{b||James|1|5}}
::5. Joseph Smith asked the Lord which was the right way
::6. The Lord showed Joseph Smith the right way.<ref>{{JDfairwiki| vol=13|disc=34|start=293|author=George A. Smith}}</ref>

The timeline shows that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from. The pattern that can be seen in the timeline above is that George A. Smith was accurate in relating First Vision details when he had a physical text to read from or was formally writing down historical matters; he was accurate on many points when he was talking extemporaneously; he corrected himself after delivering erroneous verbal remarks.
====Orson Hyde====
Orson Hyde said during a General Conference in 1854:"Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?'" Was Orson Hyde unaware of the details of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in the First Vision?

When Elder Orson Hyde was discoursing in General Conference on 6 April 1854 he was NOT speaking about the First Vision (a story he knew very well from previously published literature) - he was trying to teach the Latter-day Saints about "the grand harvest" which would take place during "the winding up scene" and the part that "angels" would have in it. The evidence suggests that Elder Hyde was utilizing section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for some of his remarks about angels, NOT about the events that took place within the Sacred Grove.

The proper context of Elder Hyde’s remarks can be determined simply by examining his opening statement. There he makes it clear that because it was currently the season for sowing crops he wanted to discourse on some parable imagery found in the 13th chapter of the New Testament book of Matthew (verses 1–9, 36–43).

Elder Hyde specifically mentioned that the "angels" were the agency through which "this reaping dispensation was '''committed''' to the children of men" and that these heavenly beings held "the keys of this dispensation." With these words he may well have been referring to the episode recorded in section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants where angels tell Joseph Smith - "the keys of this dispensation are '''committed''' into your hands" (v. 16). They also "'''committed''' the gospel of the dispensation of Abraham" to the Prophet (v. 12) and, furthermore, they "'''committed''' unto [him] the keys of the gathering" (v. 11) - [harvest imagery]. Elder Hyde said in his sermon that the angels brought the news that "the time of the end was drawing nigh" and, significantly, the last of the angels to appear in D&C 110 said, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors" (v. 16).

A summary of Elder Hyde’s comments shows that he did not intend to speak about the First Vision at all; he wanted to impress upon that Saints that the latter-day work of gathering (the figurative harvest imagery) was inaugurated by angels and they would also play a role in the figurative separation of the wheat and the tares.

*'''15 June 1841:'''
<blockquote>
When Orson Hyde was in London, England on a mission he wrote to the Prophet Joseph Smith and informed him: “I have written a book to publish in the German language, setting forth our doctrine and principles in as clear and concise a manner as I possibly could. After giving the history of the rise of the Church, in something the manner that Br[other] O[rson] Pratt did, I have written a snug little article upon every point of doctrine believed by the Saints.”<ref>{{TS1|author=Orson Hyde|vol=2|num=23|date=1 October 1841|start=551}}</ref>
</blockquote>

:Elder Hyde is referring to Elder Pratt’s missionary tract - published in Scotland in 1840 - called ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions'', which contained the first known published, full-length description of the First Vision event. Elder Hyde’s pamphlet contained a recounting of the First Vision that was very similar to the one found in Elder Pratt’s pamphlet.

*'''1842:''' Elder Hyde’s pamphlet was published in Frankfurt, Germany sometime in the year 1842. It was called ''Eine Stimme aus dem Schoose der Erde'' (''A Cry from the Wilderness, A Voice from the Depths of the Earth''). This was the first known foreign-language rendition of the First Vision story.

*'''6 February 1851:''' Elder Lorenzo Snow wrote a letter to Elder Orson Hyde on 6 February 1851 from Geneva, Switzerland and informed him that his own missionary tract called “The Voice of Joseph” (written between 23 July 1850 and 6 September 1850) was circulating in both Italy and Switzerland.<ref>{{BioLS1|start=176}}</ref>

:From the above information it can be determined that before Orson Hyde made his 1854 remarks he was aware of at least three orthodox First Vision accounts produced by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

::1. Orson Pratt’s missionary tract [published in 1840],
::2. his own missionary tract [written in 1841], and
::3. Lorenzo Snow’s missionary tract [written in 1850].

It is high unlikely that Elder Hyde did not possess an accurate understanding of the First Vision story before the year 1854.
====Heber C. Kimball====
Critics quote a portion of a sermon delivered at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on November 8, 1857 by Heber C. Kimball, in which it appears that he denies that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Here is what the critics quote:

<blockquote>Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No; he sent Moroni and told him there was a record,…Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, ‘Go and do this;’ and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.</blockquote>

The very same evidence that was used in the construction of the anti-Mormon charge about Heber C. Kimball can be used to topple it. Kimball's remarks about God not appearing cannot be legitimately applied to Joseph Smith's First Vision experience. This argument is a classic example of taking an isolated statement out of its proper context and drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty evidence. When the entire sermon of Heber C. Kimball is examined in detail, the anti-Mormon argument quickly falls apart. Here is the full quote:

<blockquote>
If God confers '''gifts''', and blessings, and promises, and glories, and immortality, and eternal lives, and you receive them and treasure them up, then our Father and our God has joy in that man. . . . Do you not see [that] God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the '''gifts''', and treasure them up, and '''practice upon those gifts'''? And He gives those '''gifts''', and confers them upon you, and will have us to '''practice upon them'''. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call, but '''He sent Peter to do it'''. Do you not see? '''He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph''', and told him that he had got the plates. '''Did God come Himself? No: He sent Moroni''' and told him there was a record, and says he, "That record is [a] matter that pertains to the Lamanites, and it tells when their fathers came out of Jerusalem, and how they came, and all about it; and, says he, "If you will do as I tell you, I will confer a '''gift''' upon you." Well, he conferred it upon him, because Joseph said he would do as he told him. "I want you to go to work and take the Urim and Thummim, and translate this book, and have it published, that this nation may read it." Do you not see, by Joseph receiving the '''gift''' that was conferred upon him, you and I have that record?

Well, when this took place, '''Peter came along to him and gave power and authority''', and, says he, "You go and baptize Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a priest." He did it, and do you not see '''his works were in exercise'''? Then Oliver, having authority, baptized Joseph and ordained him a priest. Do you not see '''the works, how they manifest themselves'''?

Well, then Peter comes along. '''Why did not God come? He sent Peter''', do you not see? '''Why did He not come along? Because He has agents to attend to His business''', and He sits upon His throne and is established at headquarters, and tells this man, 'Go and do this'; and it is behind the veil just as it is here."<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Heber C. Kimball|vol=6|disc=4|start=29|end=30, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

From a careful reading of this text it can be concluded that Kimball was talking about (#1) the appearance of the angel Moroni in 1823 in connection with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and (#2) the appearance of the apostle Peter in 1829 in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. He was talking about two heavenly beings bestowing "gifts" upon Joseph Smith on two different occasions; he was saying that in these two instances God sent His agents to accomplish particular works. However, Heber C. Kimball said absolutely nothing in this statement about the First Vision which occurred in 1820.

It cannot be successfully argued that Heber C. Kimball was not aware of the First Vision story by this point in time either, since no less a person than President Brigham Young recorded in his journal that Brother Kimball was present with several other General Authorities about two and a half months earlier (13 August 1857) when they placed a copy of the ''Pearl of Great Price'' inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple.<ref>Brigham Young Journal, 13 August 1857, Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.</ref> This volume contained the 1838 account of the First Vision which was published by the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842. There were also several other publications placed inside the temple cornerstone which rehearsed the First Vision story. These included:
* Lorenzo Snow's ''The Voice of Joseph''
* Various tracts from Orson Pratt
* Franklin D. Richards's ''Compendium''
* John Jaques's ''Catechism for Children''
* ''Millennial Star'', vol. 14 supplement
* ''Millennial Star'', vol. 3
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph’s Age at the Time of First Vision===
| state = closed
| content = When Latter-day Saints describe Joseph Smith’s First Vision, they commonly note that he was very young at the time—about fourteen years old. This understanding comes primarily from Joseph’s later, more formal accounts, but it is also supported by his earliest writings when those documents are read in their historical context.

The most familiar account of the First Vision is Joseph Smith’s 1838–39 history, now canonized as Joseph Smith–History in the Pearl of Great Price. In that narrative, Joseph explained that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, when he was “an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.” Since Joseph was born on December 23, 1805, he would have been 14 years old during the spring of 1820, turning fifteen later that year.

Joseph’s other firsthand retellings of the First Vision are consistent with this timeline. In his 1835 account, he said the experience happened when he was “about 14 years old.” In an 1842 summary prepared for publication, he likewise stated that he was “about fourteen years of age” when the event took place. Even in casual recollections to acquaintances, Joseph repeatedly described the First Vision as something that happened in his early teens.

The main question arises from Joseph’s earliest known account, written in 1832. In this document, Joseph (or his scribe) stated that the vision occurred while he was “in the sixteenth year of my age.” At first glance, some readers assume this must mean Joseph was fifteen or even sixteen years old, creating a potential conflict with his later accounts. However, this phrase requires careful historical interpretation.

In early nineteenth-century English usage, saying someone was “in their sixteenth year” did ''not'' mean they were sixteen years old. Rather, it meant they had ''begun'' the year leading toward their sixteenth birthday. In other words, a person entered their “sixteenth year” immediately after turning fifteen, just as an infant is said to be “in their first year” from birth, not at age one. This older way of reckoning age was common in Joseph Smith’s day and appears in other contemporary documents.

Additionally, the phrase in the 1832 manuscript appears to have been inserted between the lines, suggesting it may reflect later clarification rather than careful chronological precision. The 1832 account itself was not intended as a polished autobiography; instead, it was a private, spiritual narrative focused on Joseph’s sins, repentance, and forgiveness, not on exact dates.

In the 1832 account, Frederick G. Williams inserted the "in the 16th year of my age" above Joseph's text ''after'' Joseph had already written it. (See: [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=3&s=undefined&sm=none "History, circa Summer 1832,"] ''The Joseph Smith Papers'')
[[File:1832.account.16th.year.png|800px|thumb|center]]

When Joseph’s accounts are considered together, they present a coherent picture. He consistently placed the First Vision in the spring of 1820 and consistently described himself as about fourteen years old at the time. The wording in the 1832 account fits comfortably within this framework once historical language and age-counting conventions are taken into account.

In short, the documentary evidence supports the traditional understanding: Joseph Smith was fourteen years old when he experienced the First Vision, a young teenager seeking divine guidance in a time of religious confusion.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph’s Motivation for Seeking Guidance from God===
| state = closed
| content = The multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision have long attracted both devotion and criticism. Among the most common objections is the claim that Joseph changed his stated reason for praying over time. Critics argue that his earliest account (1832) presents a desire for ''forgiveness of sins'' as his primary motivation, while later accounts—especially the 1838 narrative canonized in the Pearl of Great Price—emphasize a desire to ''know which church was true''. According to this view, the differing emphases represent a contradiction and suggest that the First Vision story evolved over time.

A close reading of all the available evidence, however, shows that this conclusion rests on an oversimplified comparison of selective phrases rather than on the full substance of the documents. When the accounts are read carefully and in their historical and religious context, Joseph Smith’s motivations appear consistent rather than contradictory. From the beginning, he expressed two closely related concerns: a desire to be forgiven of sins and a desire to worship God correctly by affiliating with the true church.

====The Core Claim of the Criticism====
Critics typically contrast two statements:

*'''1832 account:''' “I cried unto the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy.”
*'''1838 account:''' “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”
From these statements alone, critics conclude that Joseph originally prayed only for forgiveness and later revised his story to include questions about church authority. This comparison, however, strips both texts of their surrounding explanations and ignores the broader religious assumptions of Joseph Smith’s world.

====A Close Reading of the 1832 Account====
The 1832 account, partly written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, devotes significant space to describing the spiritual journey that led him to prayer. Far from portraying a narrow concern with personal guilt alone, the account reveals a young man grappling with multiple, interconnected questions.

Between the ages of twelve and fifteen, Joseph became deeply concerned about “the welfare of [his] immortal soul.” His search of the scriptures led him to compare biblical Christianity with the behavior and teachings of the denominations around him. This comparison caused him to “marvel exceedingly” and grieve that those who professed religion did not live in a manner consistent with scripture.
Joseph further concluded—based on both scripture study and personal observation—that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” He mourned not only for his own sins, but also “for the sins of the world,” reflecting concern for widespread religious corruption, not merely individual failure.

Only after recounting all of these considerations does Joseph explain why he prayed: “When I considered all these things… therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy.” His prayer was a response to the cumulative weight of doctrinal confusion, perceived apostasy, concern for correct worship, and personal conviction of sin.

In other words, forgiveness of sins was not the sole motivation for prayer—it was part of a broader religious crisis.

====Forgiveness of Sins and the “True Church” in Joseph’s Religious World====
Understanding Joseph Smith’s motivations requires recognizing an important feature of early nineteenth-century American Christianity. As historian Christopher C. Jones has observed, Joseph’s accounts strongly resemble Methodist conversion narratives, in which forgiveness of sins and correct church affiliation were inseparable. In Joseph’s religious culture, one found forgiveness by joining the right church and adhering to correct doctrine.<ref>Christopher C. Jones, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23291638 The Power and Form of Godliness: Methodist Conversion Narratives and Joseph Smith's First Vision]," ''Journal of Mormon History'' 37, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 88–114.</ref>

Under this framework, asking God for forgiveness inherently involved asking God which church—and which teachings—were correct. The two concerns ''rode in tandem'', not in competition. Thus, even if the 1832 account emphasizes repentance language, it does not exclude institutional or doctrinal concerns. On the contrary, the account explicitly laments the failure of existing denominations to embody New Testament Christianity.

Significantly, in the vision itself, Joseph is told not merely that his sins are forgiven, but that “the world lieth in sin” and that religious leaders “draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me,” echoing Matthew 15:8–9. This language points beyond personal forgiveness toward a general apostasy and the need for divine restoration.

====Scriptural Allusions and the Broader Apostasy Theme====
The 1832 account also draws on scriptural language that Joseph later revisited during his translation of the Bible—particularly in JST Psalm 14. That psalm laments the loss of truth in the last days, declaring that “none doeth good” because religious teachers have gone astray. Scholars such as Joseph Fielding McConkie, Matthew Brown, Don Bradley, and Walker Wright have noted that Joseph’s JST rendering of Psalm 14 closely parallels themes in the First Vision and may even have influenced the language of his early history.<ref>Walker Wright and Don Bradley, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/none-that-doeth-good 'None That Doeth Good': Early Evidence of the First Vision in JST Psalm 14]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 61, no. 3 (2022), 123–40.</ref>

These parallels reinforce the idea that Joseph’s concern was not simply moral failure among individuals, but doctrinal corruption among religious teachers and institutions. Under this reading, the 1832 account implicitly addresses the same “which church is true?” question that later accounts state more explicitly.

====The Later Accounts: Emphasis Without Contradiction====
Joseph Smith’s later narrations of the First Vision vary in detail depending on audience and purpose. The 1835 account includes both concerns explicitly: uncertainty about which religious system was right and the declaration that his sins were forgiven. The 1838 account foregrounds religious confusion and the question of church authority but still alludes to “many other things” said during the vision that are not recorded—leaving room for experiences, such as forgiveness, described elsewhere.

Similarly, third-party retellings by Orson Pratt (1840) and Orson Hyde (1842) combine both themes: preparation for a future state, concern for salvation, confusion among denominations, and assurance of divine favor.

Rather than showing a shift in motivation, these accounts show selective emphasis, shaped by context and audience. None of them deny either concern; each highlights different aspects of the same religious struggle.

The claim that Joseph Smith changed his motivation for seeking revelation does not survive careful scrutiny. Across all accounts, Joseph presents himself as a young man profoundly concerned with salvation—how to prepare for eternity, how to worship God correctly, and how to receive forgiveness of sins. In his worldview, these were not separate questions but variations on the same theme.
Differences among the First Vision accounts reflect changes in emphasis, audience, and narrative purpose—not contradiction. When read in context and within the religious culture of Joseph Smith’s time, the accounts form a coherent and internally consistent explanation of why he went to the grove to pray in 1820.

Rather than depicting an evolving fabrication, the evidence shows a stable core story: Joseph Smith sought divine guidance because he believed his soul—and the religious world around him—were in need of correction that only God could provide.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Knowing if God Existed===
| state = closed
| content = A frequently repeated claim in critical discussions of early Latter-day Saint history is that Oliver Cowdery taught that Joseph Smith did not even know whether a “Supreme Being” existed prior to 1823, thereby implying ignorance of God before the visit of the angel Moroni. This claim is based on a selective and decontextualized reading of Oliver Cowdery’s Church history, published in installments in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate beginning in late 1834. When read carefully and in full historical context, Oliver’s account does not deny Joseph Smith’s First Vision, nor does it suggest that Joseph was an atheist prior to Moroni’s visit. Instead, it reflects a complex narrative strategy, one that presupposes Joseph’s earlier divine encounter while choosing not to narrate it directly.

====Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–1835 History====
In December 1834, Oliver Cowdery began publishing a formal history of the Church in the Messenger and Advocate. In the first installment, Oliver accurately placed Joseph Smith at fourteen years of age during a period of intense religious excitement and revivalism. He described the surrounding sectarian contention and Joseph’s deep concern for his soul—an account that clearly parallels Joseph Smith’s own descriptions of the circumstances leading to the First Vision.

This initial installment builds narrative momentum toward a revelatory experience. Readers naturally expect the culminating event to be Joseph’s First Vision. However, in the second installment, published in February 1835, Oliver takes an unexpected turn.

====The Apparent Discontinuity in the Second Installment====
In the February 1835 installment, Oliver abruptly “corrects” Joseph’s age from fourteen to seventeen and proceeds to describe the visit of the angel Moroni rather than the First Vision. He does not narrate the vision of the Father and the Son explicitly, creating the impression—at least for modern readers unfamiliar with the broader documentary record—that Oliver either did not know of the First Vision or believed the Moroni visitation to be Joseph’s earliest divine encounter.

This narrative move has led some critics to argue that the First Vision was a later invention and that Joseph initially believed Moroni’s appearance was his first theophany. However, this interpretation collapses under close examination of both Oliver’s own language and the documentary evidence available at the time he was writing.

====Evidence That Oliver Knew of the First Vision====
By 1834, Joseph Smith had already recorded an account of his First Vision in his 1832 history, in which he explicitly stated that he “saw the Lord.” There is substantial evidence that Oliver Cowdery had access to this document while preparing his history. Not only was Oliver serving as Church historian at the time, but there are also striking verbal and thematic correlations between Joseph’s 1832 account, Oliver’s 1834–1835 history, and Joseph’s 1835 journal entry describing the same events.

Rather than being ignorant of the First Vision, Oliver appears to have assumed its reality and authority—so much so that he felt no need to retell it in detail. Instead, he refers to it obliquely before continuing his narrative with Moroni’s visit.

====“If a Supreme Being Did Exist”: What Oliver Actually Meant====
The most frequently misunderstood statement in Oliver’s February 1835 installment occurs when he minimizes the earlier religious excitement and writes that Joseph sought:

:''a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him.''

This sentence is often cited as evidence that Joseph doubted the existence of God prior to 1823. However, the grammatical structure and narrative framing show that Oliver is referring retrospectively to Joseph’s earlier state of concern, not his condition at age seventeen. The “religious excitement” is explicitly described as a past experience, tied to Joseph’s youth and spiritual anxiety, not as his settled worldview.

Immediately following this statement, Oliver affirms that Joseph’s seeking had already been answered. He writes:

:''This, most assuredly, was correct—it was right. The Lord has said, long since… that for him who knocks it shall be opened.''

The phrase “long since” signals that the divine response occurred prior to the events Oliver is about to describe—namely, the visit of Moroni. In other words, Oliver is assuring readers that Joseph’s earlier plea for divine confirmation had already been answered, even though Oliver does not recount the vision explicitly.

====An Intentional Narrative Shift, Not a Denial====
Oliver Cowdery’s decision to move directly to Moroni’s visit after alluding to Joseph’s earlier divine encounter appears to be a stylistic and narrative choice, not a theological one. The second installment functions as a transition from Joseph’s preparatory spiritual experiences to the beginning of his prophetic commission tied to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Far from denying the First Vision, Oliver signals its reality while choosing to focus on subsequent events. His language affirms that something decisive and correct had already taken place in Joseph’s life—a divine response consistent with Joseph Smith’s own accounts.

Oliver Cowdery did not claim that Joseph Smith lacked belief in a Supreme Being until 1823, nor did he deny or replace the First Vision with Moroni’s appearance. When read carefully, Oliver’s history presupposes Joseph’s earlier encounter with God and reflects familiarity with Joseph’s 1832 account. The much-discussed phrase “if a Supreme being did exist” describes Joseph’s earlier religious questioning, not his final understanding.

Rather than undermining Joseph Smith’s First Vision, Oliver Cowdery’s history quietly affirms it—demonstrating that by the mid-1830s, the experience was known, authoritative, and foundational, even when not retold in full detail.<ref>Roger Nicholson, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/the-cowdery-conundrum-olivers-aborted-attempt-to-describe-joseph-smiths-first-vision-in-1834-and-1835 The Cowdery Conundrum: Oliver's Aborted Atttempt to Describe Joseph Smith's First Vision in 1834 and 1835]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture'' 8 (2014) : 27–44.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were All the Churches False or Not?===
| state = closed
| content = One of the most persistent criticisms of Joseph Smith’s First Vision accounts is the claim that he had already concluded—before going to the grove to pray—that all churches were false. According to this argument, statements in Joseph’s earliest account (1832) indicate that he had already determined that “there was no society or denomination” built upon the New Testament. This, critics argue, contradicts later accounts in which Joseph expresses uncertainty about which church was true and even surprise upon being told by God to join none of them.

A careful examination of the historical record shows that this criticism rests on a false dilemma. Joseph Smith did not enter the grove having definitively decided that all churches everywhere were false. Rather, the evidence consistently portrays a young seeker who had become deeply disillusioned with the denominations known to him, yet remained uncertain about his duty and still hoped that God would identify the true path.

====The Claim of Contradiction====
Critics typically point to an apparent tension between two sets of statements:
*'''1832 account:''' Joseph states that through scripture study he learned that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.”
*'''1835 and 1838 accounts:''' Joseph repeatedly says that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and that his object in praying was to know “which of all the sects was right.”
From this contrast, critics argue that Joseph had already concluded that all churches were false in 1832 but later revised his story to portray himself as uncertain in order to heighten the drama or doctrinal implications of the First Vision.

This conclusion, however, misunderstands both the scope of Joseph’s early conclusions and the language he used to describe them.

====What Joseph Smith Actually Concluded Before Praying====
The 1832 account explains how Joseph reached his preliminary conclusions. From roughly age twelve onward, he studied the Bible and compared it to what he observed among the Christian denominations in his area. His conclusions were based on his “intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations,” not on abstract knowledge of Christianity worldwide.

When Joseph wrote that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the context suggests a judgment about the denominations with which he was familiar, not a settled conclusion about every church on earth. This reading is reinforced by contemporaneous evidence. An 1832 newspaper report stated that Joseph “had not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse to prayer.”

In other words, Joseph’s scripture study had led him to doubt the adequacy of the denominations he knew—but not to certainty about what he should do instead. His conclusions intensified his confusion rather than resolved it.

====Doubt and Uncertainty in the Later Accounts====
This same uncertainty appears consistently in Joseph’s later accounts. In his 1835 diary entry, he wrote that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong” and felt it was “of the first importance” to determine the truth because of the eternal consequences involved. In the 1838 account, he explained that he was too young and inexperienced “to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong,” despite his growing concerns about religious corruption.

This is not a retreat from an earlier certainty but an acknowledgment that Joseph’s personal conclusions were insufficient. The fact that he had already identified serious doctrinal problems did not give him confidence to act decisively. Instead, it convinced him that only divine revelation could settle the matter.

====“Never Entered Into My Heart”: A Question of Meaning====
One frequently cited objection focuses on Joseph Smith–History 1:18–19, where Joseph says that it “had never entered into my heart” that all churches were wrong, even though earlier he had asked whether “they were all wrong together.” At face value, this appears contradictory.

However, the phrase “entered into my heart” carries a specific meaning in Joseph’s religious vocabulary. Joseph used similar language elsewhere to describe moments of spiritual certainty rather than mere intellectual consideration. Something could pass through the mind without being fully accepted or internalized at the level of conviction.

Thus, Joseph could consider the possibility that the local denominations were all in error without emotionally or spiritually accepting the idea that no true church existed anywhere. Indeed, a draft history recorded by scribe Howard Coray clarifies this point by stating that Joseph “supposed that one of them were so”—that is, he still believed that at least one sect might be right, even if he had doubts.

====The Scope of Joseph’s Question: Local or Universal?====
Another key insight comes from reading Joseph Smith–History 1:10–18 as a continuous thought rather than isolated verses. In the passages immediately preceding Joseph’s famous question, he specifically names the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists as the denominations contending around him. His question—“Who of all these parties are right?”—naturally refers back to those groups.

Read this way, Joseph was asking whether the prominent denominations in his area were correct—or whether they were all mistaken—not whether Christianity itself had entirely vanished from the earth. If so, the later instruction to “join none of them” because all were wrong—apparently without geographical or denominational limitation—could well have been surprising and spiritually jarring.

====Orson Pratt and the Broader Religious World====
Orson Pratt’s 1840 account further undermines the idea that Joseph had already settled the question. Pratt reports that Joseph reflected on the existence of “many hundreds of different denominations” worldwide and wondered whether any of them constituted the Church of Christ. This expansive view makes little sense if Joseph had already concluded that all churches everywhere were false. Instead, it portrays a young man hoping—however uncertainly—that somewhere among the many sects was the truth.

The historical evidence does not support the claim that Joseph Smith definitively concluded before the First Vision that all churches were false. Rather, it shows that he became increasingly aware of doctrinal corruption and religious division among the denominations he knew, which deepened his uncertainty and led him to seek divine guidance.

Joseph’s scripture study created a crisis, not a resolution. He doubted the churches around him, questioned the integrity of their teachings, and mourned the spiritual condition of the world—but he did not claim the authority or certainty to declare universal apostasy on his own. That determination, according to all accounts, came only through revelation.

Thus, far from undermining the First Vision narratives, the apparent tension between the accounts reflects a realistic process of religious searching: growing doubt, unresolved questions, and the decision to seek answers from God rather than from human judgment alone.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Introduction to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:07:55Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Introduction to the Accounts
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
This page gathers all the accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision so that readers can be introduced to them. The links are directed to the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' website where readers can get an introduction to the account from the perspective of professional historians.

There were four firsthand and five secondhand accounts of Joseph's vision published in Joseph's lifetime. A description of each account is available in [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision "Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision"], josephsmithpapers.org.

A brief summary of each is included below, along with a link to the original image and a transcription published by the ''Joseph Smith Papers'' project.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Firsthand accounts===
| state = closed
| content = Joseph Smith recorded four accounts of the First Vision (either by himself or using a scribe):
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1 1832], a journal entry recorded by Joseph Smith
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/24 1835], a journal entry recorded in Joseph Smith's official journal
** A lightly edited version of this journal entry appeared in the [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/124 1835 JS history] prepared by Warren Parish
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/2 1838] (commonly known as [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng Joseph Smith–History] in the Pearl of Great Price)
** Two other versions of this account were created in the [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-draft-draft-3/2 1838–1841 draft history] and the [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-fair-copy/2 1841 fair copy history] as Joseph's scribes were preparing the Church history (formerly known as ''History of the Church'', now known as the JS, History, 1838–1856). It was also published in two parts the ''Times and Seasons'', on [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-15-march-1842/9 15 March 1842] and [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-april-1842/14 1 April 1842]
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1 1842] (commonly known as the Wentworth Letter)
** A copy of this version appeared in an [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/latter-day-saints-1844/1 1844 book] published by Daniel Rupp
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Secondhand accounts===
| state = closed
| content = Contemporaries of Joseph Smith recorded five secondhand accounts of the First Vision.
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/latter-day-saints-1844/1 1840, ''A(n) Interesting Account''], a pamphlet published by Apostle Orson Pratt
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/orson-hyde-ein-ruf-aus-der-wste-a-cry-out-of-the-wilderness-1842-extract-english-translation 1842, ''Ein Ruf aus der Wüste (A cry out of the wilderness)''], a pamphlet published by Apostle Orson Hyde ([https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/orson-hyde-ein-ruf-aus-der-wste-1842-extract?p=3 original German also available])
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/levi-richards-journal-11-june-1843-extract 1843, journal entry by Levi Richards], recording his experience listening to Joseph tell about the First Vision
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/interview-21-august-1843-extract 1843, newspaper report by David Nye White] in the ''Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette'', including an interview White did with Joseph Smith
* [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/alexander-neibaur-journal-24-may-1844-extract 1844, journal entry by Alexander Neibaur], recording his experience listening to Joseph tell about the First Vision
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Later accounts===
| state = closed
| content = In 1893, Charles Walker recorded [[Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1893 (Charles L. Walker account)|a late reminiscent account]] of hearing Joseph describe his vision.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Other Resources===
| state = closed
| content =

Video published by Doctrine and Covenants Central.
<embedvideo service="youtube">ExPjK5ujN8Y</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

Video published by the Church History Department.
<embedvideo service="youtube">rP2ypXYUTxI</embedvideo>
}}

Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:07:37Z

SpencerMarsh:

< [[Main Page|'''Back to FAIR Answers Index''']]
{{Header}}
Joseph Smith's First Vision has attracted many critics of the Church. Click the links below to find faithful answers to all criticisms of Joseph Smith's First Vision.
----
*[[Introduction to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Contradictions in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Embellishments in the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Historical Challenges to the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[Joseph Smith's First Vision and Latter-day Saint Relations with Other Christians]]
*[[The Church's Treatment of the Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision]]
*[[FAIR Resources on the First Vision]]
Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
<embedvideo service="youtube">lBvxbVs7Kgc</embedvideo>{{blankline}}


[[de:Joseph Smiths Erste Vision]]
[[es:La Primera Visión de José Smith]]
[[fi:Joseph Smithin ensimmäinen näky]]
[[pt:A Primeira Visão]]

Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T15:03:12Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Critics of Joseph Smith allege that there are scriptural problems with the idea of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Critics allege that Joseph Smith's First Vision is in contradiction to scriptures like Galatians 1:8, Doctrine and Covenants 84:21-22, and Doctrine and Covenants 121:28. Some doubt is raised about whether Joseph Smith actually learned from the First Vision that God was embodied.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22===
| state = closed
| content = According to critics, Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 states that one cannot see God without the priesthood. If that is the case, how did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 when he was not ordained to the priesthood until 1829?
====This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith====

Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{s||D&C|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

<blockquote>
19 "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>

====The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"====

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." <ref>{{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32–33}}</ref> One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||D&C|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||D&C|67|11}}).

====Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence====

An example of this happening is seen in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' where it is recorded that Moses "saw God face to face, and he talked with Him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure His presence" ({{s||Moses|1|2}}). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see {{s||Moses|1|11}}). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/16 JST Exodus 33:20]).

====Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision====

This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with '''fire''' and with '''the Holy Ghost''', and shall receive a '''remission of their sins''' ({{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.

There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." <ref>{{Book:Pratt:An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions|pages=5}}</ref> Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:

<blockquote>
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."({{s||Moses|1|9-10}})
</blockquote>

====In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him====

''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'', as told by John Alger:
<blockquote>
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.<ref>Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., ''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'' (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]</ref>
</blockquote>

====In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth====

;1838 Main Text and Note B
:"When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."

;1843 David N. White Interview
:"when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."

;1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
:"I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."

====Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph====

For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
<blockquote>
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.<ref>{{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 121:28===
| state = closed
| content = In 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, ''whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest''" (Doctrine & Covenants 121:28, emphasis added). This was an "unnecessary revelation," according to critics of the Church, since, according to the official Church First Vision account, Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
====The Extract from Which the Quote is Taken was NOT considered a Revelation by Joseph Smith====
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate, divine beings and he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.<ref>See {{s||D&C|76|20-21}}; {{EMS1 | author=NeedAuthor| article=A Vision|date=July 1832|vol=1|num=2|start=10|}}</ref>

A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

#{{s||D&C|121|1-6}}
#{{s||D&C|121|7-25}}
#{{s||D&C|121|26-32}}
#{{s||D&C|121|33}}
#{{s||D&C|121|34-46}}

The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken<ref>Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1|start=13}}</ref> will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:

* "God the father"
* "our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
* "the holy Ghost"

====The 1838 Account of the First Vision, Written Before the Letter Extracts Contained in Doctrine & Covenants 121, Mentions God and Christ as Separate, Divine Beings====
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—approximately 11 months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate, divine beings. Do detractors of the Church really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Smith Learning of God's Embodiment===
| state = closed
| content =

Some critics allege that Joseph Smith did not learn from his First Vision that God the Father was embodied. The [[Events after the First Vision|following page]] examines that charge in detail.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Galatians 1:8 and the Angel Moroni===
| state = closed
| content =
A very common quick criticism of Joseph Smith's First Vision is based on an interpretation of {{s||Galatians|1|8}}. Critics argue that Joseph Smith could not have had a genuine angelic visit from God.

<blockquote>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.</blockquote>

Here is what critics assume this scripture teaches:

#Angelic visitations cannot happen any longer
#New revelation is forbidden
#Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse

We'll respond to each of these assumptions.

====1. Angelic visitors cannot happen any longer====
Angels continued to appear to people after Galatians was written about 50 A.D. ({{s||Acts|8|26}}, {{s||Acts|10|3}}, {{s||Acts|12|7}}, {{s||Acts|12|23}}, {{s||Acts|27|23,24}}).

The book of Revelation contains this note about the future:

<blockquote>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people ({{s||Rev|14|6}}).</blockquote>

This shows that angels could visit mankind after Paul authored Galatians.

====2. New Revelation is Forbidden ====
<blockquote>If Galatians 1:8 bans new revelation, Paul broke his own rule every time he wrote another epistle” – "Latter-Day Saint Dad" on X</blockquote>

Indeed! The epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Phillipians, and others most likely followed Paul's authoring the epistle to the Galatians. If we accept the critics' interpretation, none of those books could qualify as genuine revelation.

====3. Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse====
Paul was sending this epistle because there already appeared to be some apostasy. We agree that preaching “another gospel” is bad. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true gospel.

But here is how Paul defined the gospel:

<blockquote>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {{s|1|Corinthians|15|1-4}}</blockquote>

By this definition, all Christian religions qualify.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T14:57:13Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
Critics of Joseph Smith allege that there are scriptural problems with the idea of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Critics allege that Joseph Smith's First Vision is in contradiction to scriptures like Galatians 1:8, Doctrine and Covenants 84:21-22, and Doctrine and Covenants 121:28. Some doubt is raised about whether Joseph Smith actually learned from the First Vision that God was embodied.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22===
| state = closed
| content = According to critics, Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 states that one cannot see God without the priesthood. If that is the case, how did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 when he was not ordained to the priesthood until 1829?
====This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith====

Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{s||D&C|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

<blockquote>
19 "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>

====The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"====

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." <ref>{{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32–33}}</ref> One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||D&C|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||D&C|67|11}}).

====Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence====

An example of this happening is seen in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' where it is recorded that Moses "saw God face to face, and he talked with Him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure His presence" ({{s||Moses|1|2}}). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see {{s||Moses|1|11}}). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/16 JST Exodus 33:20]).

====Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision====

This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with '''fire''' and with '''the Holy Ghost''', and shall receive a '''remission of their sins''' ({{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.

There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." <ref>{{Book:Pratt:An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions|pages=5}}</ref> Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:

<blockquote>
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."({{s||Moses|1|9-10}})
</blockquote>

====In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him====

''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'', as told by John Alger:
<blockquote>
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.<ref>Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., ''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'' (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]</ref>
</blockquote>

====In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth====

;1838 Main Text and Note B
:"When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."

;1843 David N. White Interview
:"when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."

;1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
:"I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."

====Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph====

For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
<blockquote>
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.<ref>{{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 121:28===
| state = closed
| content = In 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, ''whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest''" (Doctrine & Covenants 121:28, emphasis added). This was an "unnecessary revelation," according to critics of the Church, since, according to the official Church First Vision account, Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
====The Extract from Which the Quote is Taken was NOT considered a Revelation by Joseph Smith====
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate, divine beings and he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.<ref>See {{s||D&C|76|20-21}}; {{EMS1 | author=NeedAuthor| article=A Vision|date=July 1832|vol=1|num=2|start=10|}}</ref>

A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

#{{s||D&C|121|1-6}}
#{{s||D&C|121|7-25}}
#{{s||D&C|121|26-32}}
#{{s||D&C|121|33}}
#{{s||D&C|121|34-46}}

The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken<ref>Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1|start=13}}</ref> will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:

* "God the father"
* "our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
* "the holy Ghost"

====The 1838 Account of the First Vision, Written Before the Letter Extracts Contained in Doctrine & Covenants 121, Mentions God and Christ as Separate, Divine Beings====
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—approximately 11 months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate, divine beings. Do detractors of the Church really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Smith Learning of God's Embodiment===
| state = closed
| content =

Some critics allege that Joseph Smith did not learn from his First Vision that God the Father was embodied. The [[Events after the First Vision|following page]] examines that charge in detail.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Galatians 1:8 and the Angel Moroni===
| state = closed
| content =
A very common quick criticism of Joseph Smith's First Vision is based on an interpretation of {{s||Galatians 1|8}}. Critics argue that Joseph Smith could not have had a genuine angelic visit from God.

<blockquote>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.</blockquote>

Here is what critics assume this scripture teaches:

#Angelic visitations cannot happen any longer
#New revelation is forbidden
#Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse

We'll respond to each of these assumptions.

====1. Angelic visitors cannot happen any longer====
Angels continued to appear to people after Galatians was written about 50 A.D. ({{s||Acts|8|26}}, {{s||Acts|10|3}}, {{s||Acts|12|7}}, {{s||Acts|12|23}}, {{s||Acts|27|23,24}}).

The book of Revelation contains this note about the future:

<blockquote>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people ({{s||Rev|14|6}}).</blockquote>

This shows that angels could visit mankind after Paul authored Galatians.

====2. New Revelation is Forbidden ====
<blockquote>If Galatians 1:8 bans new revelation, Paul broke his own rule every time he wrote another epistle” – "Latter-Day Saint Dad" on X</blockquote>

Indeed! The epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Phillipians, and others most likely followed Paul's authoring the epistle to the Galatians. If we accept the critics' interpretation, none of those books could qualify as genuine revelation.

====3. Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse====
Paul was sending this epistle because there already appeared to be some apostasy. We agree that preaching “another gospel” is bad. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true gospel.

But here is how Paul defined the gospel:

<blockquote>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {{s|1|Corinthians|15|1-4}}</blockquote>

By this definition, all Christian religions qualify.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T14:56:12Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Critics of Joseph Smith allege that there are scriptural problems with the idea of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Critics allege that Joseph Smith's First Vision is in contradiction to scriptures like Doctrine & Covenants 84:21-22 and Doctrine & Covenants 121:28. Some doubt is raised about whether Joseph Smith actually learned from the First Vision that God was embodied.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22===
| state = closed
| content = According to critics, Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 states that one cannot see God without the priesthood. If that is the case, how did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 when he was not ordained to the priesthood until 1829?
====This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith====

Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{s||D&C|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

<blockquote>
19 "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>

====The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"====

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." <ref>{{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32–33}}</ref> One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||D&C|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||D&C|67|11}}).

====Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence====

An example of this happening is seen in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' where it is recorded that Moses "saw God face to face, and he talked with Him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure His presence" ({{s||Moses|1|2}}). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see {{s||Moses|1|11}}). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/16 JST Exodus 33:20]).

====Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision====

This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with '''fire''' and with '''the Holy Ghost''', and shall receive a '''remission of their sins''' ({{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.

There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." <ref>{{Book:Pratt:An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions|pages=5}}</ref> Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:

<blockquote>
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."({{s||Moses|1|9-10}})
</blockquote>

====In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him====

''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'', as told by John Alger:
<blockquote>
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.<ref>Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., ''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'' (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]</ref>
</blockquote>

====In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth====

;1838 Main Text and Note B
:"When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."

;1843 David N. White Interview
:"when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."

;1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
:"I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."

====Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph====

For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
<blockquote>
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.<ref>{{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 121:28===
| state = closed
| content = In 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, ''whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest''" (Doctrine & Covenants 121:28, emphasis added). This was an "unnecessary revelation," according to critics of the Church, since, according to the official Church First Vision account, Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
====The Extract from Which the Quote is Taken was NOT considered a Revelation by Joseph Smith====
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate, divine beings and he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.<ref>See {{s||D&C|76|20-21}}; {{EMS1 | author=NeedAuthor| article=A Vision|date=July 1832|vol=1|num=2|start=10|}}</ref>

A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

#{{s||D&C|121|1-6}}
#{{s||D&C|121|7-25}}
#{{s||D&C|121|26-32}}
#{{s||D&C|121|33}}
#{{s||D&C|121|34-46}}

The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken<ref>Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1|start=13}}</ref> will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:

* "God the father"
* "our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
* "the holy Ghost"

====The 1838 Account of the First Vision, Written Before the Letter Extracts Contained in Doctrine & Covenants 121, Mentions God and Christ as Separate, Divine Beings====
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—approximately 11 months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate, divine beings. Do detractors of the Church really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Smith Learning of God's Embodiment===
| state = closed
| content =

Some critics allege that Joseph Smith did not learn from his First Vision that God the Father was embodied. The [[Events after the First Vision|following page]] examines that charge in detail.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Galatians 1:8 and the Angel Moroni===
| state = closed
| content =
A very common quick criticism of Joseph Smith's First Vision is based on an interpretation of {{s||Galatians 1|8}}. Critics argue that Joseph Smith could not have had a genuine angelic visit from God.

<blockquote>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.</blockquote>

Here is what critics assume this scripture teaches:

#Angelic visitations cannot happen any longer
#New revelation is forbidden
#Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse

We'll respond to each of these assumptions.

====1. Angelic visitors cannot happen any longer====
Angels continued to appear to people after Galatians was written about 50 A.D. ({{s||Acts|8|26}}, {{s||Acts|10|3}}, {{s||Acts|12|7}}, {{s||Acts|12|23}}, {{s||Acts|27|23,24}}).

The book of Revelation contains this note about the future:

<blockquote>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people ({{s||Rev|14|6}}).</blockquote>

This shows that angels could visit mankind after Paul authored Galatians.

====2. New Revelation is Forbidden ====
<blockquote>If Galatians 1:8 bans new revelation, Paul broke his own rule every time he wrote another epistle” – "Latter-Day Saint Dad" on X</blockquote>

Indeed! The epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Phillipians, and others most likely followed Paul's authoring the epistle to the Galatians. If we accept the critics' interpretation, none of those books could qualify as genuine revelation.

====3. Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse====
Paul was sending this epistle because there already appeared to be some apostasy. We agree that preaching “another gospel” is bad. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true gospel.

But here is how Paul defined the gospel:

<blockquote>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {{s|1|Corinthians|15|1-4}}</blockquote>

By this definition, all Christian religions qualify.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T14:54:50Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Critics of Joseph Smith allege that there are scriptural problems with the idea of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Critics allege that Joseph Smith's First Vision is in contradiction to scriptures like Doctrine & Covenants 84:21-22 and Doctrine & Covenants 121:28. Some doubt is raised about whether Joseph Smith actually learned from the First Vision that God was embodied.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22===
| state = closed
| content = According to critics, Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 states that one cannot see God without the priesthood. If that is the case, how did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 when he was not ordained to the priesthood until 1829?
====This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith====

Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{s||D&C|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

<blockquote>
19 "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>

====The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"====

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." <ref>{{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32–33}}</ref> One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||D&C|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||D&C|67|11}}).

====Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence====

An example of this happening is seen in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' where it is recorded that Moses "saw God face to face, and he talked with Him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure His presence" ({{s||Moses|1|2}}). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see {{s||Moses|1|11}}). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/16 JST Exodus 33:20]).

====Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision====

This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with '''fire''' and with '''the Holy Ghost''', and shall receive a '''remission of their sins''' ({{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.

There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." <ref>{{Book:Pratt:An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions|pages=5}}</ref> Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:

<blockquote>
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."({{s||Moses|1|9-10}})
</blockquote>

====In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him====

''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'', as told by John Alger:
<blockquote>
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.<ref>Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., ''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'' (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]</ref>
</blockquote>

====In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth====

;1838 Main Text and Note B
:"When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."

;1843 David N. White Interview
:"when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."

;1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
:"I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."

====Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph====

For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
<blockquote>
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.<ref>{{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 121:28===
| state = closed
| content = In 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, ''whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest''" (Doctrine & Covenants 121:28, emphasis added). This was an "unnecessary revelation," according to critics of the Church, since, according to the official Church First Vision account, Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
====The Extract from Which the Quote is Taken was NOT considered a Revelation by Joseph Smith====
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate, divine beings and he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.<ref>See {{s||D&C|76|20-21}}; {{EMS1 | author=NeedAuthor| article=A Vision|date=July 1832|vol=1|num=2|start=10|}}</ref>

A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

#{{s||D&C|121|1-6}}
#{{s||D&C|121|7-25}}
#{{s||D&C|121|26-32}}
#{{s||D&C|121|33}}
#{{s||D&C|121|34-46}}

The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken<ref>Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1|start=13}}</ref> will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:

* "God the father"
* "our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
* "the holy Ghost"

====The 1838 Account of the First Vision, Written Before the Letter Extracts Contained in Doctrine & Covenants 121, Mentions God and Christ as Separate, Divine Beings====
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—approximately 11 months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate, divine beings. Do detractors of the Church really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Smith Learning of God's Embodiment===
| state = closed
| content =

Some critics allege that Joseph Smith did not learn from his First Vision that God the Father was embodied. The [[Events after the First Vision|following page]] examines that charge in detail.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Galatians 1:8 and the Angel Moroni===
| state = closed
| content =
A very common quick criticism of the church is based on an interpretation of Galatians 1:8. Critics argue that Joseph Smith could not have had a genuine angelic visit from God.

<blockquote>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. {{s||Galatians|1|8}}</blockquote>

Here is what critics assume this scripture teaches:

#Angelic visitations cannot happen any longer
#New revelation is forbidden
#Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse

We'll respond to each of these assumptions.

====1. Angelic visitors cannot happen any longer====
Angels continued to appear to people after Galatians was written about 50 A.D. ({{s||Acts|8|26}}, {{s||Acts|10|3}}, {{s||Acts|12|7}}, {{s||Acts|12|23}}, {{s||Acts|27|23,24}}).

The book of Revelation contains this note about the future:

<blockquote>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people {{s||Rev|14|6}}</blockquote>

This shows that angels could visit mankind after Paul authored Galatians.

====2. New Revelation is Forbidden ====
<blockquote>If Galatians 1:8 bans new revelation, Paul broke his own rule every time he wrote another epistle” – "Latter-Day Saint Dad" on X</blockquote>

Indeed! The epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Phillipians, and others most likely followed Paul's authoring the epistle to the Galatians. If we accept the critics' interpretation, none of those books could qualify as genuine revelation.

====3. Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse====
Paul was sending this epistle because there already appeared to be some apostasy. We agree that preaching “another gospel” is bad. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true gospel.

But here is how Paul defined the gospel:

<blockquote>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {{s|1|Corinthians|15|1-4}}</blockquote>

By this definition, all Christian religions qualify.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

2026-04-02T14:54:28Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[First Vision]] | Alleged Theological and Scriptural Problems
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Critics of Joseph Smith allege that there are scriptural problems with the idea of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Critics allege that Joseph Smith's First Vision is in contradiction to scriptures like Doctrine & Covenants 84:21-22 and Doctrine & Covenants 121:28. Some doubt is raised about whether Joseph Smith actually learned from the First Vision that God was embodied.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22===
| state = closed
| content = According to critics, Doctrine & Covenants 84:21–22 states that one cannot see God without the priesthood. If that is the case, how did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 when he was not ordained to the priesthood until 1829?
====This argument is fatally flawed by an improper interpretation of D&C 84:21-22 and also by not taking into account additional texts that were produced by Joseph Smith====

Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. However, in a text which he produced in 1832 ({{s||D&C|84|21-22}}) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Some have misinterpreted section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants in an effort to destroy the testimony of Joseph Smith with regard to the reality of the First Vision. Their effort fails when the text is seen in its proper context and then compared with other writings that were prepared by the Prophet.

When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

<blockquote>
19 "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, '''the power of godliness''' is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, '''the power of godliness''' is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without '''this''' no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."
</blockquote>

====The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness"====

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness." <ref>{{Book:Robinson Garret:Commentary on the D&C:3|pages=32–33}}</ref> One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see {{s||D&C|49|14}}). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" ({{s||D&C|67|11}}).

====Moses was transfigured in order that he could see God and endure his presence====

An example of this happening is seen in the ''Pearl of Great Price'' where it is recorded that Moses "saw God face to face, and he talked with Him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure His presence" ({{s||Moses|1|2}}). Moses confirmed that it was because he was transfigured by the glory of God that he did not die when he saw the Lord's face while in mortality (see {{s||Moses|1|11}}). The Lord verified to Moses in yet another text that sinful mortals cannot see His face and live (see [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/16 JST Exodus 33:20]).

====Joseph Smith recorded that he was "filled with the Spirit of God" during the First Vision====

This brings us to the case of Joseph Smith in 1820. In the earliest known account of this heavenly manifestation (written in 1832 - the same year as D&C 84) the Prophet made note of the fact that when the experience began a pillar of fire rested down upon him and he was "filled with the Spirit of God." Once the heavens were opened the Savior appeared and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee." The Redeemer tied these elements together in a Book of Mormon passage where He informed a multitude of His disciples that certain persons would be "visited with '''fire''' and with '''the Holy Ghost''', and shall receive a '''remission of their sins''' ({{s|3|Nephi|12|2}}). Since the Prophet's experience followed the same pattern, it is reasonable to believe that this is what happened to him in the Sacred Grove.

There are two further pieces of evidence pointing to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was transfigured during the First Vision event. First, there is Orson Pratt's 1840 recounting of the incident wherein he relates that the pillar of fire or light "continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and [Joseph Smith] was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system." <ref>{{Book:Pratt:An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions|pages=5}}</ref> Joseph noticed that there was some sort of change wrought upon his body and it was of an extraordinary nature—something he was apparently not accustomed to. Second, we find a parallel between what happened to Moses after his transfiguration and that which happened to young Joseph after his theophany ended. In Moses chapter 1 we read:

<blockquote>
9 "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that His glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. [10] And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man."({{s||Moses|1|9-10}})
</blockquote>

====In the Charles Walker account of the First Vision, it is indicated that Jesus touched Joseph's eyes in order for him to be able to see him====

''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'', as told by John Alger:
<blockquote>
2nd Feb Thurs [1893] Cold and chilly. Attended Fast Meeting.... Br John Alger said while speaking of the Prophet Joseph, that when he, John, was a small boy he heard the Prophet Joseph relate his vision of seeing The Father and the Son, That God touched his eyes with his finger and said “Jospeh this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the occurence on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking. We enjoyed the conversation very much, as it was something that we had never seen in church history or heard of before.<ref>Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., ''Diary of Charles Lowell Walker'' (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]</ref>
</blockquote>

====In three of the Prophet's retellings of the First Vision story he mentions that he too lost his strength and fell to the earth====

;1838 Main Text and Note B
:"When I came to myself again I found myself lying on my back looking up into heaven; When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recover[ed] in some degree."

;1843 David N. White Interview
:"when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned."

;1844 Alexander Neibaur Diary
:"I endeavored to arise but felt uncom[monly] feeble."

====Some early Christian authors saw things in the same way as Joseph====

For example, in an early Christian document called the ''Clementine Homilies'' the apostle Peter is portrayed as agreeing:
<blockquote>
For I maintain that the eyes of mortals cannot see the incorporeal form of the Father or Son, because it is illumined by exceeding great light. . . . For he who sees God cannot live. For the excess of light dissolves the flesh of him who sees; unless by the secret power of God the flesh be changed into the nature of light, so that it can see light.<ref>{{Anf1|author=Apostle Peter (claimed)|article=Clementine Homilies|citation=17:16|vol=8|start=322|end=323}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Alleged Contradiction with Doctrine & Covenants 121:28===
| state = closed
| content = In 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, ''whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest''" (Doctrine & Covenants 121:28, emphasis added). This was an "unnecessary revelation," according to critics of the Church, since, according to the official Church First Vision account, Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.
====The Extract from Which the Quote is Taken was NOT considered a Revelation by Joseph Smith====
This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate, divine beings and he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.<ref>See {{s||D&C|76|20-21}}; {{EMS1 | author=NeedAuthor| article=A Vision|date=July 1832|vol=1|num=2|start=10|}}</ref>

A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

#{{s||D&C|121|1-6}}
#{{s||D&C|121|7-25}}
#{{s||D&C|121|26-32}}
#{{s||D&C|121|33}}
#{{s||D&C|121|34-46}}

The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken<ref>Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1|start=13}}</ref> will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:

* "God the father"
* "our Lord and savior Jesus Christ"
* "the holy Ghost"

====The 1838 Account of the First Vision, Written Before the Letter Extracts Contained in Doctrine & Covenants 121, Mentions God and Christ as Separate, Divine Beings====
This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the First Vision story.
The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—approximately 11 months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate, divine beings. Do detractors of the Church really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? This seems implausible.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Joseph Smith Learning of God's Embodiment===
| state = closed
| content =

Some critics allege that Joseph Smith did not learn from his First Vision that God the Father was embodied. The [[Events after the First Vision|following page]] examines that charge in detail.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Galatians 1:8 and the Angel Moroni===
| state = closed
| content =
A very common quick criticism of the church is based on an interpretation of Galatians 1:8. Critics argue that Joseph Smith could not have had a genuine angelic visit from God.

<blockquote>“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” {{s||Galatians|1|8}}</blockquote>

Here is what critics assume this scripture teaches:

#Angelic visitations cannot happen any longer
#New revelation is forbidden
#Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse

We'll respond to each of these assumptions.

====1. Angelic visitors cannot happen any longer====
Angels continued to appear to people after Galatians was written about 50 A.D. ({{s||Acts|8|26}}, {{s||Acts|10|3}}, {{s||Acts|12|7}}, {{s||Acts|12|23}}, {{s||Acts|27|23,24}}).

The book of Revelation contains this note about the future:

<blockquote>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people {{s||Rev|14|6}}</blockquote>

This shows that angels could visit mankind after Paul authored Galatians.

====2. New Revelation is Forbidden ====
<blockquote>If Galatians 1:8 bans new revelation, Paul broke his own rule every time he wrote another epistle” – "Latter-Day Saint Dad" on X</blockquote>

Indeed! The epistles to the Romans, Colossians, Phillipians, and others most likely followed Paul's authoring the epistle to the Galatians. If we accept the critics' interpretation, none of those books could qualify as genuine revelation.

====3. Preaching “any other gospel” will bring a curse====
Paul was sending this epistle because there already appeared to be some apostasy. We agree that preaching “another gospel” is bad. We believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the true gospel.

But here is how Paul defined the gospel:

<blockquote>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, … Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: {{s|1|Corinthians|15|1-4}}</blockquote>

By this definition, all Christian religions qualify.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

The Historical Race Restrictions in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-02T14:44:54Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Racial issues and the Church of Jesus Christ|The Church and Race]] | The Historical Race Restrictions
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers the questions that have arisen regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its historic restrictions on men and women of Black African descent from entering the Church's temples and being ordained to the Church's priesthood.
----
*[[Combating racial prejudice]]
*[[Origin of the priesthood ban|Origin]]
*[[Nature of the priesthood ban|Policy or doctrine]]
*[[Understanding pre-1978 statements about race|Racist statements]]
*[[Repudiated_ideas_about_race#Joseph_Fielding_Smith:_.22We_know_of_no_scripture.2C_ancient_or_modern.2C_that_declares_that_at_the_time_of_the_rebellion_in_heaven_that_one-third_of_the_hosts_of_heaven_remained_neutral.22|Neural or less valiant]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"?|Curse of Ham]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Do the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon link a person's skin color to their behavior in the pre-existence?|Scripture and the ban]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban|Ending the ban]]
*[[Social pressure and the priesthood ban|Social pressure]]
*[[Statements about the priesthood ban|First Pres statements]]
*[[Lifting the priesthood ban#Were there witnesses to the revelation that ended the priesthood ban?|Testimonies of the revelation]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race|Repudiated ideas]]
*[[Brigham Young's statements regarding race|Brigham Young]]
*[[Repudiated ideas about race#Why did Mark E. Petersen say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?|Mark E. Petersen]]
*[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng Official Declaration 2]

Women in the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-04-02T14:38:07Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Women
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers questions and criticisms about the Church's relations with women.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church devalue those who are not married or who do not have children? ===
| state = closed
| content =
Some charge that the Church devalues those who are not married or who do not have children. This is not so.

A significant portion of adult Church members are single people. Their challenges and lifestyles are somewhat different than those of married members, but Church leaders make ongoing efforts to acknowledge and respond to the needs of single members. Living as a single person is challenging both inside and outside the Church. This is not a difficulty limited to the LDS context. Within the Church, the promise that no eternal blessings will be withheld from worthy members simply because of their marital status is repeated over and over again.<ref>{{NC}}</ref> Church leaders have denounced mistreatments of single members and continue to call members of all marital statuses to positions of trust.

==== Ideals and realities ====

LDS teachings—like those of most every other belief system and culture throughout history—regard formal, conjugal marriage relationships as vital social ideals. Among Latter-day Saints, marriage is not only a social ideal but a spiritual one. According to the scriptures, marriage is a requirement for the greatest blessings to which we can aspire. {{s||D&C|131|2}}

It is of course not possible for every Latter-day Saint to find a suitable spouse. Due to death, divorce, or other causes it is not always possible or wise for members to stay married. This means that many have been, are, or will be single. In 2007, First Presidency member, James E. Faust, reported that one third of the adult membership of the Church was single.<ref>{{Ensign|author=James E. Faust|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/08/welcoming-every-single-one?lang=eng Welcoming Every Single One]|date=Aug 2007}}</ref> This is a substantial proportion but it’s still a minority. The fact is single Latter-day Saints live in a faith community comprised of many married couples. Naturally, such an environment can be challenging.

Some may feel life as a single person is less than ideal. But an ideal is "a conception of something in its absolute perfection."<ref>''Dictionary.com', s.v. "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideal ideal]" (accessed 17 July 2012).</ref> Married members of the Church don’t achieve perfection in their marriages during their lifetimes. Their lives are different from singles', but they too are also less than ideal. As the apostle Paul taught, all of us have "come short of the glory of God." {{s||Romans|3|23}} None of us—no matter what our marital status—is living an ideal life. In this we are all alike.

==== The time will come when the Lord bless all of His Father’s children with every blessing He can, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single ====

Speaking to single members, Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
I…remind you that there are those who are married whose lives are extremely unhappy and that you who are single and experience much of deep and consuming worry are not alone in your feelings. <ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|date=November 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Fortunately, the time will come when Christ shall "wipe away all the tears" {{s||Revelation|21|4}} and bless all of his Father’s children with every blessing they desire, including eternal marriages for people who lived their lives single.

==== Feelings of social awkwardness and marginalization are not limited to single people living in the LDS context ====

In popular Western culture, there’s a fairly steady stream of books, articles, and all kinds of other media produced about the difficulties of single life. People of all beliefs, not just Latter-day Saints, struggle to find a comfortable place in the world as singles. It is a widespread problem—one that was not created by the Church and one that cannot be escaped by avoiding the Church.

==== Statements of Church leaders ====

The challenges of single members are not unknown and unaddressed by Church leaders. President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Boyd K. Packer, speaking of singlehood and childlessness among Church members, said:

<blockquote>
These are temporary states. In the eternal scheme of things—not always in mortality—righteous yearning and longing will be fulfilled.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article= And a Little Child Shall Lead Them]|date=May 2012|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/and-a-little-child-shall-lead-them?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Living as a single Latter-day Saint is more common for women than it is among men. In recognition of this, much of the counsel and consolation extended by Church leaders to single people is addressed specifically to women. This counsel includes assurances that members should not settle for unworthy or inadequate marriage partners just to satisfy what may seem like little more than a formality. Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

<blockquote>
You good sisters, who are single and alone, do not fear that blessings are going to be withheld from you. You are not under any obligation or necessity of accepting some proposal that comes to you which is distasteful for fear you will come under condemnation. If in your hearts you feel the gospel is true and would under proper conditions receive these ordinances and sealing blessings in the temple of the Lord, and that is your faith and your hope and your desire, and that does not come to you now, the Lord will make it up, and you shall be blessed, for no blessing shall be withheld.<ref>{{Book:Smith:Elijah the Prophet and His Mission|pages=51}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Comments like these have become ''de rigueur'' when Church leaders teach about marriage and families. Efforts are constantly made to acknowledge and address the circumstances of adult members of the Church who are not married.

Among these circumstances is the reality that there is no monolithic Latter-day Saint single member. President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of his distaste for the generic label "single":

<blockquote>
Though you are so diverse in your backgrounds, we have put a badge on you as if you were all alike. That badge reads S-I-N-G-L-E-S. I do not like that. I do not like to categorize people. We are all individuals living together, hopefully with respect for one another, notwithstanding some of our personal situations … when all is said and done, we should not be classified as married or single but as members of the Church, each worthy of the same attention, the same care, the same opportunities to be of service.<ref> {{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=A Conversation With Single Adults|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-conversation-with-single-adults?lang=eng|date=Nov 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same address, President Hinckley condemned the thoughtless mistreatment of single members within LDS congregations, calling it "a tragedy" and "a betrayal."

==== Single Saints serving in the gospel ====

The New Testament contains the story of Anna, a woman called a "prophetess" who served in the temple at the time Jesus was born. By the time Mary brought the infant Jesus to the temple, Anna had been a widow for almost all of her long adult life. She was a single woman who was blessed for her faith and service with the privilege of recognizing and greeting the Lord. She had much to offer her community even though she had lived without a husband for eighty-four years {{s||Luke|2|36-38}}.

In the modern Church, single women also play important roles as leaders, teachers, and exemplars. One of the most storied women of the early days of the restored Church is Mary Fielding Smith, widow of Hyrum Smith, who crossed the plains from Nauvoo to Utah as a single mother. Emmeline B. Wells, the fifth General President of the Relief Society, was abandoned by her first husband.<ref>Julie Wardell, "Heroes and Heroines: Emmeline B. Wells." ''Friend,'' Feb 1985.</ref> Clearly, her status as a divorcee did not prevent her from holding a prominent leadership position.

Counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency have included Barbara Thompson and Sheri L. Dew, neither of whom has ever been married. Upon being called, Sheri L. Dew introduced herself saying:

<blockquote>
If there’s any message in the fact that a never-married woman has been called to the Relief Society general presidency it is that all women, regardless of their status or situation, are welcomed, loved, and valued…The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. We are all significant parts of the whole. I never think of myself as single; I think of myself as Sheri, a member of the Lord’s Church.<ref>{{Ensign|author=News of the Church|date=May 1997}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Along with singleness there often comes childlessness ====
Along with singleness there often comes childlessness. Since many members of the Church have children, and see childbearing as a blessing and the ideal, single members may feel doubly marginalized. Married members may also struggle with the heartbreak of infertility.

Fortunately, motherhood is not merely a demographic or a reproductive state in Church doctrine. Instead, it is a spiritual gift in which all can participate.

In 2001, Sheri Dew, taught,

<blockquote>
While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living"—and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Sheri L. Dew|article=Are We Not All Mothers?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/11/are-we-not-all-mothers?lang=eng |date=Nov. 2001|pages=96 {{eo}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on women? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading ====

Some claim that CHurch teachings about childbearing put an improper burden on LDS families, especially women.

Most women raising families, not just Latter-day Saint women, encounter "burdens" as they run their households. Framing the problem of demanding home lives as an exclusively LDS problem is misleading. Recognizing the difficulties women face in family life, Church leaders have denounced male behaviors that add to these burdens. In speaking to women, Church leaders have reassured us that we are free to make choices—including choices about childbearing and service in our homes—that will better tailor our workloads to our individual strengths and abilities.

==== Childbearing in the Church ====

In 1995, the Church underlined its commitment to family life in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." The proclamation states: "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."<ref>{{Book:Church:Family Proclamation:1995/Full title}}</ref>

In harmony with these beliefs, Latter-day Saint life is often family life. In general, Latter-day Saints in the United States marry earlier than their neighbors outside the Church, are more likely to stay married, and have more children during their lifespans.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref> As the larger society surrounding the Church has moved away from traditional family life, the LDS lifestyle— or, at least, the stereotype of it—has become more conspicuous. For some, this raises concerns with regard to the roles women play in LDS families. Critics have inflamed these concerns—arguing mostly by assertion than with data—that the childbearing aspect of the ideal LDS family system places an unfair and unhealthy burden upon women.

==== Women's workloads inside and outside the Church ====

No matter how many other people live in it, running any household can be difficult. This is not a difficulty experienced by LDS women alone. Arlie Hochschild’s landmark work "The Second Shift" studied domestic workloads to see if household divisions of labor had become more fair for women as they started to take on non-traditional roles. What she found was that even when women worked at full-time jobs outside their homes, they still wound up doing most of the household chores themselves.<ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003. {{NC}}</ref> The assertion that women outside the Church are somehow immune from the burdens of running a household is simply wrong. Every woman—regardless of whether she’s involved in paid work, or how many children she has, or where she goes to church—is at risk of winding up doing far more than her fair share of household tasks. Inequalities like these are not limited to any particular religion or family structure.

==== The Church's position on domestic workloads ====

Despite the strong social pull of unequal household divisions of labor, leaders of the Church have counseled church members to alleviate the strains family life can have on women. Men overburdening women within families was denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley. Speaking of young mothers he said:

<blockquote>
I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: 'Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?' <ref name="hinckley">{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=To the Women of the Church|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/to-the-women-of-the-church?lang=eng|date=Nov. 2003}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While his approach to husbands was firm and corrective, President Hinckley took a different tone when speaking to wives in the same address:

<blockquote>
You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.<ref name="hinckley"></ref>
</blockquote>

Reassuring language like this has become a fixture in addresses made to the women of the Church. Another common theme is the assurance that there is no monolithic ideal of how to run a "proper" LDS household. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Marvin J. Ashton said in 1987:

<blockquote>
Sisters, do not allow yourselves to be made to feel inadequate or frustrated because you cannot do everything others seem to be accomplishing. Rather, each should assess her own situation, her own energy, and her own talents, and then choose the best way to mold her family into a team, a unit that works together and supports each other. Only you and your Father in Heaven know your needs, strengths, and desires. Around this knowledge your personal course must be charted and your choices made.<ref>{{Book:Ashton:Be of Good Cheer|pages=25–26}}</ref>
</blockquote>

What seems most important isn’t how LDS women shoulder their burdens but why they do it at all. In 1980, Melvin Wilkinson and William Tanner made a study of large family life in the LDS setting. The prevailing sociological wisdom was that large families yield less affection for children. However, the researchers found that the negative effect of large family life "is not so strong that it cannot be neutralized or even reversed."<ref>{{Book:Judd: Religion Mental Health and the Latter-day Saints|pages=93-106|author=Melvin L. Wilkinson and William C. Tanner III|article=The Influence of Family Size, Interaction, and Religiosity on Family Affection in a Mormon Sample|url=http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/religion-mental-health-and-latter-day-saints/6-influence-family-size-interaction-and-religi}}</ref> Furthermore, they found that the key to reversing the bad effects of a large family wasn’t an increase of the amount of time parents spent with their children (or in other words, not an increase of the size of the "burden" placed on the parents) but an increase in the level of the mother’s commitment to the Church. Temple attendance was used as a measure of the mother’s religiosity. From there, the researchers went on to find that the higher a mother’s religiosity, the more affection the children in the family reported feeling.

Apparently, gospel living can actually provide relief from burdens—even those that seem universal and inevitable for all women running their households. As the Lord himself taught, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" {{s||Matthew|11|28-30}}.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women taught to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought"? ===
| state = closed
| content =
These claims are nonsense. President Spencer W. Kimball urged:

{{Epigraph|When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a ''full'' partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be ''silent'' partners or ''limited'' partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a ''contributing'' and ''full'' partner.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters|date=Nov. 1978|pages=106, {{io}}}}.</ref>}}

In an unpublished paper "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), women in the Church are said to be taught to be "subservient" to men and are considered "eternally unalterable second-class." Among some of its more colorful—if unfounded—statements are the claims that women are expected to be "gratefully subservient to Mormon males" and that women must "not aspire…to independent thought."<ref name="ponder">Kent Ponder, "Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," unpublished, 2003, online version accessed 30 May 2012, {{eo}}.</ref>

Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

* An overarching sexism and condescension, both overt and benevolent;
* A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women;
* The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials;
* Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms;
* Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women.

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not a useful analysis of gender politics within the Church. Instead, it is insulting, misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

==== '''Problems with Ponder'''—a feminist response to Kent Ponder’s work ====

The focus of this paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

==== Problems with underlying general sexism: "Thank the Lord I’m Not Female."<ref name="ponder"></ref> ====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..."<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once "needed and natural" is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we "tend to be more alert to social relations than men." The author writes at length about our abilities to "intuit." He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, "Women tell me they intuitively sense…"<ref name="ponder"></ref> In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that "The women notice too."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class by Ponder. In a section meant to show "The Larger Perspective," a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of Latter-day Saint feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots, such as an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

==== Benevolent sexism ====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word "innocent" is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like "torment," "horrendous," and "anguish." To describe grown women as "innocent" is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the "needed and natural" male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women "innocent," they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an "LDS girl."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders—another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women. Depressed LDS women are called "unhappy campers"<ref name="ponder"></ref>-–a term often used to describe fussy infants—in another sexist diminution.

The author takes a simplistic view of women and presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women—those inside and outside his interview group—are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what "nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. "Near-infants" cannot report on their internal states, unless he considers that infancy to be extended by many years. That could explain his constant infantilization of adult women.

==== Sexism toward devout Latter-day Saint women in particular ====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small "p" patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations in which we will fight amongst ourselves. Such blatant tactics are obvious in the paper when the "best and brightest"<ref name="ponder"></ref> of LDS women—that is, the disaffected and depressed—are pitted against the rest of us.

One part of this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. One extreme of this kind of rhetoric, is the comparison of the religious convictions of devout LDS women to "people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up."<ref name="ponder"></ref> The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are "unable to comprehend"<ref name="ponder"></ref> the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of "intellectually curious"<ref name="ponder"></ref> yet devout LDS women. It even warns, "Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of "the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness"<ref name="ponder"></ref>. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her." <ref name="ponder"></ref>

Again, this claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and bigotry, nothing more. Ponder reveals himself to be far more sexist than the supposedly-evil system he is railing against.

==== Problems with misrepresentation of doctrine ====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve.

He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 date of his article. This is not a writer who has intimate—or even cursory—knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

The fact that he does not realize this, and does not bother to inform himself, is further evidence of his condescension and ill-informed arrogance toward those he presumes to swoop in an 'help'.

{{ChurchResponseBar
|author=Gordon B. Hinckley
|summary=First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan."
...
No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance."
|title=Women of the Church
|publication=Ensign
|date=November 1996
|link=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/11/women-of-the-church?lang=eng
}}

Similar gaffes come to light in his description of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims "Any Mormon…will recognize"<ref name="ponder"></ref> as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items—such as tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings,—apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of CHurch doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women might lead the reader to wonder what the Church actually teaches girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The contemporary lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contained a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that "each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life."<ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no privileged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." <ref name="widstoe_YW">''Young Women Manual'' 1, 2002.</ref>

When addressing a worldwide gathering of Latter-day Saint young women in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. <ref>{{Ensign|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/05/how-can-i-become-the-woman-of-whom-i-dream?lang=eng|date=April 2001}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it undermines his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman "learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband."<ref name="ponder"></ref> However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{s||D&C|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require "permission from men"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim—not even any anecdotal evidence from his "nearly three hundred" interviews, or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{s||D&C|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, "they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion" ( {{s||Moses|5|53}} ).

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or more malign reasons.

==== Problems with methods ====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done "extensive research"<ref name="ponder"></ref> through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified, though he claims to have corresponded with "nearly three hundred women."<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like "church-active believers"<ref name="ponder"></ref> are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

He also fails to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like "very large" and "far more."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like "cognitive-dissonance headaches"<ref name="ponder"></ref> Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like "One Size Fits All"<ref name="ponder"></ref> in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

==== Problems with personal confounding factors ====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but "deeply offend[ed]."<ref name="ponder"></ref> We were to indulge in the kind of quasi-scientific pop psychology that Ponder uses, we might say that this represents the projection of his own neuroses onto others.

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo.<ref name="ponder"></ref>
</blockquote>

While this may tell us a great deal about Ponder's behavior and personality, it doesn't tell us much about the Church.

He goes on to claim that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, "some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women."<ref name="ponder"></ref>

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem—one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. <ref>Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.</ref>

For further discussions, see [[************LINK**************|above]].

Ponder admits feeling "ashamed" for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings—one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extinguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been—including Ponder and other critics—are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there some rule that states that women cannot open Church meetings with prayer? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings" ====

As of 2010, the Church's Handbook of Instructions in section 18.5 says, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings."<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|pages=146|section=18|sub1=5}} {{link1|url=http://new.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng}}</ref>

There was a time in which by tradition men would typically stay opening prayers. There was never a doctrinal explanation or reason for this. It has not been the case for many decades.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saint women placed under covenant in temples to subordinate themselves to their husbands? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{templedisclaimer}}
In a previous version of the temple endowment, the covenant for women was phrased slightly differently than the men. We will not describe the details or wording, but offer the following thoughts:

# The covenant is conditioned upon the faithfulness and obedience of the husband. If the husband does not follow God's counsel, the woman is not obligated to honor his counsel.
# [https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true/ The Family: A Proclamation to the World] states explicitly that men and women should work together as equal partners in their familial obligations. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."<ref> The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref> One objection to this may be that the The Proclamation states that men should "preside" over their families. However, this shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything other than "use priesthood to bless their families".
# How can men and women be "equal partners" yet one "preside"? Latter-day Saint feminist Valerie Hudson gave a perspective on this that is consistent with the covenant as currently revealed and may be beneficial to those wanting help with this. This talk, given at the 2010 FairMormon Conference, describes the covenant as the balancing of two trees—Eve being the first to bring us past the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam to bring us to the Tree of Life:

<blockquote>
I think it’s important to think about the fact that we have two trees and we have two people. Two trees, and a man and a woman. What I would like to address first is kind of an interesting interpretation of the fact that we have two trees and two people. Let’s address that by asking, Why was Eve created second? Now, I’m a convert to the Church, so I grew up in a tradition where the fact that Eve was created second was taken to mean that she was an appendage to Adam, that she was somehow inferior to Adam, that being derivative of Adam and not derivative of God that she was two steps away from divinity, not one step as Adam was.

[. . .]

Let me offer a suggestion here. Could it be that Eve was created second to demonstrate Adam’s helplessness before the First Tree? Could it be—two people, two trees—that Eve was foreordained to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree?

To answer that question, we must ask ourselves what partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means in a spiritual sense. And I think you know what it means. It means to enter into mortality with a mortal body, to enter into full agency, and to have awakened within us the light of Christ that will serve us so well as we pass the veil. Think—two people, two trees—whose stewardship does this sound like? It is through women that souls journey to mortality and gain their agency, and in general it is through the nurturing of women, their nurturing love of their children, that the light of Christ is awakened within each soul. And I would include in that list of souls Jesus the Christ. Even Christ our Lord was escorted to mortality and veiled in flesh through the gift of a woman, fed at his mother’s breast, awakened to all that is good and sweet in the world. Women escort every soul through the veil to mortal life and full agency. I believe that when we think about it—two people, two trees—that what we’re really thinking about is two stewardships. And that the fruit of the First Tree symbolizes the gift that women give to every soul that chose the plan of Christ. It symbolizes the role and power of women in the Great Plan of Happiness. It was not, in this view, right or proper for Adam to partake first of the fruit of the First Tree. It was not his role to give the gift of the fruit of the First Tree to others. It is interesting to think that even Adam, who was created before Eve, entered into full mortality and full agency by accepting the gift of the First Tree from the hand of a woman. In a sense, Adam himself was born of Eve.<ref> Valerie Hudson "The Two Trees" FairMormon Conference 2010 <https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees> (accessed 4 October 2018) </ref>
</blockquote>

We strongly encourage readers to see the full talk [https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-two-trees/ here].

In any case the endowment's separate wording was altered as of 2023—likely to prevent and preclude any such misunderstandings.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ on elective abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently opposed abortion for all but a few rare situations.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', 7 June 2022, {{link|url=https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion}}</ref>

==== Except in certain rare circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin ====

{{ChurchResponseBar
|summary =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
 
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
 
*Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
*A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
*A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
 
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
 
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
|title=Abortion
|author=LDS Newsroom
|publication=LDS Newsroom
|link=http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
}}

Except in rare certain circumstances, the Church opposes abortion and denounces it as a serious sin. However, the Church does not equate abortion with murder. Further, the Church acknowledges that women and men who have been involved in abortions can be forgiven and become members in good standing. The exceptions to the commandment prohibiting abortion highlight the Church’s commitment to women’s rights and to our intrinsic value apart from our biological roles as mothers.

==== Are there exceptions where abortion may be appropriate? Yes. ====

The Church has not adopted a simple, all-or-nothing approach to abortion. While the Church stands firmly by the commandment "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" {{s||D&C|59|6}} and Church members are cautioned that participating in abortion will usually bring their membership under scrutiny, allowances are made for situations where abortion may be necessary.

The Church recognizes there are cases when abortion is medically necessary. When a woman’s health would be severely threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, the Church offers counsel and support while mothers themselves decide how to proceed. The same approach is taken even when the mother's life is not at risk but a pregnancy is medically deemed to have no chance of being viable. In such cases, the Church leaves the final choice of whether an abortion will be performed to the parents. There is no universal formula for how the exceptions to the Church's usual stance on abortion must be applied.

The list of situations where abortion may be appropriate demonstrates the Church’s commitment to women’s right to make choices. In cases of rape or incest (crimes sometimes known by other names but likely meant to describe any non-consensual sexual intercourse brought on by force or by the abuse of a position of power), the Church does not require victims to continue pregnancies arising from someone else’s abusive choices. If a woman does not consent to sexual contact, the Church does not consider her morally obliged to accept the consequences of it.

At a gathering of university students, Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks quoted the following:

<blockquote>
The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The fact that an impending threat to the mother’s health is accepted by the Church as a valid reason for opting for abortion suggests that the Church prefers the life of the adult woman to the life of the unborn fetus—especially if there is no chance the fetus would be able to live if the pregnancy took its natural course. This preference is controversial to many in the mainstream Pro-Life movement. Clearly, however, women are not valued solely for their reproductive abilities. They are free to protect and preserve their own lives even if doing so directly compromises reproduction.

==== Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ====

In a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the ancient Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" {{s||Exodus|20|13}} was expanded to read "Thou shalt not…kill nor do anything like unto it." {{s||D&C|59|6}} Abortion has been interpreted to fall within the category of "anything like unto it." Though denounced by the Church, abortion is not considered murder ''per se''. It is a less serious sin and one for which men and women can be forgiven.

While a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Church President Russell M. Nelson said:

<blockquote>
So far as is known, the Lord does not regard this transgression as murder. And "as far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion." Gratefully, we know the Lord will help all who are truly repentant.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/reverence-for-life?lang=eng Reverence for Life]|date=May 1985|pages=11}} See also {{Ensign1|author=Russell M. Nelson|article=|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/abortion-an-assault-on-the-defenseless?lang=eng| article=Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless|date=Oct 2008|pages=32-37}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church does not persecute or demonize people involved in abortion. Instead, it reaches out to them with compassion and the promise of a possible redemption.

==== The Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion ====
As explained in the Church’s official statement on abortion, the Church itself has not been involved in the politics of abortion. However, Church members are free to express their own opinions and to be involved as individuals in political causes including abortion legislation.

The Church has come under criticism from conservative groups for not taking a more absolutist stance against abortion. At the same time, the Church is criticized by "pro-choice" groups for its extremely limited tolerance for abortion. Both sides of the argument accuse the Church of trying too hard to please the opposite side. Clearly, the Church’s stance on abortion cannot be the result of political pandering. If it's meant as a compromise, it would be a poor one that leaves both sides of the abortion argument angry and unsatisfied. In an argument as polarized as the abortion debate, no compromise would ever be acceptable. Rather than crafting a position that pleases either side of the debate, the Church position is a tempered one—one based on the application of revelation and true principles to a real, complicated world where difficult situations must be reckoned with on careful, individual bases.

Despite its lack of direct engagement in abortion politics, some Church leaders have warned members against aligning with movements that would promote the use of abortion beyond the circumstances of rape, incest, and catastrophic health outcomes accepted by the Church.

Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Pro-choice slogans have been particularly seductive to Latter-day Saints because we know that moral agency, which can be described as the power of choice, is a fundamental necessity in the gospel plan. All Latter-day Saints are pro-choice according to that theological definition. But being pro-choice on the need for moral agency does not end the matter for us. Choice is a method, not the ultimate goal. …In today’s world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice.<ref name="oaks_weightier"> Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, February 1999. {{link|https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/life_law_vol1/16/}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Adoption is encouraged as an alternative to abortion ====
Wrote the First Presidency in 1999:

<blockquote>
Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption .... 

Unwed parents who do not marry '''''should not''''' be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. Generally, unwed parents are not able to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby’s well-being.

When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all concerned.<ref>Cited in {{Ensign1|article=Policies and Announcements|date=April 1999|pages=80, {{ea}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What is the stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on birth control?===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church ====
Though the Church places a high value on families and regards the commandment given to Adam and Eve to "multiply, and replenish the earth" {{s||Genesis|1|28}} as still being in force,<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," 1995.</ref> the use of birth control is not prohibited by the Church. Married LDS couples are not expected to limit their sexual contact to attempts to conceive. Sexual behavior between married partners is seen as wholesome and sanctifying even when there is little or no chance of conception. Birth control is meant to be used carefully and prayerfully but it is not forbidden.

==== Church leaders' statements on birth control ====

A recent statement explains the Church's stance on contraception:

<blockquote>
Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for a husband and wife.

God has a plan for the happiness of all who live on the earth, and the birth of children within loving families is central to His plan. The first commandment He gave to Adam and Eve was to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The scriptures declare, "Children are an heritage of the Lord." Those who are physically able have the blessing, joy, and obligation to bear children and to raise a family. This blessing should not be postponed for selfish reasons.

Sexual relations within marriage are not only for the purpose of procreation but also a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual ties between husband and wife.

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple. Elective abortion as a method of birth control, however, is contrary to the commandments of God.<ref>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Birth control," ''Gospel Topics'' {{link|https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng}} (accessed 4 June 2024)</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1993, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, spoke in the Church’s General Conference saying:

<blockquote>
How many children should a couple have? All they can care for! Of course, to care for children means more than simply giving them life. Children must be loved, nurtured, taught, fed, clothed, housed, and well started in their capacities to be good parents themselves. Exercising faith in God’s promises to bless them when they are keeping his commandments, many LDS parents have large families…In a matter as intimate as this, we should not judge one another.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks quoted the then President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, expressing similar sentiments:

<blockquote>
I like to think of the positive side of the equation, of the meaning and sanctity of life, of the purpose of this estate in our eternal journey, of the need for the experiences of mortal life under the great plan of God our Father, of the joy that is to be found only where there are children in the home, of the blessings that come of good posterity. When I think of these values and see them taught and observed, then I am willing to leave the question of numbers to the man and the woman and the Lord.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This moderate approach has a long history. In 1916, Church leaders, such as David O. MacKay, endorsed of the wisdom in using moderation and sensitivity when it comes to childbearing. MacKay said,

<blockquote>
In all this, however, the mother's health should be guarded. In the realm of wifehood, the woman should reign supreme.<ref>David O. McKay, ''Relief Society Magazine'' (July 1916) 3:7.</ref>
</blockquote>

The language and tone may be old-fashioned but the message of mothers’ needs as the priority was a progressive one for its day.

==== Sexual behavior and emotional health ====

The Church has long taught that sexual relations are not only for the creation of children, but have other important roles within marriage. Late President of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, taught:

<blockquote>
In the context of lawful marriage, the intimacy of sexual relations is right and divinely approved. There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join in a process of creation and in an expression of love.<ref name="oaks_birth_control">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Great Plan of Happiness|date=November 1993|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Cautions and qualifications ====

Church leaders have also issued frank warnings about the over-use of birth control. As late Church President, Ezra Taft Benson, taught:

<blockquote>
Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing of children. Do not curtail the number of children for personal or selfish reasons. Material possessions, social convenience, and so-called professional advantages are nothing compared to a righteous posterity.<ref>Ezra Taft Benson, "To the Mothers in Zion," Parents' Fireside, Salt Lake City, Utah, 22 February 1987.</ref>
</blockquote>

Even this statement contains the qualification that mothers enjoy "good health." Childbearing is never meant to be carried out with dogmatic recklessness. In all things, the LDS decision making process is a deliberate, thoughtful one where individuals "study it out in [their] mind[s]" {{s||D&C|9|8}} and receipt spiritual confirmation before acting.

President Benson knew this and added, "I would ask our young people to think seriously about these things, pray about them, fast about them. The Lord will give them the answers, because He wants them to have the blessings of a righteous posterity." <ref>{{TETB|start=539|end=543}}</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===What do the scriptures say about the issue of abortion?===
| state = closed
| content =
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leaders have consistently been against abortion.<ref name="ortner">Daniel Ortner, "The Consistency of Prophetic Abortion Teaching," ''Public Square Magazine'', June 7, 2022, https://publicsquaremag.org/faith/gospel-fare/the-consistency-of-prophetic-statements-about-abortion/.</ref>

Prophetic guidance often draws from—and is consistent with—canonized scripture. We here examine scriptural passages that have relevance to the abortion debate—though we must remember that the position of the Church of Jesus Christ derives fundamentally from modern prophetic guidance, and not an interpretation of past scripture. We can, however, use the prophets' current stance to explore scripture and see what we might learn.

==== {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}} ====

One of the most commonly cited and discussed scriptures relevant to abortion is {{s||Exodus|21|22-25}}:

<blockquote>
¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
</blockquote>

This is a type of ''casuistic law''— that is, it stipulates what kind of punishments should be inflicted on a person if they engage in certain kinds of acts. This is a case where two or more people are fighting and accidentally hurt a woman and her fetus. This would be an ''accidental miscarriage'' '''or''' ''accidental premature birth'' of a woman while two people are fighting.

The scripture stipulates that if the men make the woman miscarry/have this premature birth, they must first be confronted by the husband of the woman. The husband, along with judges, will jointly determine what kind of fine to impose on those who fought. The same procedure was presumably followed if the husband himself was one of the combatants in the altercation.

The passage further stipulates that if the woman herself is injured or dies (exactly which is not clear), then the people who engaged in the fight are liable for death and other punishments [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye lex talionis]. It’s important to note that lex talionis "is a principle of fair treatment of assailants and not necessarily a literal prescription for retaliatory treatment in all cases."<ref>Carol Myers, "Exodus," in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press), 114. Importantly, Myers further states on the same page: "Note that compensation is sometimes acceptable (vv. 22, 26, 27) and that the rabbinic understanding of talion calls for paying damages."</ref>

Some have argued that this passage and, consequently, Israelite law treats the value of the mother as greater than the value of the fetus. But this argument depends on the correct translation of ויצאו (''wytsaw''. Translated as "depart from her" in the KJV above), how one translates the term אָסוֹן (ʾ''ason'') translated as "mischief", what that ''ason'' included, and who that ''ason'' is applied to. None of these questions can be answered with certainty.

''Wytsaw'' is [https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-22.htm typically translated] as "give birth prematurely" in modern, popular, English biblical translations, though other important translations say "miscarriage". "Premature birth" may be preferred because of 'ason which is typically translated as ''harm'' or ''injury''. Some say that it should be translated as "serious injury." Some take it to refer to death.

Who the injury, serious injury, harm, or death is inflicted on is also important. If it is only the woman, then the woman is being more valued than the fetus. If the harm is assumed to be to either the woman ''or'' her fetus, then both are being valued equally. If the harm is only to the fetus, then the fetus is being valued more than the woman. It's uncertain, but the first two options are more likely than the last. Injury to either a woman or a child would be negative.

Even if we translate and interpret the passage such that the fetus is miscarried and no other harm is brought on the woman, the passage ''still stipulates that a fine be paid''. This indicates that the fetus who was miscarried or born prematurely—and a fetus presumably at any stage of development— ''still had at least some value'' in the eyes of the Israelite law. This scripture under no circumstances allows a kind of ethic that sees the fetus as entirely expendable no matter the stage of development.

The very least that we can conclude from these passages is that this was an ''accidental'' situation (not a deliberate one as in the case of elective abortion), that both the mother and fetus were seen as valuable at least in some way, and that damages needed to be paid or punishments received commensurate with the harm inflicted on mother and fetus.

Given the fact that this was a case of accidental harm alone, we cannot use this scripture to support the deliberate end of a fetus's life.

We now consider some other relevant scriptures.

==== {{s||Numbers|5|}} ====
{{s||Numbers|5|11-31}} outlines what is known today as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water Ordeal of the Bitter Water].

The major talking point is concerning verse 27 and what happens as a priest makes a woman partake of the water.

<blockquote>
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
</blockquote>

The word "thigh" is a translation of the Hebrew yarek (יָרֵך) which does mean thigh but euphemistically refers to the genitals and other reproductive organs of a human being.

The passage says that a woman’s belly will swell up and that her uterus and perhaps vagina will either shrivel up or fall out (or maybe both).

Some have interpreted this passage to refer to miscarriage. The NIV translates this verse to say that "your womb [will] miscarry and your abdomen swell". But the passage doesn’t apply to just pregnant women. It applies to all those that have been caught in adultery, whether pregnant or not. The curses that {{s_short||Numbers|5|27}} is establishing refer to ''infertility''. Thus, it’s not that a woman loses her baby because of the trial, but loses her ability to ''conceive entirely''.

==== Thou shalt not murder ====
Texts that may be relevant to the abortion debate include those that condemn murder. There are many such texts in the scriptures that are so well-known that we will not cite them here. The question is, "Does abortion really constitute murder?"

Certain leaders of the Church have analogized abortion to murder in the past.<ref name="ortner"></ref>

The current position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that abortion does not necessarily constitute murder. The Church most frequently cites a text contained in the Latter-day Saint canon: {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|59|6}}. It tells the Saints "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it." Abortion has typically been seen in the "nor do anything like unto it" clause.

The first mention of "kill" clearly refers to murder. But there are obviously other categories of sinful killing that are not murder. (Some killing, such as in self-defense, could be considered not sinful at all.)

This is where abortion is situated by the Church: not necessarily murder, but still an act of unjustified killing ''like'' murder.

==== Impeding obedience to other commandments ====

Scriptures that apply to abortion and it's ethical implications are not only those which discuss murder. Other commandments and other moral considerations might be broken or encouraged if we endorse abortion.

One of these would be the command to "multiply and replenish the earth" given by God in the creation accounts contained in both the scriptures and the temple ( {{s||Genesis|1|28}}; {{s||Moses|2|28}}; {{s||Abraham|4|28}} ).

Marriage is another command that applies. Elective abortion is often treated as a safety net for individuals that want to have unprotected sex without the consequence of an unwanted child. Abortion can thus disincentivies marriage. Scriptures forbidding extramarital sexual acts are many, and not cited here.

Latter-day Saint scripture portrays the body as a treasured thing—crucial to our learning. {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|93|33-34}} tells us that a fulness of joy can only be obtained when the spirit of a person and his or her body are inseparably connected by resurrection. It is clear in scripture that bodies are wanted by both righteous and wicked spirits ( {{s||Matthew|8|28-32}}; {{s||Doctrine & Covenants|45|17}}; {{s_short||D&C|138:14-15,18,50}} ).

It is clear, as Dallin H. Oaks as observed, that "[f]rom the perspective of the plan of salvation, one of the most serious abuses of children is to deny them birth" and especially to deny them birth within the environment most-aptly suited for their progression through mortality: marriage.{{Ensign|Dallin H. Oaks|Protect the Children|vol=42|num=11|date=November 2012|pages= 43|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/11/saturday-afternoon-session/protect-the-children?lang=eng }}</ref>

Some abortion debates focus on when the soul enters the body—presuming that killing an ensouled fetus or child would be murder, while an unesouled one might be aborted without concern.

==== The scriptures provide no guidance as to when ensoulment happens ====
Some believe that the question is resolved by Genesis where God grants Adam his "first breath" so that he becomes a living soul. By these lights, one can know that the soul has entered the body when a person ''breathes''. The Latter-day Saint temple appears to teach that God first places Adam’s spirit in his body and then afterwards grants him his first breath. Furthermore, if first breath is truly when personhood is thought to begin, exactly which "breath" should we be treating as someone's first? Fetal breathing (though not ''strictly'' breathing for oxygen exchange) can begin as early as 10 weeks of pregnancy and about as late right before birth.<ref>Coleen de Bellefonds, "How Babies Breathe in the Womb," What to Expect, July 19, 2021, https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-health/how-babies-breathe-womb.</ref> A "first breath" standard for when personhood begins might prohibit a large number of abortions.

Others believe that ''blood'' is what grants personhood and indicates ensoulment. Oftentimes it is thought that blood in connection with breath grants full-personhood in Israelite law. This has at least some merit when considering the thought world of the authors of the Bible. Here again, though, the answers are not as clear-cut as we might like: "By the end of the fifth week [of gestation], the heart of the fetus is able to pump blood throughout its body."<ref>"Medical Animation: Prenatal Heart Circulation," St. Louis Children's Hospital, accessed April 5, 2023, https://www.stlouischildrens.org/health-resources/pulse/medical-animation-prenatal-heart-circulation.</ref> So does a fetus' working circulatory system at the fifth week of gestation grant them personhood?

Some believe that the answer as to when a fetus receives its human spirit/gains personhood is when a fetus is "quickened" or when it first begins to move inside of a woman’s womb. There are some scriptures/statements from leaders of the Church that may be used to justify this view.

*{{s||Luke|1|44}}, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This scriptures discusses John the Baptist and his mother Elizabeth. The New Testament mentions that Elizabeth hid herself for five months. Thus we might deduce that a soul was in John’s body after five months when Mary visited Elizabeth.
*President Brigham Young once said that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" ([[Journal of Discourses/17/22|''Journal of Discourses'', 17:143]]).

(We now know that fetal movement begins much sooner than the mother can feel it—the sensation is only when fetus is large enough and its movements strong enough to be felt by the mother.)

President Young’s view stands in mild contrast with an official statement from the First Presidency in 1909 which is less certain about when life enters the body:

<blockquote>
The body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened '''at a certain stage''' by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man.
</blockquote>

Thus there is no definitive answer about when the soul enters the body from the scriptures nor The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some believe that full-personhood for fetuses is asserted by what they perceive as the continuity of personal identity displayed in biblical passages such as {{s||Job|3|3}}, {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}, and {{s||Jeremiah|1|5}}.

* {{s||Job|3|3}} – "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived." This verse does not assume personal continuity of identity as some have claimed. It merely asserts that Job wishes he weren't conceived nor born.
* {{s||Psalm|139|14-16}}: "For thou hast possessed me reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee ; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." This may indicate a kind of continuity, but it's not certain. The Lord at the very least here sees a kind of form that he intricately weaves the psalmist's bones and other members according to. It is certain that the Lord, according to the psalmist, takes a special concern for/interest in and performs a special creative act on the unborn.
*{{s||Jeremiah|1|5}} – "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This is perhaps the strongest scripture in favor of continuity of personhood (though still not entirely certain). The Lord ordained unborn Jeremiah, like the prophet servant of the Lord in Isaiah ( {{s||Isaiah|42|1}}; {{s_short||Isaiah|49|6}} ), to be a prophet unto the nations.

As before, these scriptures are suggestive, but not definitive.

==== Biology as it may relate to personhood ====
Biologically, asking "when life begins" is absurd—the egg is alive from the moment it is fertilized. In a fallen world, cells that are dead do not come back to life. And, if the egg is not "human" life, then what kind of life is it? The cells involved come from humans, are only produced by humans, and develop into a human.

Thus wholly 95% of biologists agree that a new, distinct human life begins at conception: when a woman’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm.<ref>Steven Andrew Jacobs "Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins’," SSRN, August 6, 2018; "Life Begins at Fertilization," Princeton, accessed May 7, 2022, https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html; Steven Andrew Jacobs, "Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate," (Dissertation, University of Chicago, 2019); Steve Jacobs, "I Asked Thousands of Biologists When Life Begins. The Answer Wasn’t Popular," ''Quilette'', October 16, 2019, https://quillette.com/2019/10/16/i-asked-thousands-of-biologists-when-life-begins-the-answer-wasnt-popular/.</ref>

One can only wonder about the other 5% of biologists—presumably they understood that the question was poorly posed, or didn't like the ideological implications.

The fertilized egg is certainly alive—it metabolizes, replicates DNA, divides, differentiates, etc. There is never a point at which the egg is "dead" and then becomes alive again. Nor is there a point at which the embryo or fetus is not alive.

"When does human life begin?" is thus a sloppy way to ask the real question: ''When does a fertilized human egg acquire any rights or moral standing? At what point does killing it have moral implications?''

We kill things that are alive all the time—we kill billions of bacteria without a thought. The key question is, ''Is killing a human embryo like killing a bacteria? Or is it like killing a toddler? Or something in between?''

Our laws do tend to treat human bodies as persons regardless of their current brain function, heart function, lung function, sentience, etc. And, there is never debate about whether these people are ''alive''. Of course they are.

====What to do in the face of uncertainty?====
Some have argued that there are moral duties even when we are not certain of all the facts. There are, with abortion, at least three possibilities:

# Abortion is the equivalent of murder, killing a fully-human (in the sense of having full human rights, not in the biological sense).
# Abortion is still a serious moral act, even if it does not rise to the level of murder.
# Abortion is of no moral consequence regarding the fetus.

In the face of uncertainty, we could choose to
* support or participate in an abortion; or
* oppose or participate in an abortion.

If it turns out that abortion is murder or a serious moral wrong (option #1 or #2) then it is far better to have chosen to oppose abortion. Standing by would be like doing nothing to stop slavery, or not attempting to stop the slaughter of prisoners of war.

If abortion turns out to have no or few moral consequences (#3), we have at least not committed a murder or murder-like crime. We would have opposed the right of women to do something that they wanted to do—and that ''would'' be a moral wrong. But it is surely not as grave a moral wrong as the mass killing of the innocent and defenseless.

Which risk should we run if we are not certain?{
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why do women not hold priesthood offices in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women ====

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints positions in the leadership hierarchy are generally connected directly to offices in the priesthood. During the early years of the LDS Church, no provision was made in the revelations describing the priesthood along with its offices for the ordination of women.<ref>The most significant revelations relating to the structure and function of the priesthood are found in D&C Sections {{sv||D&C|20|}}, {{sv||D&C|84|}}, and {{sv||D&C|107|}}. The language is almost entirely gendered. For example, {{sv||D&C|20|60}} reads "Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him." </ref> Consequently, when the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included. This situation changed to some extent between 1842 and 1844. During the last two years of his life, Joseph Smith both organized the Relief Society and began introducing the temple ordinances (in particular the endowment) to the larger membership of the Church. Both of these developments had consequences for the view of women’s roles in the Church and in discussions over the relationship between women and the priesthood. Joseph addressed the Relief Society six times—the only sermons which he delivered exclusively to women in the Church—and these sermons (found in the [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book]) continue to frame the discussion of the role of women in the Church and their relationship to the priesthood.<ref>It is difficult to overemphasize the value of this record. A copy has been placed on-line at the Joseph Smith Papers website of the Church [http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=1 here].</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Joseph Smith intend to ordain women to the priesthood? ===
| state = closed
| content =
<wt>
==== Some have understood Joseph Smith's address to the Relief Society on 30 March 1842 to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to the priesthood ====

On March 30th, 1842, Joseph Smith addressed the Relief Society at their third meeting. Eliza R. Snow recorded in the minute book:

<blockquote>
the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood, hence there should be a select Society separate from all the evils of the world, choice, virtuou[s] and holy— Said he was going to make of this Society a kingdom of priests an in Enoch’s day— as in Pauls day<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842|pages=22}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Some have understood this to suggest that Joseph intended to ordain women to offices in the priesthood. When the Relief Society was incorporated into the Ward structure (in 1868), Relief Society president Eliza R. Snow expanded on this idea given by Joseph Smith to explain that the Relief Society formed a necessary and integral part of the Church organization:

<blockquote>
Although the name may be of modern date, the Institution is of ancient origin. We were told by our martyred prophet, that the same organization existed in the church anciently, allusions to which are made in some of the epistles recorded in the New Testament, making use of the title, 'elect lady'.:

This is an organization that cannot exist without the Priesthood, from the fact that it derives all its authority and influence from that source. When the Priesthood was taken from the earth, this institution as well as every other appendage to the true order of the church of Jesus Christ on the earth, became extinct, and had never been restored until the time referred to above.<ref>Eliza R. Snow, "[http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/desnews8/id/3945/rec/5 Female Relief Society]," ''Deseret News'' (22 April 1868): 81.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The Relief Society is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church’ ====
Viewed this way, the Relief Society isn’t simply an innovation of the modern Church. It wasn’t organized as a way to engage women in the gospel. It is an essential part of the restoration of the ‘same organization that existed in the Primitive Church.’<ref>Eliza R. Snow references {{s||Articles of Faith|1|6}} in her article.</ref> Likewise, in an interview, Elaine Jack, past Relief Society general president, summed these ideas in this way:

<blockquote>
Relief Society is not an auxiliary. The church was never fully organized until 'women were thus organized after the pattern of the priesthood.' It's the Lord's organization for women. And we act as a companion role to the priesthood.<ref>Quoted in {{Dialogue|author=Tina Hatch|article='Changing Times Bring Changing Conditions': Relief Society, 1960 to Present|vol=37|num=33|pages=68-69}}. See also Julie Beck’s (then Relief Society general president) remarks in "Why We Are Organized into Quorums and Relief Societies]," BYU devotional address (17 January 2012). {{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2012 }}</ref>
</blockquote>

If seen as a companion to the priesthood—as an integral part of the Church organization, the Relief Society shouldn’t be viewed as a substitute for priesthood ordination, but as its partner. That is, women were not being ordained to the priesthood—they were being ordained to their own society—one just as ancient (a part of the primitive Church), restored to help the members of the Church work together to build up the kingdom of Zion on earth.

==== Joseph Smith described the organization of the Relief Society as being parallel to the organization of the priesthood ====

At the first meeting on March 17th, in 1842, Joseph said:

<blockquote>
Pres[ident Joseph] Smith further remark'd that an organization to show them how to go to work would be sufficient. He propos'd that the Sisters elect a presiding officer to preside over them, and let that presiding officer choose two Counsellors to assist in the duties of her Office - that he would ordain them to preside over the Society and let them preside just as the Presidency, preside over the church; and if they need his instruction - ask him, he will give it from time to time.

Let this Presidency serve as a constitution - all their decisions be considered law; and acted upon as such

If any Officers are wanted to carry out the designs of the Institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as Deacons, Teachers, &c. are among us. … He then suggested the propriety of electing a Presidency to continue in office during good behavior, or so long as they shall continue to fill the office with dignity &c. like the first Presidency of the church.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|4-5}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This language would cause later confusion, perhaps best illustrated by the ways in which it was understood ====

For example, Sarah M. Kimball, one of the first members of the Relief Society had, in 1868, organized her ward Relief Society to match that of the priesthood quorums - including offices of teachers and deaconesses. In responding to this confusion in 1880, President John Taylor (who had been assigned by Joseph to set Emma and her counselors apart as the first Relief Society presidency)<ref>See {{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=6|pages=9|date=17 March 1842}} See also {{JDmini|vol=21|pages=368}} (below) where he appeals to that experience.</ref> wrote:

<blockquote>
Some of the sisters have thought that these sisters mentioned were, in this ordination, ordained to the priesthood. And for the information of all interested in this subject I will say, it is not the calling of these sisters to hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|date=8 August 1880|vol=21|disc=40|article=The Order and Duties of the Priesthood, Etc.|start=367|end=368}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Given that President Taylor ordained the first Relief Society presidency under Joseph's instructions, he was well-placed to know whether this was an ordination to priesthood office or not.

==== President Taylor’s remarks underscore the notion that the Relief Society was not intended to move women into the Priesthood organization of the Church ====

But, his reference to a priesthood held "in connection with their husbands" reminds us of Joseph Smith’s remarks to the Relief Society on April 28th in 1842 (at the sixth meeting of the Relief Society). These remarks provided an understanding of the function and role of the Relief Society within the Church for the rest of the 19th century. In particular, Joseph connected the future role of the Relief Society to the work of temple ordinances that he was working to present to the Saints at Nauvoo:

<blockquote>
He said the reason of these remarks being made, was, that some little thing was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick &c. Said if he had common sympathies, would rejoice that the sick could be heal’d: that the time had not been before, that these things could be in their proper order— that the church is not now organiz’d in its proper order, and cannot be until the Temple is completed—— Prest. Smith continued the subject by adverting to the commission given to the ancient apostles "Go ye into all the world" &c.— no matter who believeth; these signs, such as healing the sick, casting out devils &c. should follow all that believe whether male or female. He ask’d the Society if they could not see by this sweeping stroke, that wherein they are ordaind, it is the privilege of those set apart to administer in that authority which is confer’d on them— and if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|38-39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Healing by the laying on of hands was a practice that was common for Latter-day Saint women in the 19th century ====

Here, Joseph first brings up the issue of healing by the laying on of hands.<ref>For an overview, see Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright, "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" ''The Journal of Mormon History'' 37 (Winter 2011): 1-85.</ref> This had apparently caused some discussion as to whether it was appropriate or not. Healing the sick, however, was one of the signs to follow those with faith, and Joseph Smith compared their organization and the ordination that had been given to the members of the Relief Society to the commission given to the apostles in the New Testament. ‘These signs’ were understood to be a part of the mission of the Relief Society, and healing the sick was one of their primary focuses through the beginning of the twentieth century. The very name of the society, after all, described its purpose of bringing relief to the poor, sick, or suffering.

Later, Joseph Smith also noted:

<blockquote>
He said as he had this opportunity, he was going to instruct the Society and point out the way for them to conduct, that they might act according to the will of God— that he did not know as he should have many opportunities of teaching them— that they were going to be left to themselves,— they would not long have him to instruct them— that the church would not have his instruction long, and the world would not be troubled with him a great while, and would not have his teachings— He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church— that according to his prayers God had appointed him elsewhere.<ref >{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|37-38}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we may see a prophetic foreshadowing here of Joseph’s assassination in 1844, this may also represent Joseph’s intentions seen in his journal entry for July 16th, 1843:

<blockquote>
The same spirit that crucified Jesus is in the breast of some who profess to be Saints in Nauvoo. I have secret enemies in the city intermingling with the Saints, etc. Said I would not prophesy any more, and proposed Hyrum to hold the office of prophet to the Church, as it was his birthright. I am going to have a reformation, and the Saints must regard Hyrum, for he has the authority, that I might be a Priest of the Most High God; and slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the unbelief of the people, I cannot reveal the fullness of these things at present.<ref>(See {{HC|vol=5|start=510}})</ref>
</blockquote>

When this was prepared for publication in the ''History of the Church'', this section was substantially rewritten (interpreted) as follows:

<blockquote>
He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands; that the Saints whose integrity had been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask the Lord and receive an answer.<ref>{{HC|vol=4|pages=604}} See also {{TPJS|pages=226}} For a discussion of the interpretations of the Minute book see Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 88-117.</ref>
</blockquote>

This interpolated idea of shared priesthood resulted in the notion of women being able to exercise the power of the priesthood without being ordained to an office in the priesthood—though it is not found in Joseph's original. We note too that the "keys" in this reading are the keys of knowledge and revelation.

Bruce R. McConkie emphasized that 'keys' "have two distinct and yet related meanings:"

<blockquote>
1—They are the right of presidency; the right to govern and direct all the affairs of the Church or kingdom; and the power to authorize the use of hte Priesthood for a particular purpose. In this sense keys are held by those only who are in presiding and governing positions.

2—Keys are also ''the way and means whereby knowledge and intelligence may be gained from God. In this sense, they are possessed by every Priesthood bearer and ... by many faithful membres of the Relief Society.<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|148}}.
</blockquote>

It is this understanding of Joseph Smith’s remarks that serves as the backdrop for President Taylor’s comments as well as the treatment of ritual healing and temple ordinance work performed by the Relief Society within the 19th century.

{{Related articles
|title=more
|link1=History_of_the_Church_(6-volume_history)
|subject1=Editing practices for the ''History of the Church''
|summary1=The ''History of the Church'' was assembled in the 19th century, and followed different authorship, editing, and source conventions.
}}

==== Keys and the Relief Society ====

At the conclusion of his remarks to the Relief Society in April of 1842, Joseph made this comment:

<blockquote>
This Society is to get instruction thro’ the order which God has established— thro’ the medium of those appointed to lead— and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.<ref>{{Book:Nauvoo RS Minute Book|link=http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=19#!/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book&p=19|date=17 March 1842}}{{Rp|40}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers ====

What does this mean, when Joseph suggests that "I now turn the key to you"? Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in 1950:

<blockquote>
What, then, in summary, is the relationship of the Relief Society to the keys of the kingdom? And what was the significance of the Prophet's turning the key in their behalf in the name of the Lord? ... By turning the key the Prophet delegated to the duly appointed officers of the new organization a portion of the keys of the kingdom. Under the Priesthood they were now authorized to direct, control, and govern the affairs of the society. They thus became legal administrators holding the keys of presidency. Under this appointment their lawful acts would be recognized by the Lord and he would work with them in the rolling forth of the kingdom in the sphere assigned to them. ...

[T]he door was [also] opened whereby the faithful sisters, with their husbands, could communicate with God and receige blessings at his hands. What was it the Prophet said? "Knwledge and intelligence shall flow down (i.e. from God) from this time henceforth."<ref name="mcconkie_keys">Bruce R. McConkie, “The Relief Society and the Keys of the Kingdom,” ''Relief Society Magazine'' (March 1950). {{link|url=https://archive.org/details/reliefsocietymag1950reli/page/148/mode/1up?view=theater}}</ref>{{Rp|151}}.
</blockquote>

The sphere that they saw assigned to them was this healing of the sick and taking care of the welfare of Zion. President Willard Richards, following the Nauvoo pattern set by Joseph Smith, called and set apart women as healers:

<blockquote>
Accordingly he laid his hands upon the heads of a number of the sisters who had prepared themselves to act as midwives and also administering to the sick and afflicted and set them apart for this very office and calling, and blest them with power to officiate in that capacity as handmaids of the Lord. Among the number set apart at that time Sister Presendia was one who received the blessing, and from that day to this she has realized the power and influence it conferred in her daily administerings, not only when she has been called upon to act as a midwife, but when washing and anointing and blessing the sisters.<ref>"A Venerable Woman: Presendia Lathrop Kimball, Continued," ''Woman’s Exponent'' 12 (15 October 1883): 75. {{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/WomansExp/id/10944/rec/27}}</ref>
</blockquote>

During the remainder of the 19th century, there was an increasing formalization in healing ordinances and an accompanying liturgy used within the Relief Society. President Eliza R. Snow, under the direction of President John Taylor visited many of the newly organized local Relief Societies, and encouraged them:

<blockquote>
"We need not be afraid of doing too much nor getting ahead of our Bretheren and if we did why let them hurry up," she told women in Santaquin. She taught Gunnison women the same principle, drawing precedent from the Nauvoo minutes: "The Prophet Joseph Smith said to the Sisters: ‘provoke the Brethren to good works.’" Snow described the Relief Society as "self-governing" and sought to cultivate in women a sense of initiative, responsibility, and partnership. "Woman was not only created as a help meet for man but to be one with him in the priesthood," she declared. Echoing Joseph’s counsel that "all must act in concert or nothing can be done," she affirmed that men’s and women’s interests "are both in the Kingdom of God and cannot be divided. The Gospel of Christ is designed to unite our labors."<ref>Jill Mulvay Derr and Carol Cornwall Madsen, "Preserving the Record and Memory of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, 1842-92" ''Journal of Mormon History'' Vol. 35/3 (Summer 2009): 99.</ref>
</blockquote>

The response was enthusiastic. So much so, that in 1906, Elder J. Golden Kimball observed in his General Conference address:

<blockquote>
The Priesthood quorums ... have become lax in their work and let loose their hold. While the auxiliary organizations have taken the right of way, the Priesthood quorums stand by looking on awe-struck.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=19}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In response, President Joseph F. Smith announced his intention for a priesthood reformation in the April 1906 Conference:

<blockquote>
We expect to see the day, … when every council of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the priesthood.<ref>{{CR|date=April 1906|pages=3|author=Joseph F. Smith}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The work of the Relief Society in the 19th century, and in particular the practice of healing by the laying on of hands shifted to the Priesthood during this priesthood reformation (between 1908 and 1920). Attitudes shifted considerably towards these practices. Brigham Young, in 1869 suggested, speaking to the women of the Church:

<blockquote>
Why do you not live so as to rebuke disease? It is your privilege to do so without sending for the Elders.<ref>{{JDfairwiki|author=Brigham Young|vol=13|start=155|disc=18|article=Building Up Zion—Temperance in Eating and Drinking}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== In 1946, a letter from Elder Joseph Fielding Smith shows how policy on this matter had been reversed ====

Joseph Fielding Smith:

<blockquote>
While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, letter, 29 July 1946.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Women and priesthood in a temple context ====

The one area where there was little change was in the ordinances of the temple. It was widely recognized that women officiated in ordinances in the temple, and the liturgical language of the endowment recognized women as priestesses. It is in this context that we see references back to Joseph Smith’s teachings of a priesthood given in the temple. After the completion of the St. George temple, and the resumption of temple work, there was a push to formalize the liturgy of the temple, and to make sure that it was consistent across the Church. In this context the question of women’s participation in ordinances both within the temple context and outside it came under scrutiny. In 1888, President Franklin D. Richards provided some additional insight:

<blockquote>
I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, "What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?" I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.

Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.

Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: "I would to God that all of the Lord's people were prophets." So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God.<ref>Franklin D. Richards, Discourse, July 19, 1888, in “Memorial Anniversary. Report of the Relief Soicety Meeting Held in the Ogden Tabernacle, July 19th, 1888, in Commemoration of the Last Public Visit and Instructions of President Brigham Young, on Invitation of President Jane S. Richards, to the Relief Society and Young Ladies’ Improvement Associations of the Weber Stake of Zion, Just Eleven Years Ago the 19th Inst.,” Woman’s Exponent (Salt Lake City, UT), Sept. 1, 1888, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 52–54.{{link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-4/4-20?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In justifying the role of women using priesthood power and authority—particularly within a temple context, President Richards introduced this proof text normally used to justify notions of a priesthood of all believers. It provided an Old Testament context to support this doctrine of priesthood received in connection with temple service.

When asked about such matters and what they implied about women having priesthood ordination, Wilford Woodruff wrote to the Relief Society General President. He mentioned the habit of providing temple annointing and washing ritual to women for health reasons:

<blockquote>
Wilford Woodruff: [Answer:] To begin with I desire to say that the ordinance of washing and anointing is one that should only be administered in Temples or other holy places which are dedicated for the purpose of giving endowments to the Saints. That ordinance might not be administered to any one whether she has received or has not received her endowments, in any other place or under any other circumstances.

But I imagine from your question that you refer to a practice that has grown up among the sisters of washing and anointing sisters who are approaching their confinement [i.e., preparing to give birth]. If so, this is not, strictly speaking, an ordinance, unless it be done under the direction of the priesthood and in connection with the ordinance of laying on of hands for the restoration of the sick.

There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters, just as they, and every member of the Church, might do in behalf of the members of their families.<ref>Wilford Woodruff to Emmeline B. Wells, 27 April 1888, Correspondence of the First Presidency, Church Archives.</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1912, Elder James Talmage further expanded this to include single sisters being endowed when he suggested that a single woman being endowed shared the priesthood of her future husband:

<blockquote>
"It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood."<ref>{{Book:Talmage:House of the Lord|pages=94}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Connections between women, priesthood and celestial marriage ====

This connection between women, priesthood, and celestial marriage was reintroduced by Elder Ballard in his August 20, 2013 devotional at BYU:

<blockquote>
When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which by definition is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men, access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children. ... Those who have entered the waters of baptism and subsequently received their endowment in the house of the Lord are eligible for rich and wonderful blessings. The endowment is literally a gift of power. All who enter the house of the Lord officiate in the ordinances of the priesthood. This applies to men and women alike.<ref>M. Russell Ballard, "[http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=2133 'Let Us Think Straight']," BYU devotional address, 20 August 2013.</ref>
</blockquote>

And again, most recently in the April 2014 General Conference by Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted Elder Ballard and emphasized this statement:

<blockquote>
Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other. … When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.<ref name="oaks">{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng|date=May 2014}}</ref>
</blockquote>

====Women act with delegated priesthood authority====

President Dallin H. Oaks emphasized this point when he pointed out that "since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” ({{s||D&C|107|5}}), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority."<ref name="oaks"></ref>

When we understand this, we see that most ''men'' do not perform their duties with their "own" priesthood authority, most of the time. Instead, both men and women ''usually'' act in their Church callings by designated or delegated authority.

====Most people—male and female—act with delegated authority====
For example:
* a ward clerk or executive secretary performs his duties by delegated authority.
* Sunday school teachers—male and female—teach classes under designated authority.
* Primary Presidencies, Young Women's Presidencies, Young Men's adult assistants, Sunday School presidencies—all act under delegated authority from the bishop when they are set apart.

In fact, there are only a few callings that exercise keys and priesthood authority that resides in them, rather than as delegated:
* priesthood quorum presidents
* bishops
* stake, temple, and mission presidents
* apostles

President Oaks expressed this idea when he emphasized:

<blockquote>
We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities.<ref name="oaks"></ref>
</blockquote>

Most members, then, will spend all or most of their Church ''callings'' functioning under delegated authority, not authority to which they are ordained.<ref>Men will, however, often be called on to exercise priesthood in the performance of ''ordinances'', such as blessing the sacrament, blessing the sick, baptizing, or confirming—these duties are not carried out as part of a calling, but in one's role as an ordained holder of the priesthood.</ref>

And, that delegated authority is even used by women in temples to administer sacred ordinance, see [[#Women and priesthood in a temple context|above]].

====We need a more expansive view of how priesthood authority is used by all faithful Church members====

President Joseph Fielding Smith emphasized this in 1959:

<blockquote>
While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.<ref>Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society—an Aid to the Priesthood,” ''Relief Society Magazine'', Jan. 1959, 4; cited by Oaks, 2014</ref>.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why are there no women prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Throughout history, women as well as men have developed the gift of prophecy as told and foretold by the scriptures ====
The Old and New Testaments talk of women prophets. Why are there no women prophets in the church today?

Every one of us should seek the Spirit of the Lord in learning and discerning our paths through life. This interplay between questions and answers from God is one face of the spiritual gift of prophecy. Throughout history, women as well as men have developed this gift as told and foretold by the scriptures. However, the spiritual gift of prophecy is different from the calling the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have to act as "prophets, seers, and revelators" for the Church and the world in general. Still, their callings do not conflict with the blessing we can all enjoy of being prophets for ourselves, our families, and for our callings in the Church.

The Bible mentions a number of prophetesses. In the Old Testament, we have Miriam ({{b||Exodus|15|20}}), Deborah ({{b||Judges|4|4}}), Huldah ({{b|2|Kings|22|14}},{{b|2|Chronicles|34|22}}), Noadiah ({{b||Nehemiah|6|14}}). The New Testament mentions Anna ({{b||Luke|2|36}}). So why do we not see women designated as "prophetesses" today?

==== The fact that there is a person designated as "The Prophet" for the Church does not preclude others from having the gift of prophecy ====

A "prophet" is often regarded as an office to which one is formally called and set apart. Latter-day Saints often refer to the President of the Church as "The Prophet." In this sense, ''the'' prophet is a priesthood position held by the senior apostle on earth. As President Dallin H. Oaks noted:

<blockquote>
The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood. ...

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.”
</blockquote>

In the same way, "The Prophet" is certainly a prophet, but he is not the only one who can or should possess the gift of prophecy.

From the Bible Dictionary definition for "Prophet," we read the following:

<blockquote>
...In certain cases prophets predicted future events, e.g., there are the very important prophecies announcing the coming of Messiah's kingdom; but as a rule prophet was a forthteller rather than a foreteller. In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, as in {{s||Num.|11|25-29}}; {{s||Rev.|19|10}}.<ref>{{BD|url=http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/p/61|article=Prophet}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Surely the women called as General Auxiliary Presidency members are forthtellers. They travel the world teaching and testifying; they speak at General Conferences; they produce material for Church publications and do all of it by the spirit of prophecy. Women as well as men in all levels of the church today are blessed with this gift of the spirit to receive revelation. We simply don't recognize them formally.

In a broader sense, all who have a testimony of the Saviour are prophets regardless of their demographic characteristics {{s||Joel|2|28-29}}. Perhaps some of those named as prophets and prophetesses in the scriptures were given the title as charismatic/spiritual designations, not formal/official positions in a church hierarchy. Prophecy is a gift of the spirit, not necessarily a priesthood office.

Along with the prophetesses mentioned above, the word "prophetess" is used in two other ways in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the false prophetess and the consort prophetess.

==== The false prophetess ====

In the New Testament, the word is applied to "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess."{{s||Rev|2|20}} According to the Bible Dictionary, the use here is figurative and is part of a historical allusion used by John to communicate a threat of serious apostasy—a dark parallel to the woman and child that reprsent the Church of God (see {{s||Rev|12|}}, especially [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-rev/12?lang=eng&id=p1-p17#p1 JST Revelation 12:7]. This reference to the spiritually disastrous reign of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel warns of a situation early church members should have recognized as dramatic and dangerous.

It does not preclude righteous women from acting as prophets any more than the existence of false male prophets precludes men from doing so.

The negative use of "prophetess" shows there must have been real significance attached to the word. Otherwise, its abuse by a Jezebel figure wouldn’t have been put forward as a sign of an insidious and destructive movement within the early church.

==== Why are there no female prophets today? ====

Knowing that any righteous individual can have gifts of the spirit, one really ought to ask: "Why do you not notice the females in the Church who are prophets?" The Lord has asked His people in ages past, and today:

<blockquote>
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ({{b||Exodus|19|5-6}})
</blockquote>

He has also said that this is "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" ({{b|1|Peter|2|9}})

Moses desired all the Lord's people to be prophets:

<blockquote>
Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them! ({{b||Numbers|11||29}})
</blockquote>

If we cannot perceive Latter-day Saint women who are prophets, we may be thinking of "prophet" as a position of influence or power, rather than as a spiritual gift to which all are called to be worthy.
{{To learn more box:women: priesthood}}
</wt>
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}

[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Frage: Was ist die Stellung der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage zur Geburtenkontrolle?]]
[[de:Frauen und das Priestertum]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Maternidad]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Mujeres en la cultura mormona]]
[[es:Cuestiones mormonismo y de género/Mujeres/Participación en la Iglesia]]
[[es:El Mormonismo y el sacerdocio/Mujeres]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la posición mormona sobre el aborto?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la postura de la Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días sobre el control de la natalidad?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿El mormonismo devalúa a aquellos que no están casados o que no tienen hijos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Hay alguna regla en el mormonismo que establezca que las mujeres no pueden abrir reuniones de la Iglesia con la oración?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las enseñanzas del Santo de los Últimos Días ("Mormón") sobre la maternidad representan una carga inadecuada para las mujeres?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") colocadas bajo convenio en los templos se subordinan a sus esposos?]]
[[es:Pregunta: ¿Se enseña a las mujeres Santos de los Últimos Días ("mormonas") a ser "agradecidas a los hombres mormones" y que las mujeres no deben "aspirar ... a un pensamiento independiente"?]]

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-04-02T14:37:36Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Homosexuality
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Several questions have arisen regarding the Church's approach to relations with the LGBT community. This page responds to those questions.
----
====General Questions About Identity====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?===
| state = closed
| content = The Church does not reject those who are attracted to those of their own sex. If such attraction leads to an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered sinful, just as sexual acts outside of marriage are for heterosexuals.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

<blockquote>
"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. He did not say that only those who shun the label are welcome, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could move forward as all other members do. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God. President Russell M. Nelson has counselled us about such things in areas far beyond sexual desire or orientation:

{{Set off quote 1
|color =
|image=Russell Nelson 2018 Portrait.png
|I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

Labels ''can'' be fun and indicate your support for any number of positive things. Many labels will change for you with the passage of time. And not all labels are of equal value. But if any label replaces your most important identifiers, the results can be spiritually suffocating. ...

''Who are you?'' First and foremost, you are a child of God.

Second, as a member of the Church, you are a child of the covenant. And third, you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Tonight, I plead with you not to ''replace'' these three paramount and unchanging identifiers with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression.

For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, “I know everything there is to know about you” and attribute erroneous beliefs to you.

If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces.

We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves or that other people place upon us. ...

How tragic it is when someone believes the label another person has given them. ...

[Satan] rejoices in labels because they divide us and restrict the way we think about ourselves and each other. How sad it is when we honor labels more than we honor each other.

Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any ''abuse'' or ''prejudice'' toward another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!

There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should ''displace'', ''replace'', or ''take priority over'' these three enduring designations: “child of God,” “child of the covenant,” and “disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Any identifier that is not compatible with these three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God.

Worldly identifiers will never give you a vision of who you can ultimately become. They will never affirm your divine DNA or your unlimited, divine potential.<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Choices for Eternity," Worldwide Devotional for Young Single Adults, 15 May 2022 {[link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words ''homosexual'', ''lesbian'', and ''gay'' are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual ''behavior''.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

<blockquote>
When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say "she is expecting a baby." In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.
</blockquote>

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

<blockquote>
And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. <ref>{{Book:Packer:To The One}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" ====

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

<blockquote>
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels ====

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:
* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''
* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

=== The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them. ===

==== Definition of sexual orientation ====
The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

<blockquote>
"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." <ref>"[http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Orientation]," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>
</blockquote>

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

The APA notes further: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same sex have never engaged in homosexual behavior. Of those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, only 13% of men and 4% of women who so identified have never engaged in homosexual behavior. <ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).
</blockquote>

==== Identity and behavior ====

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that ''acting'' on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

==== Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay ====
In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.
</blockquote>

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

How does this compare with the dictionary? The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' defines ''homosexual'' as someone exhibiting ''homosexuality''. It defines ''homosexuality'' as:

# Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
# Sexual activity with another of the same sex. <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality Definition of Homosexuality], ''dictionary.reference.com'', s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that ''homosexual'' can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

==== Avoiding using gay as a noun ====
With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style'' gives a similar warning against using ''gay'' as a noun:

<blockquote>
Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. <ref>[[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style''] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. <ref>[http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide] (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref> They cite the following examples:

''New York Times'':
<blockquote>
Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.
</blockquote>

''Washington Post'':
<blockquote>
When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have Church leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content = Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

==== We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control ====

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings. This standard applies equally to all.

==== D&C ====

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

<blockquote>
Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66:10)
</blockquote>

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

<blockquote>
Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10:1)
</blockquote>

==== 1980 ====

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this '''practice''' with a vigor equal to his condemnation of '''adultery and other such sex acts'''. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

<blockquote>
Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, '''like fornication''', is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

<blockquote>
James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (James1:8,12-16).
</blockquote>

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful ''response'' to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

<blockquote>
'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

"Be wise in the days of your probation," said Mormon, "strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God" (Moroni 9:28).<ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis. He said:

<blockquote>
In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.
</blockquote>

==== 1987 ====

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1988 ====

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1991 ====

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

<blockquote>
There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.<ref>First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1994 ====
Elder Richard G. Scott:

<blockquote>
'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1995 ====

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||D&C|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in {{s|1|Corinthians|16|16}}: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

<blockquote>
A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

"I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church," he said. "I don’t think I’m worthy."

"Why wouldn’t you be worthy?" I asked.

"I’m gay."

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. "And … ?" I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. "I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …"

He sighed. "Why am I this way? The feelings are very real."

I paused, then said, "I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?"

He shook his head. "No, I don’t."

This time I was relieved. "Thank you for wanting to deal with this," I said. "It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, "You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

"What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ "

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."
</blockquote>

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

<blockquote>
Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}, {{ia}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2009 ====

D. Todd Christopherson:

<blockquote>
All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He "gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20:22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never "slept with anybody." "Don’t you want to?" the friend asked. The young woman thought: "The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct."

In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9).<ref>{{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Bruce C. Hafen:

<blockquote>
You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2010 ====

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

<blockquote>
None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

<blockquote>
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== What does science have to say about this? ====
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

As discussed above,{{nc}} self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref>American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.</ref> The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

==== The Religions Dimension ====

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."<ref>"Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.</ref>

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === In the Church of Jesus Christ, what are the ramifications of denying a gay identity? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

==== The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God ====

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

{{SeeAlso|Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity|l1=LGBT identity}}

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}} [http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1 link]</ref> Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950491516608883.html A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions]</ref>

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

# Heterosexual
# LGBT
# Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
# No specific sexual orientation identity<ref> {{NC}} was footnoted as "task.force"</ref>

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

==== Effects of adopting a gay identity ====

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann|first=Edward O.|date=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.<ref>{{NW}} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869</ref>It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.<Ref> {{NW}} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144</ref> It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 {{nc}}</ref> Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.<ref>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss {{nc}}</ref>

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.
}}
==== Scripture and History ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content = As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,

<blockquote>
The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of {{s||Lev|18|22}} could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in {{s||Deut|23|17-18}}), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.
<ref name="gagnon">Robert A. J. Gagnon, ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics'' (Abingdon Press, 2010).</ref>{{Rp|69, 80-81, 132}}
</blockquote>

==== Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments ====
{{s||Exodus|20|14}} reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. {{s||Leviticus|18|22}} reads:

<blockquote>
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
</blockquote>

{{s||Leviticus|20|13}}:

<blockquote>
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
</blockquote>

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus ''discusses and describes'' those commands—which were rescinded in the Christian era—and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior—which remained in force, are quite different.

<blockquote>
The word ''toebah'' [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation ''toebah''. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in {{s||Leviticus|1|}} 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|118-119}}
</blockquote>

This author then quotes another expert, who writes<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.</ref>:

<blockquote>
Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word ''toevah'' is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.
</blockquote>

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No—the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

<blockquote>
The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|138}}
</blockquote>

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

<blockquote>
in {{s||Leviticus|0|}}, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[a] child sacrifice (20:2), 
[b] cursing one's parents (20:9), 
[c] adultery (20:10), 
[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and 
[e] bestiality (20:15-16).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|195n182}}
</blockquote>

He continues:
<blockquote>
most of {{s||Leviticus|8|20}} can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19:18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in {{s||Leviticus|7|26}}. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|123}}
</blockquote>

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

<blockquote>
One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in {{s||Deut|22|5}} [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in {{s||Lev|18|22}} and {{s_short|Leviticus|20|13}}.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|112-113}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts? ====
Some try to minimize the seriousness of homosexual acts by pointing out that Jesus did not preach against them specifically. This stance completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation in Jesus' day.

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|215}} In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|217-218}}

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19:18; 15:19)

Second, Jesus tended to ''intensify'' or ''strengthen'' commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity (Matthew 19:8–9).

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

<blockquote>
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthtew 19:5–6).
</blockquote>

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

<blockquote>
The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249-250}}
</blockquote>

In short,

<blockquote>
the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no ''direct'' or ''explicit'' comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249}}
</blockquote>

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

<blockquote>
The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|286}}
</blockquote>

====The Early Church and the New Testament Apostles====
Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws. The Lord responded:

<blockquote>
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
</blockquote>

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters. (See {{s||Acts|0|}} for the whole story) However, the question remained—what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

==== The Jerusalem council ====
Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary—this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice. The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

<blockquote>
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29)
</blockquote>

The word translated "fornication" is ''porneia''—it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from ''porenia''.) Jesus had taught against ''porneia'', and the apostles repeated it:

<blockquote>
In {{s||Mark|7|21-23}}, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and {{s_short||Leviticus|20|}} (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|251-252}}
</blockquote>

==== Incest condemnation ====
There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this—for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

==== Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ====
This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text ''Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs''. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

<blockquote>
[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... ''porneia'' has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that ''porneia'' could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.
</blockquote>

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative—but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.

====Paul====

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in {{s||Romans|1|}}. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|198n185}}

==== The first command—no idolatry ====
Paul starts with the first such command—the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

<blockquote>
[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:18–23, NIV).
</blockquote>

==== The second command—no homosexual sin ====
As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers—homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" (Romans 1: 24, 26, NIV):

<blockquote>
[26] Even their women exchanged ''natural'' sexual relations for ''unnatural'' ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned ''natural'' relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26–27, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way—in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians—but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both ''evidence'' for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the ''punishment'' for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

<blockquote>
The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12–21). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth. All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|339}} </blockquote>

==== These represent all gentile sins ====
Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for ''all'' of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

<blockquote>
[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:29–32).
</blockquote>

==== Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners ====
Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them—''of course'' the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

<blockquote>
[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (Romans 2:1–12, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul's trap is clever but clear—just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended—and we should not use them—as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are ''all'' in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul ''used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin'' because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

==== ''Porneia'' again ====
Paul's condemnation applies to us all—but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all ''porneia'' he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

<blockquote>
"Flee ''porneia''! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits ''porneia'' (''ho porneudn'') sins into/against (''eigfi'') his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|369}}
</blockquote>

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians—he even fought with Peter about it! {{Nc}} If Paul is concerned about ''porenia'', then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

==== Did Paul have any examples of "healthy" gay relationships? ====
Some have claimed that since the Roman empire's homosexual acts were largely pederasty (i.e., older men having sex with young boys) or rape (masters against slaves) that this condemnation does not apply today.

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

<blockquote>
Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|471}}
</blockquote>

===The Early Christians===
The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"—in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117–138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

<blockquote>
Nothing belies the claim that pederastic discourse lost its vitality like the relationship between
Hadrian and his Bithynian favorite, Antinous. Possibly a slave, Hadrian’s beloved died on the
Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies
easy comprehension is the paroxysm of empire-wide mourning that ensued. A city was
founded at the site of his death; Hadrian believed reports that a new star had appeared in the
sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his
face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image
of Antinous ranks behind only Augustus and Hadrian in the number of sculptures extant
today. Dozens of cities issued coinage in his honor; games were being founded in his memory
decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not
suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous
resonated in powerful and unexpected ways.<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|551}}
</blockquote>

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about ''porneia'', including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

<blockquote>
Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as
an offshoot of Roman conservatism. The ideas about sex emanating from the new religion
marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of
the flesh became caught in a cosmic battle between good and evil. New rules, more
interesting and less predictable than sometimes argued, formed. Porneia, fornication, went
from being a cipher for sexual sin in general to a sign for all sex beyond the marriage bed, and
it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless
of age, status, or role, was forbidden without qualification and without remorse. Unexpectedly,
sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way
that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|1673}}
</blockquote>

===Conclusion—Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians===
In sum:

<blockquote>
the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. <ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|553-556}}
</blockquote>

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians—and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.

===Latter-day Scripture===

====God and Christ repeated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} =====
{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} announces:
<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>
This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at ''why'' marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in {{s||Genesis|1|}}, {{s||Moses|3|24}}, and {{s||Abraham|5|18}}—the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|1}} states:
<blockquote>
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, '''he cannot obtain it'''. (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence ====

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Same Sex Dynamics|pages=1–}}</ref>

The evidence does not suggest that nineteenth-century Mormons regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence. Attempts to prove otherwise seem largely founded on agenda-driven writing and a distortion of the historical evidence.

D. Michael Quinn's book, ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: [[Specific_works/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example|here]].
}}
==== Challenges ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships ====
Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49:15-17) that

<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

==== Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations ====

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

<blockquote>
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction." My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church ====
It is claimed that:
*Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
*This encourages dishonesty
*This isolates them from other members

There is no counsel or necessity to hide, lie, or isolate oneself from others. At the same time, members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others. As discussed above, members are discouraged from allowing any identity or group to which they belong supercede or interfere with their role as children of God, disciples of Christ, and covenant-keeping members of the Church.

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. {{s||D&C|38|27}} reads:

<blockquote>
I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. <ref>As quoted by Adam Olson in [http://lds.org/ensign/2008/04/maintaining-the-course?lang=eng Maintaining the Course]</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

<blockquote>
Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

<blockquote>
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80
</blockquote>

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort. (Mosiah 18:8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

<blockquote>
All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"<ref>{{NC||</ref>
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

==== Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings? ====

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time—but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In {{s||D&C|97|8}}, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other? ===
| state = closed
| content = No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics—but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous—he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

==== Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen ====

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

The Church's pamphlet ''God Loveth His Children'' counsels:

<blockquote>
In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.
</blockquote>

There are many with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their display of sexual feelings. (In like way, there are many heterosexually attracted people who likewise moderate their sexual desires and keep discussion and display of them within appropriate bounds.)

This is not advice to refuse association with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or heterosexual promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency.

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do. We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" {{nc}}. Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.
}}
==== The Causes of Homosexuality ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction ====

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the ''practice'' of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a ''cause'' for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

=== 1980 ===

==== President Spencer W. Kimball ====

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. <ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1987 ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Balm of Gilead|date=October 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1988 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:
<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. <ref>"Free Agency and Freedom," ''Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches'' (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Covenants|date=October 1990|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1993 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=For Time and All Eternity|date=October 1993|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1994 ===

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise ''faith in Jesus Christ''. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=To Be Healed|date=April 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/to-be-healed?lang=eng}} {{io}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1995 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [{{s|2|Nephi|2|27}}]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see {{b||Proverbs|3|5-7}}). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Trust in the Lord|date=October 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1996 ===
==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….

Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Finding Joy in Life|date=April 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/finding-joy-in-life?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability. ...

[W]e become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many. ...

Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires. ...

What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=According to the Desires of [Our] Hearts|date=October 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/-according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1999 ===
==== Henry B. Eyring ====

<blockquote>
A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.

Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=Do Not Delay|date=October 1999|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/do-not-delay?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2000 ===
==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have "[become] for themselves," resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1:29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.

Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.

Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us|date=April 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/content-with-the-things-allotted-unto-us?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2006 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

<blockquote>
"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). <ref>{{General Conference|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=He Heals the Heavy Laden|date=October 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/he-heals-the-heavy-laden?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

=== Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman ===

<blockquote>
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2007 ===
==== Church booklet produced in 2007 notes ====

<blockquote>
Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Jeffrey R. Holland ====

<blockquote>
If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.

I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

=== What if same-sex attraction is genetic? ===

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? No—even if same-sex attraction were enitrely biological, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Anger or violence are likewise natural tendencies with deep biological roots. We are still required to control and master them, and we are also not to express them in unrighteous ways. For many, this is a great challenge, but the Lord does not excuse us from that challenge. He promises to help us and to change us so that we can, with his help, behave as he would.

Many people experience opposite-sex desires that seem natural, but remain sinful. The church does not lift restrictions on practicing these behaviors either. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

<blockquote>
Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.<Ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng Cleansing the Inner Vessel]|date=October 2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Just as improper expressions of heterosexuality can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality in improper ways.

=== Understanding explanations of homosexuality ===

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

<blockquote>
"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the ''practices'' of homosexuality {{ia}}."
</blockquote>

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would often never go away, even in the repentant.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content = The Church believes everyone has a the freedom to choose their actions. However, actions are very different from orientation. The Church teaches that same-sex attractions can run deep, and form a significant part of how a person experiences life. They are not, however, the only part.

=== Quotes from leaders ===

Speaking of same-sex attraction, Elder Packer said in 2000:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng]
</blockquote>

Elder Wickman was asked in an interview about how to respond to a son who said that he was gay. He responded:

<blockquote>
We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Elder Holland expressed a similar feeling when he said:

<blockquote>
Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them.[http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Church leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Criticism ====
Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aver that President Spencer W. Kimball asserted that masturbation causes one to be attracted to the same sex in h{{s||is|9|}} book ''Miracle of Forgiveness''.

President Kimball wrote the following:

<blockquote>
Most youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas—drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few—depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
 
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation—and thence into homosexuality.<ref>Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78.</ref>
</blockquote>

This response will examine this charge and conclude that the notion that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation is not and never has been taught by the Church.

=== Response to Criticism ===
==== Masturbation, according to President Kimball, may lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality rather than a homosexual ''orientation'' ====

Commenting on President Kimball's claims above, Gregory L. Smith wrote:

:This purported link between self-stimulation and homosexuality has often been ridiculed. O’Donovan refers to Kimball’s "absurd theory that masturbation leads to homosexuality."<ref>Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004, http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html. This is a revised version of Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," in ''Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays in Sex and Family'', Essays on Mormonism Series, No. 7, ed. Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 138-40. In that earlier version, he omits the word "absurd."</ref> And, such skepticism is justified if one reads ''homosexuality'' as ''homosexual orientation'' in the modern sense. Most people masturbate sometime, and few of these are gay.

:Such an analysis assumes and relies on modern definitions, however. As I have shown, leaders’ use of the term ''homosexuality'' in this period — especially the homosexuality that they sought to discourage — was almost exclusively concerned with ''behavior''.<ref>''Compare Welfare Services Packet'' 1, 8: "homosexuality is possible only with others."</ref>

:Seen in this light, Kimball’s claim becomes both more plausible and more understandable. It is important to remember that he had long experience counseling practicing homosexuals (19, 68-70).<ref>See also Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', ix–x.</ref> He would likely have learned that solo masturbation while entertaining homosexual fantasies would often precede acting on those fantasies with another person. From that perspective, Kimball’s claim is less controversial and may even be valid.

:Kimball was not alone in these realizations. Clinicians with exposure to the homosexual demi-monde had long remarked that homosexual masturbatory practices tended to precede homosexual acts with others, though the former did not always lead to the latter.

:At the turn of the twentieth century, early sexologist Havelock Ellis wrote of a correspondent "who went to a French school, [and] told me that ''all'' the older boys had younger accomplices in mutual masturbation. … At my school, manual masturbation was both solitary and mutual; and sometimes younger boys, who had not acquired the habit, were induced to manipulate bigger boys. … In after-life they showed no signs of inversion [i.e., homosexuality]."<ref>Havelock Ellis, ''Studies in the Psychology of Sex'', vol. I (1905; repr., New York: Random House, 1942), 240, italics in original, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179937/page/n287/mode/2up.</ref>

:In Albert Moll’s ''Sexual Life of the Child'' (1912), he wrote:

:<blockquote>
It is an indisputable fact that many boys … readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in [same-sex] boarding schools … they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs).<ref>Albert Moll, ''The Sexual Life of the Child'', trans. Eden Paul (1912; repr., London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd: 1923), 265, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.200468/page/n275/mode/2up.</ref>
</blockquote>

:In an effort to reassure the reader that co-education of boys and girls would not be unduly risky, Moll pointed out that "even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of [hetero]sexual practice. … We have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we ''may'' favor the development of homosexuality."<ref>Ibid, 267, italics added.</ref>

:Moll and Havelock evidently did not think that masturbation inevitably lead to homosexual behavior, much less what is today called orientation. But, Moll would draw precisely the same conclusion as Kimball regarding behavior in the dry prose of academic German science:

<blockquote>
The German Imperial Criminal Code … assert[s] that homosexual tendencies appearing in the child necessarily indicate the future development of permanent homosexuality. [Moll disagrees.] …
 
The chief danger associated with the appearance of sexual perversions lies in the fact that the child thus affected … endeavors again and ever again to revive these pleasurably-toned sensations … and … as soon as the genital organs are sufficiently mature, the boy or girl obtains sexual gratification by masturbating simultaneously with the imaginative contemplation of perverse ideas. Such perverse psychical onanism, accompanied or unaccompanied by physical masturbatory acts, <code>is eminently adapted to favor the development of the perversion.</code> Obviously, the actual performance of the corresponding perverse sexual act <code>will be just as dangerous as its perversely associated masturbation.</code> Thus, a boy who is homosexually inclined may masturbate while allowing his imagination to run riot upon homosexual ideas; or he may take to homosexual acts with one or more other male persons. Every sort of gratification that is associated with perverse images is dangerous; and no less dangerous is the spontaneous cultivation of such perverse sexual images.<ref>Ibid, 313-14, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

:Moll saw a risk related to masturbation among the "homosexually inclined" — it would encourage unwanted behavior, but not create most inclination to that behavior.<ref>A[lbert] Moll, ''Les perversions de l’instinct genital: étude sur l’inversion sexuelle basée sur des documents officiels'', 6ième edition, traduit par Pactet et Romme (Paris: Georges Carré et C. Naud, 1897), 197, 200, 207-209, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tpoaAAAAYAAJ/page/n249/mode/2up.</ref> Kimball, with more brevity, would write "masturbation too often leads to grievous sin, even to … homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex — and thence into total homosexuality."<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 78. Taylor Petrey's ''Tabernacles of Clay'' claims that because of Kimball’s views, LDS Social Services needed to "offer some clarification." But masturbation can hardly "lead … to homosexuality" if Kimball believed it to be a homosexual act in itself. Even mutual masturbation, for Kimball, is only a stepping stone to "total homosexuality."</ref>

:This was, in fact, precisely what a study of "non-patient" adult male homosexuals "drawn from the community" found in the same year that ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was published:

<blockquote>
Of the homosexual men, all of them had practiced self-masturbation at some time during their lives. … Even during the peak of their sexual outlet by homosexual means between the ages of 20 and 29, almost all of the subjects (97%) were engaged in self-masturbation...
 
Homosexual behavior

Cognitional Rehearsals — Those were reported in almost all of the men (99%). In 97% it was stated that cognitional rehearsals had already started before age 20. …

The majority of the subjects (86%) had already had homosexual contacts before the age of 15. …

Of the men that were engaged in homosexual activity before age 15, the large majority (93%) practiced mutual masturbation … [and] a minority (19%) practiced [homosexual] intercourse. …

Mutual masturbation was abandoned by the majority of the subjects after the age of 29. Even those who practiced it between the of 20 and 29, tended to engage in it only occasionally.<ref>Marcel T. Saghir, Eli Robins, and Bonnie Walbran, "Homosexuality: II. Sexual Behavior of the Male Homosexual," ''Archives of General Psychiatry'' 21 (August 1969): 219-23, underlining in original represents a subject heading.</ref>
</blockquote>

:For this population, Kimball was right — one started with fantasies ("cognitional rehearsals") ultimately accompanied by masturbation, progressed to mutual masturbation, and eventually abandoned that for greater intimacies. One can quibble about whether masturbation "caused" these homosexual acts in a technical sense, but it is hard to see the behaviors as utterly unrelated. And behavior was what concerned Kimball.

:In fact, he would have said that the person chose solo acts that simply made it easier to later choose other acts with someone else — one sin "leads to" another (71). He did not see the relationship as deterministic:<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 215.</ref>

:Small indiscretions evolve into larger ones and finally into major transgressions which bring heavy penalties. … Warning signals and guidelines are given to reduce the danger of one’s being blindly enticed into forbidden paths. …

:Those who yield to evil are usually those who have placed themselves in a vulnerable position.<ref>Ibid., x, 15.</ref>

:And, he saw other similar sins as preludes to heterosexual ones in the same way: "My beloved young folks, do not excuse petting and body intimacies. I am positive that if this illicit, illegal, improper, and lustful habit of ‘petting’ could be wiped out, that fornication would soon be gone from our world."<ref>Kimball, "Love Versus Lust," ''BYU Speeches of the Year'' 1965, 30.</ref><ref>Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–213.</ref>

Smith cites "a present-day queer studies author" that further contextualizes how President Kimball understood homosexuality:

<blockquote>
Once the patient’s will-power or reason was compromised by masturbation [it was thought] … "reversion" to the primordial bestial type would be the result. … the slide from masturbation to homosexuality seems bizarre from a twenty-first century perspective. However, that is partly because current definitions of masturbation are very narrow compared to the definitions operative in the nineteenth century. We think of masturbation as self-stimulation only," while the nineteenth century did not consider anything but intercourse to be a homosexual act, even if it involved same-sex genital play.<ref>Ladelle McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual: The Construction of the Sex Pervert," in Cyd Cipolla et al, eds., ''Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader'' (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 118.</ref>
</blockquote>

The same author observes that nineteenth-century thinkers thought that

<blockquote>
There were two categories of inverts [i.e., homosexuals]. First, there were those whose condition was a result of self-induced degeneracy through willful vice. … However, increasingly influenced by the personal disclosures of inverts themselves, many nineteenth century physicians began to believe there was a second group. … Maybe some people are born with the gonads and genitalia of one sex but the brain and neurological system of the other. …

But it might not be fair to punish [these] congenital inverts, many physicians and sexologists believed, because their actions were not truly voluntary. As James Kiernan put it, "There can be no legal responsibility where free determination of the will is impaired." Congenital inverts were naturally weak of will … <code>unable to resist</code> the perverse urges that their degenerate condition aroused. Such individuals might undergo episodic periods of organically produced sexual furor during which they were <code>entirely devoid of self-control</code>.<ref>McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual," 120, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, as Smith concludes:

:If these distinctions are understood, then Kimball’s argument makes further sense. Some believed that those with an in-born attraction for the same sex could not control their actions. Other homosexuals "learned" such behavior via a free-will choice to engage in masturbation, which, in some, could progress to group masturbation and ultimately to homosexuality (i.e., intercourse).

:The nineteenth century theorists might not condemn those who were "innate" homosexuals who had not brought their habit upon themselves through masturbatory habits. But they did not believe this group could control themselves either — their compulsive activity would be almost a type of madness. (By analogy, today’s society would not condemn a schizophrenic for her hallucinations, though it might well institutionalize her against her will if she sought to harm others as a result of those hallucinations.)

:Church doctrine, however, revolted at the idea that any normal person was unable to control their behavior, however they might be tempted.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 225–27.</ref> So Kimball focused on avoiding the acts that could strengthen temptation and lead to further unwanted behavior.

:Like Kimball, neither Ellis nor Moll saw same-sex mutual masturbation as fully "homosexual," per se but observed that it could (in some cases) precede homosexual intercourse. This is a different conceptual world than ours.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 214–15.</ref>

=== Conclusion ===
Thus, President Kimball is not saying that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual ''orientation''. President Kimball says that masturbation could lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality. The church rarely (if ever) talks about the causes of a particular sexual orientation. The church is much more interested in learning to control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors rather than sexual orientation. Many other leaders have also cautioned about preoccupation with sex and about arousing sexual feelings that should only be expressed in marriage. Masturbation arouses sexual feelings outside of marriage. This could lead to sexual acts performed outside of marriage. If a person has opposite-sex attractions, it may lead to the practice of heterosexuality outside of marriage, which is considered just as much of a sin as the practice of homosexuality.
}}
==== Post-Mortal States ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Church teach that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death ====

All Latter-day Saints anticipate being transformed and perfected in the resurrection. The weaknesses, failings, imperfections, and unholy desires that we all have will be removed. This includes any sexual desire or temptation not in accord with God's purposes for us.

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

<blockquote>
While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, ''our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life'' so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that ''their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way'' and according to His timing. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

<blockquote>
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, "Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?"

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is th{{s||is:|1|}}) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. <ref>Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: "[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction Same-Gender Attraction]," (undated).</ref>
</blockquote>

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

<blockquote>
I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. <ref>The Mormons, [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland], ''pbs.org'' (30 April 2007).</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

<blockquote>
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity." And "men (and women) are that they might have joy." <ref>[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction Address] given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Legal Protections ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships ====

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref> The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

<blockquote>
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law ==

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

<blockquote>
The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Non discrimination:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Suicide ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{Set off quote 1|if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources. '''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''}}

As we have seen above, the Church recognizes that being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction can be very difficult.

It has long been known that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction.

Critics charge that:
* Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates; and
* there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints

These charges are without scientific foundation. They are not surprising, since warnings of such supposed dangers are a common strategy from those targeting unpopular social groups.<ref>rich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, ''Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance'' (Wiley-Blackwell, 1994), 147.</ref>

For example, some have claimed that the Church's policy of requiring First Presidency clearance for the baptism of children of gay couples caused a spike in suicide. These claims were fiction—in Utah "the year after the November policy saw a 21 percent decrease in youth suicide and a small decrease in suicide of those eighteen to sixty-four years old."<ref>{{BYUS|author=W. Justin Dyer|article=book review|vol=59|num=1|date=2020|pages=226|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/59.1DyerGayRights.pdf}}</ref>

There are three studies that have looked at precisely this quesiton—in all cases, those with same-sex attraction who were members of the Church had ''lower'' suicide rates than those with same-sex attraction outside the Church.

Because this is such an important issue, we will consider these points in detail.

=== Background risk ===

To answer questions about the Church’s impact, if any, we have to know first about background risk. If you were going to study the effects of, say, smoking on cancer, first you have to know how likely cancer is in people who don’t smoke. It doesn’t do much good to point out that 10% of people who smoke die of cancer, if 10% of people who don’t do too. Sadly, we’ve known for decades that LGBTQ people have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and probably higher rates of actual suicide too.<ref>Ryan M. Hill and Jeremy W. Pettit, “Suicidal Ideation and Sexual Orientation in College Students: The Roles of Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Perceived Rejection Due to Sexual Orientation,” ''Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior'' 42/5 (October 2012): 567, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00113.x.</ref> This is one of the great constants in research over decades.

==== Denmark ====
In Denmark, for example, a 2011 study showed that gay men in registered domestic partnerships (Denmark’s version of “gay marriage,” which they have had since 1990) were still almost ''eight times'' more likely to commit suicide as married or divorced heterosexuals. Divorce and singleness are risk factors for suicide, and so of all LGBTQ people, those in legal same-sex partnerships should have the best numbers because they are “wired in” to a close social support such as a spouse.

Denmark is an extremely secular country—it seems unlikely that religious doctrine or persecution can explain this massive disparity in suicide rates.

==== Norway ====

A Norwegian study found that when compared to heterosexual youth, youth who were attracted to the same sex and/or self-identified as LGB were no more likely to attempt suicide. Only homosexual behavior was associated with an increased rate of suicide attempt, and “[t]he increased odds [of suicidality] could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.”<ref>Lars Wichstrøm and Kristinn Hegna, “Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: a longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population,” ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'' 112/1 (February 2003): 144–151, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653422/.</ref>

So, even in two of the most tolerant, non-religious, secular societies, there are some prominent risks. We might think of this as something of a “best case scenario” for tolerance and acceptance. We aren’t likely to produce a society in or out of the Church more open to same-sex behavior than Denmark and Norway. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still work to bring these suicide rates down, but it might suggest that insisting that others need to be more "tolerant" of homosexual behavior may not provide huge gains.

===Suicide in Utah? ===

The Church is often blamed for an "epidemic" of gay suicdes in Utah. But, Utah's state expert (who is himself gay) insists that there is no such epidemic:

<blockquote>Michael Staley [who is openly gay himself], who works for Utah’s medical examiner and ranks among the most respected researchers on this topic, said in an interview with Q Salt Lake, a Utah LGBT magazine, his initial findings do not support the narrative that Utah youth suicides are rising as a result of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality or LGBT issues. “There’s no data to show that, period,” Staley said. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed.”<ref>Layne Williams, Amy Fife, Hal Boyd, “No correlation between youth suicide and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” ''Idaho Statesman'' (22 September 2019), https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article235270667.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Why might people be “disappointed”? Isn’t that good news? Well, it isn’t if you are trying to use suicide as a weapon to shame a religion and push it to change.

So, the claim that Utah suffered an explosion of gay suicide turns out not to be true. But people continue to say it—which suggests that either they are misinformed, or their goal may be something other than the truth.

=== Suicide in the Church ===

It is well known that religion is generally protective against suicide—so isolating someone from their religious group probably doesn’t help make them safer, all else being equal.<ref>Thomas Joiner, Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success, kindle loc. 4114-16. See also his Why People Die By Suicide, loc 1720. Evan M. Kleiman and Richard T. Liu, “Prospective Prediction of Suicide in a Nationally Representative Sample: Religious Service Attendance as a Protective Factor,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 204 (2014): 262, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128900; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Association between Religious Service Attendance and Lower Suicide Rates among US Women,” JAMA Psychiatry 73/8 (2016): 845–851, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1243. Leilani Greening and Laura Stoppelbein, “Religiosity, Attributional Style, and Social Support as Psychosocial Buffers for African American and White Adolescents’ Perceived Risk for Suicide,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 32/4 (Winter 2002): 404–417, https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333; Tobias Teismann and others, “Religious Beliefs Buffer the Impact of Depression on Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatry Research 257 (1 November 2017): 276–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.060. Erminia Colucci and Graham Martin, “Religion and Spirituality along the Suicidal Path,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 38/2 (April 2008): 229–244, https://doi.org/doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229.The academic sources here are from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood cited below. </ref>

We will now look at the three studies who examined suicidality in Latter-day Saint LGBTQ members.

==== First study - Cranney (2017)====

This data from 2012–2014, published in ''Journal of Homosexuality'':

<blockquote>
LGB Mormons have more days of poor mental health than their non-LGB Mormon counterparts, but fewer than their LGB non-Mormon counterparts. When weights are applied, the only significant health difference found between LGB Mormons and any other group is a significantly higher number of days of poor mental health than non-LGB Mormons (6 days versus 3 days, p = .01 [in the last 30]); all other health comparisons are statistically insignificant. ...

[H]owever they do it, the LGB Mormon population’s reconciliation of particular facets of their sexual and religious identities does not lead them to having discernibly worse mental or physical health than their non-LBG Mormon and LGB non-Mormon counterparts.<ref>Stephen Cranney, "The LGB Mormon Paradox: Mental, Physical, and Self-Rated Health among Mormon and Non-Mormon LGB Individuals in the Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," ''Journal of Homosexuality'' 64/6 (2017): 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236570.</ref></blockquote>

So, LGB in the Church do have more days of poor mental health—but their mental health is still better than LGB ''outside'' the Church.

Separating those who are struggling from the Church may, then, not be helpful and might even be harmful.

==== Second study - Dyer, Goodman, and Wood (2022)====

The second study is from the 2019 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment, done as part of the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) survey by Utah's Department of Human Services.<ref>Justin Dyer, Michael Goodman, and David Wood, "Religion and Sexual Orientation as Predictors of Utah Youth Suicidality," BYU Studies Quarterly 61/2 (2022), {{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/religion-and-sexual-orientation-as-predictors-of-utah-youth-suicidality}}</ref>

{{HomosexualityDiscussionGraph}}

=== Why does the Church do better? ===
[[File:Figure_3b-Dyer_Goodman_and_Wood.png|thumb|200x|right|''Chart 5'': Figure 3B from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. Once social connectedness, family connectedness, and drug use is adjusted for, the suicidality rates are not statistically different for any group.]]

There are many known risk factors for suicidality. For example, those who abuse alcohol or other substances are more likely to feel depressed, contemplate suicide, and attempt suicide. So, if the Church kept you from drinking, that would probably lower your suicide risk.

This study decided to '''adjust''' for known benefits. So, they then looked at LGBTQ suicide rates once family connectedness, social connectedness, and drug use was taken into consideration.

When that is done, there is then no difference between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups' rates of suicidality. So, one plausible hypothesis is that (1) being in the Church makes you more socially connected; (2) Families in the Church may have better connections; and (3) the Church discourages drug use.

We must remember that these are averages. There will undoubtedly be terrible families in the Church whose behavior increases their children's risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. And there are also certainly equally strong families in other faiths, or in families of no faith.

''On average,'' however, an LGBTQ person is better off in terms of depression and suicidality in the Church than out of it.

At the very least, it is dishonest and unfair to blame the Church for suicides in LGBTQ members. There is simply no evidence that the Church is to blame, and considerable evidence that on balance it is helpful.

Individuals may have different experiences, and certainly some families or people in the Church do things contrary to Church doctrine which could make things much worse. But that is not the Church's fault.

==== Third study - McGraw et al. (2023)====

Looking at the same dataset as the second study,<ref>James S. McGraw, Meagan Docherty, Jay R. Chinn, and Annette Mahoney, “Family, Faith, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors (STBs) Among LGBTQ Youth in Utah," Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 20/2 (2023): 257-258, https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000517</ref> the non-LDS authors concluded:

<blockquote>
LGBTQ participants’ reports of higher family conflict and lower parental closeness were tied to higher depression, self-harm, and substance misuse, and these three factors were, in turn, associated with higher levels of STBs for LGBTQ youth in Utah. This path model did not differ significantly due to LDS versus non-LDS religious affiliation. ...

Among LGBTQ youth, non-LDS youth had higher mean levels of STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, substance misuse, a lower mean level of parental closeness. ... [Slide 27–31] Non-LDS LGBTQ youth reported the highest STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and substance misuse scores, and had a lower [average] level of parental closeness scores, followed by LDS LGBTQ, non-LDS heterosexual … youth, and then LDS heterosexual … youth
</blockquote>

So again, family conflict, lower family closeness, and substance misuse led (unsurprisingly) to more suicidal experience and behavior. These problems on balance were better in the LDS group than the non-LDS group, but when controlled for religion did not make a significant difference.

=== Suicide contagion ===

All of this matters a great deal, and the biggest problem is ''not'' that the Church and its members and leaders are slandered and tarred with causing the deaths of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The reason this matters is that there is a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion." This is a well-recognized phenomenon whereby people's tendency to suicide ''can be increased or decreased'' based on how media and other voices talk about suicide.<ref>Joiner, ''Why People Die of Suicide'', loc. 1846–49.</ref>

Psychiatric, psychologic, and suicide prevention agencies have done a great deal to publicize these risks, and have provided guides for media to talk about suicide in a helpful, not harmful.

A non-LDS expert on LGBTQ youth made this point very strongly:

<blockquote>
For me, first off, scientifically it's not true. That is that, as a developmental psychologist, when we look at the wide population of youth who identify as gay or who have same-sex attractions, it appears to me when I look at the data that they're actually just as healthy, and just as resilient, and just positive about their life as are straight youth. … So from a scientific perspective, there is certainly no gay suicide epidemic. But the more problematic aspect for me is that I worry a great deal about the image that we are giving gay-identified youth.<ref>Ritch Savin Williams, interview, “A Look At The Lives of Gay Teens,” ''All Things Considered'', National Public Radio (21 October 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732158. </ref>
</blockquote>

Telling gay youth that there is an epidemic breaks one of the cardinal rules of suicide prevention: '''Messages linking particular groups with high rates of suicide or mental illness'''.<ref>“The Messaging ‘Don’ts’,” suicidepreventionmessaging.org (accessed 23 January 2024), https://suicidepreventionmessaging.org/safety/messaging-donts</ref> Not only is this not true, as the quote above notes, but telling people the falsehood makes it more likely to happen!

Other messaging rules that the Church's critics often engage in include:

==== Don't include personal details ====
* ''"Don’t include personal details of people who have died by suicide."'' - Sadly, many LGBTQ advocates think they are helping by telling tragic, dramatic, tear-jerking stories about specific suicides. Each suicide is a tragedy and a devastating outcome for family and friends. But publicizing the suicide in this way just makes it more likely that other depressed teens may identify with the victim, and thus be more likely to immitate them.

==== Don't portray suicide as more common than it is or a typical way of coping ====

* ''"Don’t portray suicidal behavior as more common than it is or as a typical way of coping with adversity."'' - Again, when LGBTQ advocates insist that the Church's policies or doctrines lead to a great many suicides, and that nothing can stop this until the Church changes its doctrines, they ironically increase the risk of that happening. As the suicide prevention group cautions:

<blockquote>
While we don’t want to minimize the magnitude of the suicide problem, we also don’t want to imply that suicidal behavior is ''what most people do'' in a given circumstance. The vast majority of people who face adversity, mental illness, and other challenges—even those in high risk groups—do ''not'' die by suicide, but instead find support, treatment, or other ways to cope.</blockquote>

==== Don't use language or data to suggest suicide is inevitable or unsolvable ====
* ''Don’t use data or language that suggests suicide is inevitable or unsolvable'' - Calling suicides "an epidemic" (especially when there ''is'' no epidemic) plays right into this problem.

==== Don't oversimplify ====

* ''Don’t oversimplify causes'' - Suicide is a complex subject. It is not helpful—in fact, it is downright harmful—to use a suicide death to tell a simple cause-and-effect story, such as "The Church opposed gay marriage, and so John killed himself." Suicide is almost always accompanied by significant mental illness, and mental illness almost by definition involves choices and thoughts that are not rational or reasonable.

====Hurting when intending to help ====
Many of those who spread these rumors or propaganda probably think that they are helping solve a serious problem. If you are approaching the issue in this way, we encourage you to ''stop'' spreading false rumors, and to especially stop talking about this subject in ways that increases the risk of a mentally ill person acting on a suicidal thought or plan.

And, if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

'''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''

===Reducing suicide risk===
Steps that can help reduce suicidal thoughts and actions include some of the following encouraged by the Church:

==== Church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment ====
*"The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[http://lds.org/liahona/1979/07/questions-and-answers?lang=eng]

==== Church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills ====
*"Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." (''Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley'' [1997], 661, 665).

==== Church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties ====

*1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[http://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng]
*2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family
ties."[http://lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]

==== Church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction ====

*1974: "To "persecute" homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[http://lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng]
*1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God. ... We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[http://lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng]
*2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[http://lds.org/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle?lang=eng]
*2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [http://lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng]
}}
==== Bullying and Ostracization ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What did President Boyd K. Packer say during the October 2010 general conference of the Church on homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content = On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.<ref>An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/04/the-peaceable-followers-of-christ The Peaceable Followers of Christ]|date=April 1998|pages=62}}</ref>

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/revelation-in-a-changing-world Revelation in a Changing World]|date=November 1989|pages=16}}</ref>

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/05/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church]|date=May 1980|pages=65}}</ref>

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    —President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.<ref>Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}</ref>

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{{BoydKPackerHomosexuality}}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

:Isaiah warned, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." {{ea}}<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>

==== Subject of the talk ====

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

==== Feelings vs. acts ====

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.<ref>{{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that "God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

==== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ====
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome."<ref>Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.</ref>

Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|53}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==== Past talks on the same issue ====

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

==== 1978 ====
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.<ref>"I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.</ref> It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.<ref>"To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186-200, emphasis added; italics in original.</ref>

==== 1990 ====
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark 9:42).

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

==== 1995 ====

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see {{s|2|Ne.|2|26-27}}).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see {{s||John|8|34}}; {{s|2|Pet.|2|12-14}}, 18-19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven "before the foundation of the world" (D&C 132:5; 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see {{s||James|4|6-8}}; {{s|2|Ne.|9|39}}; {{s||Mosiah|3|19}}). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}</ref>

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in h{{s||is|0|}} talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. (D&C 101:78; Articles of Faith 1:2) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more}} {{ea}}</ref>

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==== Editing an apostle? ====

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson—the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).</ref>

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.<ref>See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}</ref> Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==== Propaganda and tactics ====

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==== Critics' direputable tactics ====

Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Hopefully the clarification offered addressed their concerns.

Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. Certainly, not all with same-sex attraction, who categorize themselves as homosexuals, or who are supportive of homosexual relationships are in this latter group, but there are some who consider themselves leaders of the gay community or gay activists who do fall into this category. For them, it is not politically expedient to accept any clarifications that may be offered because they disagree with the theological categorization of homosexual acts as "sinful." The actions taken by such individuals as a reaction to clarification was noted by the ''Deseret News'':

:Instead of seeking genuine common ground around issues of mutual concern, activists began this week with a grossly misguided caricature of the LDS Church's support of traditional morality.

:The tactic is now all-too familiar: take a statement out of context, embellish it with selective interpretation, presume hostile intent, and then use the distortion to isolate an entire group, in this case a church.<ref>Editorial, "[http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700072199/A-call-for-civility-following-Mormon-Apostle-Boyd-K-Packers-address.html A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address]," ''Deseret News'' (10 October 2010).</ref>

Such tactics (pulling statements out of context, interpreting selectively, presuming hostile intent, and stereotyping) are not new in the battle for public perception and support. In fact, tactics such as this have been specifically encouraged in the gay activist community. In 1993, two gay activists wrote a call-to-arms to their community, in which they outlined the strategies that they felt would be most successful in securing societal tolerance of homosexual acts as normal and appropriate. Among other techniques, they suggested "a propaganda campaign" (xxviii):

:There's a naive notion among folks in general—especially among gays—that you can argue a person out of a prejudice (such as homohatred) by overwhelming him with facts and logic about the group he hates. This is untrue....

:Logically speaking, nothing whatever is either disgusting or sinful, except as one feels it to be so...

:...if we're going to enter into arguments with [those who disagree with us] we'd better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket.

:...it gets a little tiresome to keep seeing and hearing [gays who]... damn all proposals as politically incorrect to precisely the degree that they rely upon cunning manipulation rather than pugnacity....

:...thus, propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred—suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause....Note that the bigot need not actually be made to ''believe'' that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering....Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof....

:...The objection will be raised...that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false sterotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is ''not'' how ''all'' gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes of course—we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones....<ref>{{CriticalWork:Kirk Madsen:After the Ball|pages=112, 139-141, 151-154}}</ref>

These tactics, outlined with such clarity, seemed to be almost a script for the reaction to President Packer's talk from organizations that promote homosexual relationships. Simply put, many dislike talk of sin, and are angered by those who claim to warn against it with divine authority. Many realize that they have not prevailed via a reasoned, rational discussion of the facts, and know that an ''emotional'' appeal is the only way of achieving their goals.

It is not surprising, then, that some activists have responded to President Packer's warning by attacking the messenger, reading him in a hostile light, caricaturing his message, reading his mind, and ascribing a variety of distasteful or even evil motives to him or the Church and its members. This should be recognized for what it is—an effort to vilify the messenger, downplay the totality of the message, and shame those who might listen to it, all part and parcel of political machinations.<ref>For extensive examples and a discussion, see {{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

==== Table comparing Boyd K. Packer talks on homosexual behavior over time ====

{{BoydKPackerHomosexualityOverTime}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts ====
Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

==== In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount ====

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

<blockquote>
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the lastand Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn theego, and sin no more. (John 8:7–11)
</blockquote>

It is important to recognize, however, that it is not cruel to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

=== 1980s ===

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

<blockquote>
There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage. ...

Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990s ===
In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

<blockquote>
"We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us."<ref>"An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency," ''Church News'' (15 April 1995), 1.</ref>
</blockquote>

He then said:

<blockquote>
Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks also taught:

<blockquote>
Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

A recent letter is illustrative:

<blockquote>
''"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid ... schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles."''
</blockquote>

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see {{s|3|Nephi|18|22-23,30,32}}). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=Nov 1999|pages=52|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}</ref>

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking" (D&C 20:54).

=== 2000s ===

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.
</blockquote>

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

<blockquote>
Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see {{s||D&C|84|110}}).<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

<blockquote>
Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

<blockquote>
Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: "Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters." And President Packer has echoed, "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you." With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2010s ===
In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

<blockquote>
...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has [[../Non discrimination ordinances|openly supported]] other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children?lang=eng Protect the Children]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Violence is not usually the best response to a problem, but everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence ====

It is claimed that Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourages "gay bashing" or physical assaults on gay people.

The Church does not teach that violence is the best response to problems. However, everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence. This applies to all: men and women, gay and straight. As Wikipedia notes, often the ''victim'' is blamed for the ''harasser's'' acts:

<blockquote>
Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.[17] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression....
</blockquote>

In this case, it is Elder Packer and ''all'' members of the Church who come in for criticism and attack because the unacceptable sexual harassment was homosexual. Readers should ask themselves how they would react if the story was about a ''woman'' sexually harassed by a man.

Critics who make this claim are either ignorant of the contents of then-Elder Packer's talk, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for polemical gain.

To understand, we will consider four aspects:
# The relevant full text of Elder Packer's remarks will be provided.
# Some background information will be provided. Some non-members may not understand the context of the experience described by Elder Packer (missionary companions on a full-time mission for the Church), and so this will be explained.
# We will then analyze the story and advice he gives, recognizing that the critics have misrepresented it almost beyond recognition.
# Some broader issues which this charge raises will be considered.

=== #1 Elder Packer's Remarks ===

Elder Packer said:

: I repeat, very plainly, '''physical mischief with another man''' is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
:There are some men who entice young men '''to join them''' in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to '''participate''' in anything like that, it is time to '''vigorously resist'''.
:While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
:After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
:"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
:"But I floored him," he said.
:After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
:'''I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.''' <ref>Boyd K. Packer, "To Young Men Only," priesthood session, general conference, 2 October 1976.</ref>

=== #2: Background information ===

=== Missionary companions ===

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. Missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"—this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are ''forbidden'' to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

# Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
# Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

=== Missionary covenants ===

All members of the Church are expected to observe the law of chastity. This means that no sexual activity outside of marriage is permitted. Furthermore, missionaries attend the temple prior to going on their missions, where they reaffirm this commitment. As noted above, missionaries further promise to not even engage in dating or other romantic activity while in full-time Church service.

=== #3: Examining the story ===

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.
* They story is ''not'' about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you against your will.
* Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".<ref>http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god</ref>
* The response only makes sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay.
* The extent of the attempt to have sex with the missionary is not disclosed, but at the least it was sexual harassment, while potentially up to and including sexual assault and attempted rape. Either case warrants self-defense.
* The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. We are not told for how how long the sexual harassment continued.
* The story is ''not'' about members of the Church going out and beating up gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical response which the missionary launched on his companion—it was not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself."
* Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to ''defend'' himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway."

=== Sexual harassment===
* Elder Packer has given [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|similar advice]] to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|multiple articles]] discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment Sexual harassment] of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harassment against women as:

<blockquote>such '''unwelcome''' sexually determined behavior as physical contact and '''advances''', sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.<ref>United Nations [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/generl19.htm General Recommendation 19] to the Convention on the [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e1cedaw.htm Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women]; cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

The European Union notes that harassment is:

<blockquote>'''unwanted''' conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct. ... <ref>As cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

There is absolutely no context in Church mission life where ''any'' sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate—with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, ''any'' sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate, and the guilty party would know that unequivocally. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details. Furthermore, the guilty party would have expressly promised never to engage in such behavior or anything like it.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

* Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story—we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.)

* The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion—it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.

* Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young members (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the ''idea'' of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect oneself.

=== #4: Further thoughts to conclude ===

==== Sexual harassment is unacceptable ====

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity—would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual—such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation—especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion—that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS ''sister'' missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor seeking homosexual gratification, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and those who support the victim in self-defense are vilified.

This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church and its leaders.

==== Men can be victims of sexual harassment ====
Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[http://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

:While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse. They must know that they have the right to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice is a refreshing reversal of society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

=== Church teachings on the right to self-defense ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====
* "Do not let anyone at all touch or handle your body, not anyone!" - {{NewEra1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=July 1972|article=Why Stay Morally Clean}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1972/07/why-stay-morally-clean}}
* "Never allow others to touch your body in a way that would be unworthy, and do not touch anyone else in any unworthy way." - {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article-Counsel to Young Men|date=May 2009}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/counsel-to-young-men}}

==== Church magazines ====
* There is a good chance that many women will at some time need to know how to avoid rape, mugging, robbery, or any of numerous other violent crimes. We cannot turn away from facts; these assaults occur regularly in public places and in private homes. A certain amount of preparation, a "healthy paranoia," might very well save a life....If you decide you must fight back, use your keys, purse, feet, or fingernails as weapons to throw the attacker off guard or to get free. Although it sounds cruel, always strike for the eyes and face. The momentary stunning effect of wounds to the face will give you the chance you need to run." {{Ensign|author=Esther R. Tutt|article=Random Sampler: Protect Yourself|date=September 1987}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/random-sampler/protect-yourself}}

* "We need to be absolutely clear that there is such a thing as justified self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself against physical harm if you are attacked. You have a right to use physical force to protect virtue, family, freedom." - {{Ensign1|author=Larry A. Hiller|article=Somebody's Going to Get Hurt!|date=September 1997}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt}}

* If someone is attempting to hurt us physically—even to destroy us—shouldn’t we resist in self-defense? The Doctrine and Covenants says "that all men are justified in defending themselves … from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded" (D&C134:11). {{Ensign1|author=Larry E. Dahl|article=The Higher Law|date=August 1999}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/08/the-higher-law}}

* Self-defense courses for youth are suggested in the New Era in at least [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/03/fyi-for-your-information 1980], [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/12/fyi-for-your-information 1982], and [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1992/02/fyi-for-your-info 1992].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Church family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic" ====

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic." LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

==== Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children ====

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]</ref>

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

==== While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states ====

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items f{{s||rom|2|}}, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.<ref>Jessica Gail, "Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless," Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless</ref>

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.<ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.<ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called "an epidemic." <ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

==== In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average ====

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose "other than heterosexual." <ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

==== Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah ====

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as "LGBT youth centers." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref> 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 "straight" youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, "Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref>

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t "fit in" in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were "happy" 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had "no adult to turn to" 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being "out" to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were "out" with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were "out" with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said "yes." That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were "not accepting" of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).<ref>Rebecca Trounson, "Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.</ref>

==== Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth ====

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." <ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why th{{s||is|2|}}% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

==== Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth ====

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref>

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

==== Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior ====

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||D&C|83|4}} reads:

<blockquote>
All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.
</blockquote>

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

<blockquote>
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
</blockquote>

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

<blockquote>
If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.<ref>Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

<blockquote>
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.<ref>{{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?cid=+HP14TPOTF&lang=eng&old=true}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

<blockquote>
It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: "The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

<blockquote>
With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

<blockquote>
I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." <ref>{{General Conference|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/09/the-best-thing-i-can-do-for-leigh?lang=eng|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

<blockquote>
Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
</blockquote>

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

<blockquote>
It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation "free for all men" but has "commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance." <ref>{{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
====Recommending Heterosexual Marriage for Those with Same-Sex Attraction====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction ====

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

==== 1970s ====
President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

<blockquote>
When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.
</blockquote>

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

==== 1980s ====

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

<blockquote>
CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. <ref>[http://www.affirmation.org/rhetoric_on_homosexuality/oaks_interview.shtml An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS]</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1990s ====
In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

<blockquote>
Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. <ref>Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====
Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====
Elder Holland said:
<blockquote>
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction ====

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

==== The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse ====

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty|Same-sex attraction/Honesty]]) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]])

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

==== Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse ====

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

==== Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction ====

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

<blockquote>
"The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out."[http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Closet-Coming-Out-Straight/dp/0471021520#reader_0471021520]
</blockquote>

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss]

==== Prevalence of marriages ====
According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.

{{statements}}
}}
==== Alleged Hypocrisy and Potential for Change in Church Teachings ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is it hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when its members practiced plural marriage? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that it is hypocritical for the LDS Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself had an alternative form of marriage.

The Church supports all of the rights for same-sex couples that they sought for polygamous families plus some. Same-sex marriage is doing more than extending rights to same-sex couples, but is setting a new standard that excludes people with same-sex attraction who are living the gospel standards. The Church never sought to force polygamy on other people, yet the Supreme Courts and many gay right organizations are seeking to take away rights from people who do not live up to the new standards.

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Anti-polygamy laws did not allow men to live with their wives. Men were arrested for living in the homes where their children lived so that they could fulfill their parental responsibiliies. However, even where laws do not allow for same-sex marriage, same-sex couples may form a family and live together. They may even choose to hold their own "marriage" ceremony and introduce each other as husband or wife.

==== The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others ====

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others. The church never sought for polygamy to be held up as a national standard, requiring all citizens to accept a moral equivalence between polygamy and monogamy. In fact, the Church has already championed rights for people with same-sex attractions that go beyond any right they ever sought for themselves in their practice of polygamy. The right to set a new standard for marriage that would apply to the rest of the United States was not a right that the Church sought for polygamous families. It should not be a right that same-sex couples should seek for themselves.

==== Different levels of rights ====
Often, when we talk about rights, different kinds of rights get lumped together into one group. Everyone knows that humans have certain inalienable rights, but we often don't discuss what happens when those rights conflict. There are several different kinds of rights associated with sexual practices.

One basic right is the right to practice your desired sexual relationship. In most modern societies, any number or gender of consenting adults can usually practice their desired relationship without fear of legal retribution. But, even in the most liberal societies, this right is generally tempered by the right of other people to disagree about the morality of that relationship.

Another right is the right to legal protection from discrimination. This would include laws that would penalize people for treating you differently because of your sexual practices. For example, in most countries, it is illegal to treat an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple differently when it comes to housing or employment. The church has been a strong supporter of protection against discrimination in housing and employment for people with same-sex attraction, including same-sex couples.

Another set of rights includes government help in maintaining your family. This would include legal recognition of your relationship and associated rights such as visitation rights. It may also help subsidize the cost of your relationships, through tax breaks and other benefits. Some modern societies have extended these rights to same-sex couples, and the church has publicly stated that they do not oppose these rights.

A final right that might be discussed is to have your government adopt your sexual relationship as a model, requiring it to be taught in schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. The church is strongly opposed to this infringement of their religious right to determine their own standards of sexual morality according to the dictates of their own consciences.

==== Rights associated with plural marriage ====
When the church supported plural marriage, they were seeking for that most basic of rights - the right to practice their religion. They were not seeking for the United States to recognize their plural marriages, to subsidize their relationships with tax breaks, or to force all citizens to accept it as the moral equivalent of their own monogamous traditions. They only sought to be left to practice their religion in peace.

But the federal government would not allow them even this most basic of rights. Husbands were forcibly separated from their wives and children. Men who tried to sneak into their homes to provide food for their families were arrested, if they were caught. Some moved to other countries so they could continue to be with their families.

==== Rights for same-sex couples ====

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. The church has [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|publicly supported many rights]] and have pressed for changes in legal system to afford these rights to same-sex couples. The rights that the church supports for same-sex couples goes BEYOND any right that they have ever sought for polygamous families.

The Church has no problem with people living life as they see fit when it doesn't interfere with other rights. However, as is often the case, when some rights expand, others diminish. For example, while supporting the rights of people with same-sex attraction to be free from discrimination in employment and housing, the church was in essence restricting the rights of landlords to choose their tenants and employers to choose their employees.

Many people think legalizing same-sex marriage is a necessary step to ensure that same-sex couples have the rights they need to protect their families from discrimination. They do not understand why they Church would be opposed to these rights. As stated earlier, the Church is not opposed to these rights, but adopting same-sex marriage as a national standard equivalent to opposite-sex marriage goes beyond simply living peacefully with those who choose to live a different standard. It is disregarding the old standard and replacing it with a new standard. This will have a detrimental effect on those who do not live up to the new standard.

==== New standard being introduced with same-sex marriage ====

The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is setting a dangerous standard of what is expected for people with same-sex attractions. It used to be that society expected people with same-sex attraction to get married to people of the opposite-sex. This type of expectation can cause damage for people with same-sex attraction who are not ready for marriage, and has been opposed by the Church for decades. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]]

Now, a new expectation is beginning to form that people with same-sex attraction can't have a fulfilling and faithful marriage with someone of the opposite sex and that they must marry someone of the same sex. Expectations of any sort are dangerous and hurt people who do not meet those expectations. About half of faithful members of the Church with same-sex attraction are heterosexually married, and many others have found fulfillment in celibacy. The new standard being adopted by several courts does not have room for these faithful members.

For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that, for people with same-sex attraction, their "choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex", and that was what their "true identity" should be. Later, Judge Walker ruled that the marriages of many members of the church with same-sex attraction was "unrealistic". The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that these relationships were "unappealing" and was "no right at all".

While many same-sex marriage supporters do not wish to harm those who follow the law of chastity, many major organizations have actively sought to take away rights from those people who do not live up to the new standard. For example, the Human Rights Campaign has actively opposed anti-discrimination employment rights for gay people who do not have gay sex.[http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/victory-disney-shareholders-reject-ex-gay-proposal/] It is ironic that while the Church has been actively lobbying to extend employment rights for all LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign has worked and has succeeded in taking away those exact same rights from LGBT people who live Church standards.

By the Supreme Courts encoding this new standard into law, people with same-sex attraction who do not live up to the standard can be discriminated against in the private sector. For example, Apple recently removed an app from its iTune collection because the organization who put it up was composed of gay Christians who lived the law of chastity. A spokesperson for Apple explained that having an app for gay people who live the law of chastity "violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people". [http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/03/apple-removes-exodus-anti-lgbt-iphone-app/][http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-responds-to-apple-petition-to-pull-gay-cure-app-49513/][http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/23/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-following-controversy/] There is a difference between seeking for the right to live an alternative lifestyle and taking away rights from those who do not choose your lifestyle because you find it "offensive". It is interesting to note this organization has made a statement supporting people's right to choose same-sex relationships.[http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm]
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Isn't the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary ====
President McKay taught:
<blockquote>
There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.com/howtoreach.html]
</blockquote>

==== The priesthood ban was not based on a choice ====
Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

==== It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed ====

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:
<blockquote>
"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."<ref>Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, ''The Teachings of President Brigham Young'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard. ====

President Hinckley taught:
<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.<ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=969567700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a]</ref>
</blockquote>

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

==== 1983 ====

<blockquote>
Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, '''but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord.''' For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2012 ====
<blockquote>
Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. '''That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change.''' As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "How To Survive in Enemy Territory," address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2013 ====
<blockquote>
Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, '''the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.'''<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.'''<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity," video, [1:01-1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Central to God’s plan, '''the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and [https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions will not change].'''" "If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, '''that is incorrect.''' Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, '''traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.'''<ref>Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, "LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment," Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also "Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage," press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda—same-sex-marriage</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2015 ====
<blockquote>
When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "'''No.'''"<ref>Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2016 ====
<blockquote>
'''There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right.''' But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction," https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:'''

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.<ref>"Church Leaders," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2019 ====
<blockquote>
These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. '''The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.'''<ref>Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2020 ====
McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for ''The Atlantic'', quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):
<blockquote>
But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, "God loves all his children, just like you and I do," and "There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church." But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. '''"As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law," he said. "We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now."'''<ref>McKay Coppins, "The Most American Religion," ''The Atlantic'', December 18, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2022 ====
President Dallin H. Oaks:

<blockquote>
Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.<ref>Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," ''Church News'', April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.</ref>
</blockquote>

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

==== Scriptural precedence ====

* Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|Christ's teachings on homosexuality]])
* The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

==== It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. ====
As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"<ref>{{s||Mosiah|18|9}}.</ref> As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."<ref>"Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Question ====
Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

=== Response to Question ===
==== Feelings are Not Being ====
It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Is-Ought Fallacy] in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.<ref>Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.</ref>

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:
<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book ''Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self'', award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

==== The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage ====
We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
:16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
:17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:
#Marriage is ordained of God
#Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
#We were designed by God to be married this way.
#Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
#We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

<blockquote>
The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A "unifying good" is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.
 
Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.

They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called "common law marriage").

The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, "Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together." That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.<ref>"The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," ''Discussing Marriage'', accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.</ref>
</blockquote>

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

=== Objections to Church Standard ===
==== The Argument from Personal Revelation ====
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}}) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

{{Main|How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?}}

==== The Argument from Priesthood Restriction ====
As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

{{Main|Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?}}

=== Conclusion ===
Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8–9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in {{s||Mosiah|18|8-9}} and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

{{Seealso|Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?}}
}}

==== Aversion Therapy ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s ====

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

==== In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality ====

The Church is a religious body, not a medical institution. People who are members of the Church or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a member or for everything done by someone at BYU (despite what one might think, not everyone at BYU is a member of the Church).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

==== The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done ====

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the Church.

==== Academic freedom at BYU ====
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|58|26}} reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy'' ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

<blockquote>
Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.
</blockquote>

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.
</blockquote>

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.
</blockquote>

==== In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences ====

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

=== Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Vomiting was not used ====

McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

<blockquote>
The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]
</blockquote>

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come f{{s||rom:|1|}}) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

=== Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Participation was voluntary ====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

=== How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Aversion therapy is a standard technique that is still used today for a variety of treatments ====

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." <ref>Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010</ref> The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

<blockquote>
A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. <ref>[http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s ====

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

==== History of therapy and homosexuality ====

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." <ref>Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156</ref> Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). <ref>[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007</ref>

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" <ref>"Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994</ref> and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

<blockquote>
Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). <ref>[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. </ref>
</blockquote>

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

==== Aversion therapy at other institutions ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{{AversionTherapyatHospitals}}
</center>

==== Purpose of psychological therapy ====

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Boyd K. Packer Oktober 2010 Konferenzansprache]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Das Gesetz des Mose]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Neigungen und Gefühle oder Handlungen]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Was Christus darüber lehrte]]
[[en:Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?]]

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-04-02T14:37:19Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Homosexuality
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Several questions have arisen regarding the Church's approach to relations with the LGBT community. This page responds to those questions.
----
====General Questions About Identity====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?===
| state = closed
| content = The Church does not reject those who are attracted to those of their own sex. If such attraction leads to an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered sinful, just as sexual acts outside of marriage are for heterosexuals.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

<blockquote>
"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. He did not say that only those who shun the label are welcome, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could move forward as all other members do. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God. President Russell M. Nelson has counselled us about such things in areas far beyond sexual desire or orientation:

{{Set off quote 1
|color =
|image=Russell Nelson 2018 Portrait.png
|I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

Labels ''can'' be fun and indicate your support for any number of positive things. Many labels will change for you with the passage of time. And not all labels are of equal value. But if any label replaces your most important identifiers, the results can be spiritually suffocating. ...

''Who are you?'' First and foremost, you are a child of God.

Second, as a member of the Church, you are a child of the covenant. And third, you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Tonight, I plead with you not to ''replace'' these three paramount and unchanging identifiers with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression.

For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, “I know everything there is to know about you” and attribute erroneous beliefs to you.

If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces.

We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves or that other people place upon us. ...

How tragic it is when someone believes the label another person has given them. ...

[Satan] rejoices in labels because they divide us and restrict the way we think about ourselves and each other. How sad it is when we honor labels more than we honor each other.

Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any ''abuse'' or ''prejudice'' toward another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!

There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should ''displace'', ''replace'', or ''take priority over'' these three enduring designations: “child of God,” “child of the covenant,” and “disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Any identifier that is not compatible with these three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God.

Worldly identifiers will never give you a vision of who you can ultimately become. They will never affirm your divine DNA or your unlimited, divine potential.<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Choices for Eternity," Worldwide Devotional for Young Single Adults, 15 May 2022 {[link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words ''homosexual'', ''lesbian'', and ''gay'' are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual ''behavior''.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

<blockquote>
When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say "she is expecting a baby." In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.
</blockquote>

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

<blockquote>
And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. <ref>{{Book:Packer:To The One}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" ====

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

<blockquote>
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels ====

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:
* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''
* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

=== The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them. ===

==== Definition of sexual orientation ====
The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

<blockquote>
"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." <ref>"[http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Orientation]," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>
</blockquote>

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

The APA notes further: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same sex have never engaged in homosexual behavior. Of those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, only 13% of men and 4% of women who so identified have never engaged in homosexual behavior. <ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).
</blockquote>

==== Identity and behavior ====

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that ''acting'' on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

==== Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay ====
In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.
</blockquote>

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

How does this compare with the dictionary? The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' defines ''homosexual'' as someone exhibiting ''homosexuality''. It defines ''homosexuality'' as:

# Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
# Sexual activity with another of the same sex. <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality Definition of Homosexuality], ''dictionary.reference.com'', s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that ''homosexual'' can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

==== Avoiding using gay as a noun ====
With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style'' gives a similar warning against using ''gay'' as a noun:

<blockquote>
Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. <ref>[[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style''] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. <ref>[http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide] (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref> They cite the following examples:

''New York Times'':
<blockquote>
Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.
</blockquote>

''Washington Post'':
<blockquote>
When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have Church leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content = Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

==== We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control ====

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings. This standard applies equally to all.

==== D&C ====

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

<blockquote>
Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66:10)
</blockquote>

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

<blockquote>
Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10:1)
</blockquote>

==== 1980 ====

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this '''practice''' with a vigor equal to his condemnation of '''adultery and other such sex acts'''. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

<blockquote>
Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, '''like fornication''', is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

<blockquote>
James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (James1:8,12-16).
</blockquote>

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful ''response'' to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

<blockquote>
'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

"Be wise in the days of your probation," said Mormon, "strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God" (Moroni 9:28).<ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis. He said:

<blockquote>
In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.
</blockquote>

==== 1987 ====

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1988 ====

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1991 ====

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

<blockquote>
There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.<ref>First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1994 ====
Elder Richard G. Scott:

<blockquote>
'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1995 ====

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||D&C|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in {{s|1|Corinthians|16|16}}: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

<blockquote>
A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

"I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church," he said. "I don’t think I’m worthy."

"Why wouldn’t you be worthy?" I asked.

"I’m gay."

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. "And … ?" I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. "I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …"

He sighed. "Why am I this way? The feelings are very real."

I paused, then said, "I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?"

He shook his head. "No, I don’t."

This time I was relieved. "Thank you for wanting to deal with this," I said. "It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, "You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

"What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ "

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."
</blockquote>

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

<blockquote>
Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}, {{ia}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2009 ====

D. Todd Christopherson:

<blockquote>
All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He "gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20:22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never "slept with anybody." "Don’t you want to?" the friend asked. The young woman thought: "The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct."

In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9).<ref>{{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Bruce C. Hafen:

<blockquote>
You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2010 ====

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

<blockquote>
None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

<blockquote>
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== What does science have to say about this? ====
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

As discussed above,{{nc}} self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref>American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.</ref> The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

==== The Religions Dimension ====

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."<ref>"Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.</ref>

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === In the Church of Jesus Christ, what are the ramifications of denying a gay identity? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

==== The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God ====

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

{{SeeAlso|Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity|l1=LGBT identity}}

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}} [http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1 link]</ref> Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950491516608883.html A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions]</ref>

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

# Heterosexual
# LGBT
# Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
# No specific sexual orientation identity<ref> {{NC}} was footnoted as "task.force"</ref>

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

==== Effects of adopting a gay identity ====

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann|first=Edward O.|date=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.<ref>{{NW}} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869</ref>It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.<Ref> {{NW}} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144</ref> It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 {{nc}}</ref> Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.<ref>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss {{nc}}</ref>

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.
}}
==== Scripture and History ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content = As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,

<blockquote>
The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of {{s||Lev|18|22}} could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in {{s||Deut|23|17-18}}), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.
<ref name="gagnon">Robert A. J. Gagnon, ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics'' (Abingdon Press, 2010).</ref>{{Rp|69, 80-81, 132}}
</blockquote>

==== Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments ====
{{s||Exodus|20|14}} reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. {{s||Leviticus|18|22}} reads:

<blockquote>
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
</blockquote>

{{s||Leviticus|20|13}}:

<blockquote>
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
</blockquote>

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus ''discusses and describes'' those commands—which were rescinded in the Christian era—and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior—which remained in force, are quite different.

<blockquote>
The word ''toebah'' [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation ''toebah''. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in {{s||Leviticus|1|}} 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|118-119}}
</blockquote>

This author then quotes another expert, who writes<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.</ref>:

<blockquote>
Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word ''toevah'' is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.
</blockquote>

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No—the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

<blockquote>
The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|138}}
</blockquote>

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

<blockquote>
in {{s||Leviticus|0|}}, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[a] child sacrifice (20:2), 
[b] cursing one's parents (20:9), 
[c] adultery (20:10), 
[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and 
[e] bestiality (20:15-16).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|195n182}}
</blockquote>

He continues:
<blockquote>
most of {{s||Leviticus|8|20}} can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19:18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in {{s||Leviticus|7|26}}. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|123}}
</blockquote>

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

<blockquote>
One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in {{s||Deut|22|5}} [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in {{s||Lev|18|22}} and {{s_short|Leviticus|20|13}}.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|112-113}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts? ====
Some try to minimize the seriousness of homosexual acts by pointing out that Jesus did not preach against them specifically. This stance completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation in Jesus' day.

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|215}} In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|217-218}}

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19:18; 15:19)

Second, Jesus tended to ''intensify'' or ''strengthen'' commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity (Matthew 19:8–9).

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

<blockquote>
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthtew 19:5–6).
</blockquote>

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

<blockquote>
The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249-250}}
</blockquote>

In short,

<blockquote>
the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no ''direct'' or ''explicit'' comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249}}
</blockquote>

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

<blockquote>
The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|286}}
</blockquote>

====The Early Church and the New Testament Apostles====
Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws. The Lord responded:

<blockquote>
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
</blockquote>

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters. (See {{s||Acts|0|}} for the whole story) However, the question remained—what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

==== The Jerusalem council ====
Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary—this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice. The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

<blockquote>
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29)
</blockquote>

The word translated "fornication" is ''porneia''—it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from ''porenia''.) Jesus had taught against ''porneia'', and the apostles repeated it:

<blockquote>
In {{s||Mark|7|21-23}}, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and {{s_short||Leviticus|20|}} (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|251-252}}
</blockquote>

==== Incest condemnation ====
There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this—for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

==== Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ====
This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text ''Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs''. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

<blockquote>
[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... ''porneia'' has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that ''porneia'' could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.
</blockquote>

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative—but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.

====Paul====

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in {{s||Romans|1|}}. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|198n185}}

==== The first command—no idolatry ====
Paul starts with the first such command—the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

<blockquote>
[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:18–23, NIV).
</blockquote>

==== The second command—no homosexual sin ====
As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers—homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" (Romans 1: 24, 26, NIV):

<blockquote>
[26] Even their women exchanged ''natural'' sexual relations for ''unnatural'' ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned ''natural'' relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26–27, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way—in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians—but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both ''evidence'' for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the ''punishment'' for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

<blockquote>
The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12–21). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth. All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|339}} </blockquote>

==== These represent all gentile sins ====
Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for ''all'' of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

<blockquote>
[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:29–32).
</blockquote>

==== Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners ====
Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them—''of course'' the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

<blockquote>
[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (Romans 2:1–12, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul's trap is clever but clear—just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended—and we should not use them—as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are ''all'' in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul ''used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin'' because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

==== ''Porneia'' again ====
Paul's condemnation applies to us all—but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all ''porneia'' he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

<blockquote>
"Flee ''porneia''! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits ''porneia'' (''ho porneudn'') sins into/against (''eigfi'') his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|369}}
</blockquote>

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians—he even fought with Peter about it! {{Nc}} If Paul is concerned about ''porenia'', then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

==== Did Paul have any examples of "healthy" gay relationships? ====
Some have claimed that since the Roman empire's homosexual acts were largely pederasty (i.e., older men having sex with young boys) or rape (masters against slaves) that this condemnation does not apply today.

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

<blockquote>
Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|471}}
</blockquote>

===The Early Christians===
The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"—in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117–138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

<blockquote>
Nothing belies the claim that pederastic discourse lost its vitality like the relationship between
Hadrian and his Bithynian favorite, Antinous. Possibly a slave, Hadrian’s beloved died on the
Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies
easy comprehension is the paroxysm of empire-wide mourning that ensued. A city was
founded at the site of his death; Hadrian believed reports that a new star had appeared in the
sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his
face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image
of Antinous ranks behind only Augustus and Hadrian in the number of sculptures extant
today. Dozens of cities issued coinage in his honor; games were being founded in his memory
decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not
suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous
resonated in powerful and unexpected ways.<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|551}}
</blockquote>

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about ''porneia'', including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

<blockquote>
Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as
an offshoot of Roman conservatism. The ideas about sex emanating from the new religion
marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of
the flesh became caught in a cosmic battle between good and evil. New rules, more
interesting and less predictable than sometimes argued, formed. Porneia, fornication, went
from being a cipher for sexual sin in general to a sign for all sex beyond the marriage bed, and
it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless
of age, status, or role, was forbidden without qualification and without remorse. Unexpectedly,
sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way
that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|1673}}
</blockquote>

===Conclusion—Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians===
In sum:

<blockquote>
the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. <ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|553-556}}
</blockquote>

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians—and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.

===Latter-day Scripture===

====God and Christ repeated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} =====
{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} announces:
<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>
This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at ''why'' marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in {{s||Genesis|1|}}, {{s||Moses|3|24}}, and {{s||Abraham|5|18}}—the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|1}} states:
<blockquote>
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, '''he cannot obtain it'''. (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence ====

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Same Sex Dynamics|pages=1–}}</ref>

The evidence does not suggest that nineteenth-century Mormons regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence. Attempts to prove otherwise seem largely founded on agenda-driven writing and a distortion of the historical evidence.

D. Michael Quinn's book, ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: [[Specific_works/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example|here]].
}}
==== Challenges ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships ====
Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49:15-17) that

<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

==== Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations ====

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

<blockquote>
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction." My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church ====
It is claimed that:
*Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
*This encourages dishonesty
*This isolates them from other members

There is no counsel or necessity to hide, lie, or isolate oneself from others. At the same time, members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others. As discussed above, members are discouraged from allowing any identity or group to which they belong supercede or interfere with their role as children of God, disciples of Christ, and covenant-keeping members of the Church.

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. {{s||D&C|38|27}} reads:

<blockquote>
I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. <ref>As quoted by Adam Olson in [http://lds.org/ensign/2008/04/maintaining-the-course?lang=eng Maintaining the Course]</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

<blockquote>
Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

<blockquote>
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80
</blockquote>

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort. (Mosiah 18:8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

<blockquote>
All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"<ref>{{NC||</ref>
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

==== Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings? ====

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time—but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In {{s||D&C|97|8}}, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other? ===
| state = closed
| content = No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics—but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous—he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

==== Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen ====

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

The Church's pamphlet ''God Loveth His Children'' counsels:

<blockquote>
In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.
</blockquote>

There are many with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their display of sexual feelings. (In like way, there are many heterosexually attracted people who likewise moderate their sexual desires and keep discussion and display of them within appropriate bounds.)

This is not advice to refuse association with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or heterosexual promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency.

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do. We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" {{nc}}. Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.
}}
==== The Causes of Homosexuality ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction ====

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the ''practice'' of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a ''cause'' for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

=== 1980 ===

==== President Spencer W. Kimball ====

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. <ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1987 ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Balm of Gilead|date=October 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1988 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:
<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. <ref>"Free Agency and Freedom," ''Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches'' (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Covenants|date=October 1990|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1993 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=For Time and All Eternity|date=October 1993|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1994 ===

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise ''faith in Jesus Christ''. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=To Be Healed|date=April 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/to-be-healed?lang=eng}} {{io}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1995 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [{{s|2|Nephi|2|27}}]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see {{b||Proverbs|3|5-7}}). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Trust in the Lord|date=October 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1996 ===
==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….

Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Finding Joy in Life|date=April 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/finding-joy-in-life?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability. ...

[W]e become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many. ...

Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires. ...

What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=According to the Desires of [Our] Hearts|date=October 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/-according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1999 ===
==== Henry B. Eyring ====

<blockquote>
A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.

Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=Do Not Delay|date=October 1999|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/do-not-delay?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2000 ===
==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have "[become] for themselves," resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1:29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.

Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.

Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us|date=April 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/content-with-the-things-allotted-unto-us?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2006 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

<blockquote>
"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). <ref>{{General Conference|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=He Heals the Heavy Laden|date=October 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/he-heals-the-heavy-laden?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

=== Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman ===

<blockquote>
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2007 ===
==== Church booklet produced in 2007 notes ====

<blockquote>
Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Jeffrey R. Holland ====

<blockquote>
If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.

I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

=== What if same-sex attraction is genetic? ===

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? No—even if same-sex attraction were enitrely biological, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Anger or violence are likewise natural tendencies with deep biological roots. We are still required to control and master them, and we are also not to express them in unrighteous ways. For many, this is a great challenge, but the Lord does not excuse us from that challenge. He promises to help us and to change us so that we can, with his help, behave as he would.

Many people experience opposite-sex desires that seem natural, but remain sinful. The church does not lift restrictions on practicing these behaviors either. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

<blockquote>
Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.<Ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng Cleansing the Inner Vessel]|date=October 2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Just as improper expressions of heterosexuality can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality in improper ways.

=== Understanding explanations of homosexuality ===

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

<blockquote>
"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the ''practices'' of homosexuality {{ia}}."
</blockquote>

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would often never go away, even in the repentant.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content = The Church believes everyone has a the freedom to choose their actions. However, actions are very different from orientation. The Church teaches that same-sex attractions can run deep, and form a significant part of how a person experiences life. They are not, however, the only part.

=== Quotes from leaders ===

Speaking of same-sex attraction, Elder Packer said in 2000:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng]
</blockquote>

Elder Wickman was asked in an interview about how to respond to a son who said that he was gay. He responded:

<blockquote>
We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Elder Holland expressed a similar feeling when he said:

<blockquote>
Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them.[http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Church leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Criticism ====
Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aver that President Spencer W. Kimball asserted that masturbation causes one to be attracted to the same sex in h{{s||is|9|}} book ''Miracle of Forgiveness''.

President Kimball wrote the following:

<blockquote>
Most youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas—drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few—depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
 
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation—and thence into homosexuality.<ref>Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78.</ref>
</blockquote>

This response will examine this charge and conclude that the notion that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation is not and never has been taught by the Church.

=== Response to Criticism ===
==== Masturbation, according to President Kimball, may lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality rather than a homosexual ''orientation'' ====

Commenting on President Kimball's claims above, Gregory L. Smith wrote:

:This purported link between self-stimulation and homosexuality has often been ridiculed. O’Donovan refers to Kimball’s "absurd theory that masturbation leads to homosexuality."<ref>Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004, http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html. This is a revised version of Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," in ''Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays in Sex and Family'', Essays on Mormonism Series, No. 7, ed. Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 138-40. In that earlier version, he omits the word "absurd."</ref> And, such skepticism is justified if one reads ''homosexuality'' as ''homosexual orientation'' in the modern sense. Most people masturbate sometime, and few of these are gay.

:Such an analysis assumes and relies on modern definitions, however. As I have shown, leaders’ use of the term ''homosexuality'' in this period — especially the homosexuality that they sought to discourage — was almost exclusively concerned with ''behavior''.<ref>''Compare Welfare Services Packet'' 1, 8: "homosexuality is possible only with others."</ref>

:Seen in this light, Kimball’s claim becomes both more plausible and more understandable. It is important to remember that he had long experience counseling practicing homosexuals (19, 68-70).<ref>See also Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', ix–x.</ref> He would likely have learned that solo masturbation while entertaining homosexual fantasies would often precede acting on those fantasies with another person. From that perspective, Kimball’s claim is less controversial and may even be valid.

:Kimball was not alone in these realizations. Clinicians with exposure to the homosexual demi-monde had long remarked that homosexual masturbatory practices tended to precede homosexual acts with others, though the former did not always lead to the latter.

:At the turn of the twentieth century, early sexologist Havelock Ellis wrote of a correspondent "who went to a French school, [and] told me that ''all'' the older boys had younger accomplices in mutual masturbation. … At my school, manual masturbation was both solitary and mutual; and sometimes younger boys, who had not acquired the habit, were induced to manipulate bigger boys. … In after-life they showed no signs of inversion [i.e., homosexuality]."<ref>Havelock Ellis, ''Studies in the Psychology of Sex'', vol. I (1905; repr., New York: Random House, 1942), 240, italics in original, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179937/page/n287/mode/2up.</ref>

:In Albert Moll’s ''Sexual Life of the Child'' (1912), he wrote:

:<blockquote>
It is an indisputable fact that many boys … readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in [same-sex] boarding schools … they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs).<ref>Albert Moll, ''The Sexual Life of the Child'', trans. Eden Paul (1912; repr., London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd: 1923), 265, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.200468/page/n275/mode/2up.</ref>
</blockquote>

:In an effort to reassure the reader that co-education of boys and girls would not be unduly risky, Moll pointed out that "even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of [hetero]sexual practice. … We have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we ''may'' favor the development of homosexuality."<ref>Ibid, 267, italics added.</ref>

:Moll and Havelock evidently did not think that masturbation inevitably lead to homosexual behavior, much less what is today called orientation. But, Moll would draw precisely the same conclusion as Kimball regarding behavior in the dry prose of academic German science:

<blockquote>
The German Imperial Criminal Code … assert[s] that homosexual tendencies appearing in the child necessarily indicate the future development of permanent homosexuality. [Moll disagrees.] …
 
The chief danger associated with the appearance of sexual perversions lies in the fact that the child thus affected … endeavors again and ever again to revive these pleasurably-toned sensations … and … as soon as the genital organs are sufficiently mature, the boy or girl obtains sexual gratification by masturbating simultaneously with the imaginative contemplation of perverse ideas. Such perverse psychical onanism, accompanied or unaccompanied by physical masturbatory acts, <code>is eminently adapted to favor the development of the perversion.</code> Obviously, the actual performance of the corresponding perverse sexual act <code>will be just as dangerous as its perversely associated masturbation.</code> Thus, a boy who is homosexually inclined may masturbate while allowing his imagination to run riot upon homosexual ideas; or he may take to homosexual acts with one or more other male persons. Every sort of gratification that is associated with perverse images is dangerous; and no less dangerous is the spontaneous cultivation of such perverse sexual images.<ref>Ibid, 313-14, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

:Moll saw a risk related to masturbation among the "homosexually inclined" — it would encourage unwanted behavior, but not create most inclination to that behavior.<ref>A[lbert] Moll, ''Les perversions de l’instinct genital: étude sur l’inversion sexuelle basée sur des documents officiels'', 6ième edition, traduit par Pactet et Romme (Paris: Georges Carré et C. Naud, 1897), 197, 200, 207-209, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tpoaAAAAYAAJ/page/n249/mode/2up.</ref> Kimball, with more brevity, would write "masturbation too often leads to grievous sin, even to … homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex — and thence into total homosexuality."<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 78. Taylor Petrey's ''Tabernacles of Clay'' claims that because of Kimball’s views, LDS Social Services needed to "offer some clarification." But masturbation can hardly "lead … to homosexuality" if Kimball believed it to be a homosexual act in itself. Even mutual masturbation, for Kimball, is only a stepping stone to "total homosexuality."</ref>

:This was, in fact, precisely what a study of "non-patient" adult male homosexuals "drawn from the community" found in the same year that ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was published:

<blockquote>
Of the homosexual men, all of them had practiced self-masturbation at some time during their lives. … Even during the peak of their sexual outlet by homosexual means between the ages of 20 and 29, almost all of the subjects (97%) were engaged in self-masturbation...
 
Homosexual behavior

Cognitional Rehearsals — Those were reported in almost all of the men (99%). In 97% it was stated that cognitional rehearsals had already started before age 20. …

The majority of the subjects (86%) had already had homosexual contacts before the age of 15. …

Of the men that were engaged in homosexual activity before age 15, the large majority (93%) practiced mutual masturbation … [and] a minority (19%) practiced [homosexual] intercourse. …

Mutual masturbation was abandoned by the majority of the subjects after the age of 29. Even those who practiced it between the of 20 and 29, tended to engage in it only occasionally.<ref>Marcel T. Saghir, Eli Robins, and Bonnie Walbran, "Homosexuality: II. Sexual Behavior of the Male Homosexual," ''Archives of General Psychiatry'' 21 (August 1969): 219-23, underlining in original represents a subject heading.</ref>
</blockquote>

:For this population, Kimball was right — one started with fantasies ("cognitional rehearsals") ultimately accompanied by masturbation, progressed to mutual masturbation, and eventually abandoned that for greater intimacies. One can quibble about whether masturbation "caused" these homosexual acts in a technical sense, but it is hard to see the behaviors as utterly unrelated. And behavior was what concerned Kimball.

:In fact, he would have said that the person chose solo acts that simply made it easier to later choose other acts with someone else — one sin "leads to" another (71). He did not see the relationship as deterministic:<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 215.</ref>

:Small indiscretions evolve into larger ones and finally into major transgressions which bring heavy penalties. … Warning signals and guidelines are given to reduce the danger of one’s being blindly enticed into forbidden paths. …

:Those who yield to evil are usually those who have placed themselves in a vulnerable position.<ref>Ibid., x, 15.</ref>

:And, he saw other similar sins as preludes to heterosexual ones in the same way: "My beloved young folks, do not excuse petting and body intimacies. I am positive that if this illicit, illegal, improper, and lustful habit of ‘petting’ could be wiped out, that fornication would soon be gone from our world."<ref>Kimball, "Love Versus Lust," ''BYU Speeches of the Year'' 1965, 30.</ref><ref>Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–213.</ref>

Smith cites "a present-day queer studies author" that further contextualizes how President Kimball understood homosexuality:

<blockquote>
Once the patient’s will-power or reason was compromised by masturbation [it was thought] … "reversion" to the primordial bestial type would be the result. … the slide from masturbation to homosexuality seems bizarre from a twenty-first century perspective. However, that is partly because current definitions of masturbation are very narrow compared to the definitions operative in the nineteenth century. We think of masturbation as self-stimulation only," while the nineteenth century did not consider anything but intercourse to be a homosexual act, even if it involved same-sex genital play.<ref>Ladelle McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual: The Construction of the Sex Pervert," in Cyd Cipolla et al, eds., ''Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader'' (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 118.</ref>
</blockquote>

The same author observes that nineteenth-century thinkers thought that

<blockquote>
There were two categories of inverts [i.e., homosexuals]. First, there were those whose condition was a result of self-induced degeneracy through willful vice. … However, increasingly influenced by the personal disclosures of inverts themselves, many nineteenth century physicians began to believe there was a second group. … Maybe some people are born with the gonads and genitalia of one sex but the brain and neurological system of the other. …

But it might not be fair to punish [these] congenital inverts, many physicians and sexologists believed, because their actions were not truly voluntary. As James Kiernan put it, "There can be no legal responsibility where free determination of the will is impaired." Congenital inverts were naturally weak of will … <code>unable to resist</code> the perverse urges that their degenerate condition aroused. Such individuals might undergo episodic periods of organically produced sexual furor during which they were <code>entirely devoid of self-control</code>.<ref>McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual," 120, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, as Smith concludes:

:If these distinctions are understood, then Kimball’s argument makes further sense. Some believed that those with an in-born attraction for the same sex could not control their actions. Other homosexuals "learned" such behavior via a free-will choice to engage in masturbation, which, in some, could progress to group masturbation and ultimately to homosexuality (i.e., intercourse).

:The nineteenth century theorists might not condemn those who were "innate" homosexuals who had not brought their habit upon themselves through masturbatory habits. But they did not believe this group could control themselves either — their compulsive activity would be almost a type of madness. (By analogy, today’s society would not condemn a schizophrenic for her hallucinations, though it might well institutionalize her against her will if she sought to harm others as a result of those hallucinations.)

:Church doctrine, however, revolted at the idea that any normal person was unable to control their behavior, however they might be tempted.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 225–27.</ref> So Kimball focused on avoiding the acts that could strengthen temptation and lead to further unwanted behavior.

:Like Kimball, neither Ellis nor Moll saw same-sex mutual masturbation as fully "homosexual," per se but observed that it could (in some cases) precede homosexual intercourse. This is a different conceptual world than ours.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 214–15.</ref>

=== Conclusion ===
Thus, President Kimball is not saying that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual ''orientation''. President Kimball says that masturbation could lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality. The church rarely (if ever) talks about the causes of a particular sexual orientation. The church is much more interested in learning to control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors rather than sexual orientation. Many other leaders have also cautioned about preoccupation with sex and about arousing sexual feelings that should only be expressed in marriage. Masturbation arouses sexual feelings outside of marriage. This could lead to sexual acts performed outside of marriage. If a person has opposite-sex attractions, it may lead to the practice of heterosexuality outside of marriage, which is considered just as much of a sin as the practice of homosexuality.
}}
==== Post-Mortal States ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Church teach that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death ====

All Latter-day Saints anticipate being transformed and perfected in the resurrection. The weaknesses, failings, imperfections, and unholy desires that we all have will be removed. This includes any sexual desire or temptation not in accord with God's purposes for us.

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

<blockquote>
While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, ''our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life'' so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that ''their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way'' and according to His timing. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

<blockquote>
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, "Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?"

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is th{{s||is:|1|}}) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. <ref>Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: "[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction Same-Gender Attraction]," (undated).</ref>
</blockquote>

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

<blockquote>
I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. <ref>The Mormons, [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland], ''pbs.org'' (30 April 2007).</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

<blockquote>
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity." And "men (and women) are that they might have joy." <ref>[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction Address] given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Legal Protections ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships ====

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref> The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

<blockquote>
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law ==

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

<blockquote>
The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Non discrimination:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Suicide ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{Set off quote 1|if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources. '''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''}}

As we have seen above, the Church recognizes that being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction can be very difficult.

It has long been known that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction.

Critics charge that:
* Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates; and
* there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints

These charges are without scientific foundation. They are not surprising, since warnings of such supposed dangers are a common strategy from those targeting unpopular social groups.<ref>rich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, ''Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance'' (Wiley-Blackwell, 1994), 147.</ref>

For example, some have claimed that the Church's policy of requiring First Presidency clearance for the baptism of children of gay couples caused a spike in suicide. These claims were fiction—in Utah "the year after the November policy saw a 21 percent decrease in youth suicide and a small decrease in suicide of those eighteen to sixty-four years old."<ref>{{BYUS|author=W. Justin Dyer|article=book review|vol=59|num=1|date=2020|pages=226|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/59.1DyerGayRights.pdf}}</ref>

There are three studies that have looked at precisely this quesiton—in all cases, those with same-sex attraction who were members of the Church had ''lower'' suicide rates than those with same-sex attraction outside the Church.

Because this is such an important issue, we will consider these points in detail.

=== Background risk ===

To answer questions about the Church’s impact, if any, we have to know first about background risk. If you were going to study the effects of, say, smoking on cancer, first you have to know how likely cancer is in people who don’t smoke. It doesn’t do much good to point out that 10% of people who smoke die of cancer, if 10% of people who don’t do too. Sadly, we’ve known for decades that LGBTQ people have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and probably higher rates of actual suicide too.<ref>Ryan M. Hill and Jeremy W. Pettit, “Suicidal Ideation and Sexual Orientation in College Students: The Roles of Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Perceived Rejection Due to Sexual Orientation,” ''Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior'' 42/5 (October 2012): 567, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00113.x.</ref> This is one of the great constants in research over decades.

==== Denmark ====
In Denmark, for example, a 2011 study showed that gay men in registered domestic partnerships (Denmark’s version of “gay marriage,” which they have had since 1990) were still almost ''eight times'' more likely to commit suicide as married or divorced heterosexuals. Divorce and singleness are risk factors for suicide, and so of all LGBTQ people, those in legal same-sex partnerships should have the best numbers because they are “wired in” to a close social support such as a spouse.

Denmark is an extremely secular country—it seems unlikely that religious doctrine or persecution can explain this massive disparity in suicide rates.

==== Norway ====

A Norwegian study found that when compared to heterosexual youth, youth who were attracted to the same sex and/or self-identified as LGB were no more likely to attempt suicide. Only homosexual behavior was associated with an increased rate of suicide attempt, and “[t]he increased odds [of suicidality] could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.”<ref>Lars Wichstrøm and Kristinn Hegna, “Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: a longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population,” ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'' 112/1 (February 2003): 144–151, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653422/.</ref>

So, even in two of the most tolerant, non-religious, secular societies, there are some prominent risks. We might think of this as something of a “best case scenario” for tolerance and acceptance. We aren’t likely to produce a society in or out of the Church more open to same-sex behavior than Denmark and Norway. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still work to bring these suicide rates down, but it might suggest that insisting that others need to be more "tolerant" of homosexual behavior may not provide huge gains.

===Suicide in Utah? ===

The Church is often blamed for an "epidemic" of gay suicdes in Utah. But, Utah's state expert (who is himself gay) insists that there is no such epidemic:

<blockquote>Michael Staley [who is openly gay himself], who works for Utah’s medical examiner and ranks among the most respected researchers on this topic, said in an interview with Q Salt Lake, a Utah LGBT magazine, his initial findings do not support the narrative that Utah youth suicides are rising as a result of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality or LGBT issues. “There’s no data to show that, period,” Staley said. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed.”<ref>Layne Williams, Amy Fife, Hal Boyd, “No correlation between youth suicide and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” ''Idaho Statesman'' (22 September 2019), https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article235270667.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Why might people be “disappointed”? Isn’t that good news? Well, it isn’t if you are trying to use suicide as a weapon to shame a religion and push it to change.

So, the claim that Utah suffered an explosion of gay suicide turns out not to be true. But people continue to say it—which suggests that either they are misinformed, or their goal may be something other than the truth.

=== Suicide in the Church ===

It is well known that religion is generally protective against suicide—so isolating someone from their religious group probably doesn’t help make them safer, all else being equal.<ref>Thomas Joiner, Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success, kindle loc. 4114-16. See also his Why People Die By Suicide, loc 1720. Evan M. Kleiman and Richard T. Liu, “Prospective Prediction of Suicide in a Nationally Representative Sample: Religious Service Attendance as a Protective Factor,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 204 (2014): 262, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128900; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Association between Religious Service Attendance and Lower Suicide Rates among US Women,” JAMA Psychiatry 73/8 (2016): 845–851, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1243. Leilani Greening and Laura Stoppelbein, “Religiosity, Attributional Style, and Social Support as Psychosocial Buffers for African American and White Adolescents’ Perceived Risk for Suicide,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 32/4 (Winter 2002): 404–417, https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333; Tobias Teismann and others, “Religious Beliefs Buffer the Impact of Depression on Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatry Research 257 (1 November 2017): 276–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.060. Erminia Colucci and Graham Martin, “Religion and Spirituality along the Suicidal Path,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 38/2 (April 2008): 229–244, https://doi.org/doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229.The academic sources here are from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood cited below. </ref>

We will now look at the three studies who examined suicidality in Latter-day Saint LGBTQ members.

==== First study - Cranney (2017)====

This data from 2012–2014, published in ''Journal of Homosexuality'':

<blockquote>
LGB Mormons have more days of poor mental health than their non-LGB Mormon counterparts, but fewer than their LGB non-Mormon counterparts. When weights are applied, the only significant health difference found between LGB Mormons and any other group is a significantly higher number of days of poor mental health than non-LGB Mormons (6 days versus 3 days, p = .01 [in the last 30]); all other health comparisons are statistically insignificant. ...

[H]owever they do it, the LGB Mormon population’s reconciliation of particular facets of their sexual and religious identities does not lead them to having discernibly worse mental or physical health than their non-LBG Mormon and LGB non-Mormon counterparts.<ref>Stephen Cranney, "The LGB Mormon Paradox: Mental, Physical, and Self-Rated Health among Mormon and Non-Mormon LGB Individuals in the Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," ''Journal of Homosexuality'' 64/6 (2017): 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236570.</ref></blockquote>

So, LGB in the Church do have more days of poor mental health—but their mental health is still better than LGB ''outside'' the Church.

Separating those who are struggling from the Church may, then, not be helpful and might even be harmful.

==== Second study - Dyer, Goodman, and Wood (2022)====

The second study is from the 2019 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment, done as part of the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) survey by Utah's Department of Human Services.<ref>Justin Dyer, Michael Goodman, and David Wood, "Religion and Sexual Orientation as Predictors of Utah Youth Suicidality," BYU Studies Quarterly 61/2 (2022), {{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/religion-and-sexual-orientation-as-predictors-of-utah-youth-suicidality}}</ref>

{{HomosexualityDiscussionGraph}}

=== Why does the Church do better? ===
[[File:Figure_3b-Dyer_Goodman_and_Wood.png|thumb|200x|right|''Chart 5'': Figure 3B from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. Once social connectedness, family connectedness, and drug use is adjusted for, the suicidality rates are not statistically different for any group.]]

There are many known risk factors for suicidality. For example, those who abuse alcohol or other substances are more likely to feel depressed, contemplate suicide, and attempt suicide. So, if the Church kept you from drinking, that would probably lower your suicide risk.

This study decided to '''adjust''' for known benefits. So, they then looked at LGBTQ suicide rates once family connectedness, social connectedness, and drug use was taken into consideration.

When that is done, there is then no difference between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups' rates of suicidality. So, one plausible hypothesis is that (1) being in the Church makes you more socially connected; (2) Families in the Church may have better connections; and (3) the Church discourages drug use.

We must remember that these are averages. There will undoubtedly be terrible families in the Church whose behavior increases their children's risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. And there are also certainly equally strong families in other faiths, or in families of no faith.

''On average,'' however, an LGBTQ person is better off in terms of depression and suicidality in the Church than out of it.

At the very least, it is dishonest and unfair to blame the Church for suicides in LGBTQ members. There is simply no evidence that the Church is to blame, and considerable evidence that on balance it is helpful.

Individuals may have different experiences, and certainly some families or people in the Church do things contrary to Church doctrine which could make things much worse. But that is not the Church's fault.

==== Third study - McGraw et al. (2023)====

Looking at the same dataset as the second study,<ref>James S. McGraw, Meagan Docherty, Jay R. Chinn, and Annette Mahoney, “Family, Faith, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors (STBs) Among LGBTQ Youth in Utah," Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 20/2 (2023): 257-258, https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000517</ref> the non-LDS authors concluded:

<blockquote>
LGBTQ participants’ reports of higher family conflict and lower parental closeness were tied to higher depression, self-harm, and substance misuse, and these three factors were, in turn, associated with higher levels of STBs for LGBTQ youth in Utah. This path model did not differ significantly due to LDS versus non-LDS religious affiliation. ...

Among LGBTQ youth, non-LDS youth had higher mean levels of STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, substance misuse, a lower mean level of parental closeness. ... [Slide 27–31] Non-LDS LGBTQ youth reported the highest STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and substance misuse scores, and had a lower [average] level of parental closeness scores, followed by LDS LGBTQ, non-LDS heterosexual … youth, and then LDS heterosexual … youth
</blockquote>

So again, family conflict, lower family closeness, and substance misuse led (unsurprisingly) to more suicidal experience and behavior. These problems on balance were better in the LDS group than the non-LDS group, but when controlled for religion did not make a significant difference.

=== Suicide contagion ===

All of this matters a great deal, and the biggest problem is ''not'' that the Church and its members and leaders are slandered and tarred with causing the deaths of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The reason this matters is that there is a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion." This is a well-recognized phenomenon whereby people's tendency to suicide ''can be increased or decreased'' based on how media and other voices talk about suicide.<ref>Joiner, ''Why People Die of Suicide'', loc. 1846–49.</ref>

Psychiatric, psychologic, and suicide prevention agencies have done a great deal to publicize these risks, and have provided guides for media to talk about suicide in a helpful, not harmful.

A non-LDS expert on LGBTQ youth made this point very strongly:

<blockquote>
For me, first off, scientifically it's not true. That is that, as a developmental psychologist, when we look at the wide population of youth who identify as gay or who have same-sex attractions, it appears to me when I look at the data that they're actually just as healthy, and just as resilient, and just positive about their life as are straight youth. … So from a scientific perspective, there is certainly no gay suicide epidemic. But the more problematic aspect for me is that I worry a great deal about the image that we are giving gay-identified youth.<ref>Ritch Savin Williams, interview, “A Look At The Lives of Gay Teens,” ''All Things Considered'', National Public Radio (21 October 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732158. </ref>
</blockquote>

Telling gay youth that there is an epidemic breaks one of the cardinal rules of suicide prevention: '''Messages linking particular groups with high rates of suicide or mental illness'''.<ref>“The Messaging ‘Don’ts’,” suicidepreventionmessaging.org (accessed 23 January 2024), https://suicidepreventionmessaging.org/safety/messaging-donts</ref> Not only is this not true, as the quote above notes, but telling people the falsehood makes it more likely to happen!

Other messaging rules that the Church's critics often engage in include:

==== Don't include personal details ====
* ''"Don’t include personal details of people who have died by suicide."'' - Sadly, many LGBTQ advocates think they are helping by telling tragic, dramatic, tear-jerking stories about specific suicides. Each suicide is a tragedy and a devastating outcome for family and friends. But publicizing the suicide in this way just makes it more likely that other depressed teens may identify with the victim, and thus be more likely to immitate them.

==== Don't portray suicide as more common than it is or a typical way of coping ====

* ''"Don’t portray suicidal behavior as more common than it is or as a typical way of coping with adversity."'' - Again, when LGBTQ advocates insist that the Church's policies or doctrines lead to a great many suicides, and that nothing can stop this until the Church changes its doctrines, they ironically increase the risk of that happening. As the suicide prevention group cautions:

<blockquote>
While we don’t want to minimize the magnitude of the suicide problem, we also don’t want to imply that suicidal behavior is ''what most people do'' in a given circumstance. The vast majority of people who face adversity, mental illness, and other challenges—even those in high risk groups—do ''not'' die by suicide, but instead find support, treatment, or other ways to cope.</blockquote>

==== Don't use language or data to suggest suicide is inevitable or unsolvable ====
* ''Don’t use data or language that suggests suicide is inevitable or unsolvable'' - Calling suicides "an epidemic" (especially when there ''is'' no epidemic) plays right into this problem.

==== Don't oversimplify ====

* ''Don’t oversimplify causes'' - Suicide is a complex subject. It is not helpful—in fact, it is downright harmful—to use a suicide death to tell a simple cause-and-effect story, such as "The Church opposed gay marriage, and so John killed himself." Suicide is almost always accompanied by significant mental illness, and mental illness almost by definition involves choices and thoughts that are not rational or reasonable.

====Hurting when intending to help ====
Many of those who spread these rumors or propaganda probably think that they are helping solve a serious problem. If you are approaching the issue in this way, we encourage you to ''stop'' spreading false rumors, and to especially stop talking about this subject in ways that increases the risk of a mentally ill person acting on a suicidal thought or plan.

And, if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

'''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''

===Reducing suicide risk===
Steps that can help reduce suicidal thoughts and actions include some of the following encouraged by the Church:

==== Church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment ====
*"The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[http://lds.org/liahona/1979/07/questions-and-answers?lang=eng]

==== Church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills ====
*"Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." (''Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley'' [1997], 661, 665).

==== Church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties ====

*1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[http://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng]
*2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family
ties."[http://lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]

==== Church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction ====

*1974: "To "persecute" homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[http://lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng]
*1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God. ... We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[http://lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng]
*2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[http://lds.org/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle?lang=eng]
*2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [http://lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng]
}}
==== Bullying and Ostracization ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What did President Boyd K. Packer say during the October 2010 general conference of the Church on homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content = On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.<ref>An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/04/the-peaceable-followers-of-christ The Peaceable Followers of Christ]|date=April 1998|pages=62}}</ref>

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/revelation-in-a-changing-world Revelation in a Changing World]|date=November 1989|pages=16}}</ref>

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/05/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church]|date=May 1980|pages=65}}</ref>

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    —President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.<ref>Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}</ref>

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{{BoydKPackerHomosexuality}}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

:Isaiah warned, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." {{ea}}<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>

==== Subject of the talk ====

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

==== Feelings vs. acts ====

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.<ref>{{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that "God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

==== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ====
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome."<ref>Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.</ref>

Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|53}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==== Past talks on the same issue ====

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

==== 1978 ====
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.<ref>"I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.</ref> It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.<ref>"To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186-200, emphasis added; italics in original.</ref>

==== 1990 ====
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark 9:42).

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

==== 1995 ====

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see {{s|2|Ne.|2|26-27}}).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see {{s||John|8|34}}; {{s|2|Pet.|2|12-14}}, 18-19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven "before the foundation of the world" (D&C 132:5; 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see {{s||James|4|6-8}}; {{s|2|Ne.|9|39}}; {{s||Mosiah|3|19}}). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}</ref>

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in h{{s||is|0|}} talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. (D&C 101:78; Articles of Faith 1:2) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more}} {{ea}}</ref>

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==== Editing an apostle? ====

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson—the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).</ref>

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.<ref>See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}</ref> Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==== Propaganda and tactics ====

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==== Critics' direputable tactics ====

Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Hopefully the clarification offered addressed their concerns.

Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. Certainly, not all with same-sex attraction, who categorize themselves as homosexuals, or who are supportive of homosexual relationships are in this latter group, but there are some who consider themselves leaders of the gay community or gay activists who do fall into this category. For them, it is not politically expedient to accept any clarifications that may be offered because they disagree with the theological categorization of homosexual acts as "sinful." The actions taken by such individuals as a reaction to clarification was noted by the ''Deseret News'':

:Instead of seeking genuine common ground around issues of mutual concern, activists began this week with a grossly misguided caricature of the LDS Church's support of traditional morality.

:The tactic is now all-too familiar: take a statement out of context, embellish it with selective interpretation, presume hostile intent, and then use the distortion to isolate an entire group, in this case a church.<ref>Editorial, "[http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700072199/A-call-for-civility-following-Mormon-Apostle-Boyd-K-Packers-address.html A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address]," ''Deseret News'' (10 October 2010).</ref>

Such tactics (pulling statements out of context, interpreting selectively, presuming hostile intent, and stereotyping) are not new in the battle for public perception and support. In fact, tactics such as this have been specifically encouraged in the gay activist community. In 1993, two gay activists wrote a call-to-arms to their community, in which they outlined the strategies that they felt would be most successful in securing societal tolerance of homosexual acts as normal and appropriate. Among other techniques, they suggested "a propaganda campaign" (xxviii):

:There's a naive notion among folks in general—especially among gays—that you can argue a person out of a prejudice (such as homohatred) by overwhelming him with facts and logic about the group he hates. This is untrue....

:Logically speaking, nothing whatever is either disgusting or sinful, except as one feels it to be so...

:...if we're going to enter into arguments with [those who disagree with us] we'd better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket.

:...it gets a little tiresome to keep seeing and hearing [gays who]... damn all proposals as politically incorrect to precisely the degree that they rely upon cunning manipulation rather than pugnacity....

:...thus, propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred—suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause....Note that the bigot need not actually be made to ''believe'' that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering....Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof....

:...The objection will be raised...that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false sterotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is ''not'' how ''all'' gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes of course—we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones....<ref>{{CriticalWork:Kirk Madsen:After the Ball|pages=112, 139-141, 151-154}}</ref>

These tactics, outlined with such clarity, seemed to be almost a script for the reaction to President Packer's talk from organizations that promote homosexual relationships. Simply put, many dislike talk of sin, and are angered by those who claim to warn against it with divine authority. Many realize that they have not prevailed via a reasoned, rational discussion of the facts, and know that an ''emotional'' appeal is the only way of achieving their goals.

It is not surprising, then, that some activists have responded to President Packer's warning by attacking the messenger, reading him in a hostile light, caricaturing his message, reading his mind, and ascribing a variety of distasteful or even evil motives to him or the Church and its members. This should be recognized for what it is—an effort to vilify the messenger, downplay the totality of the message, and shame those who might listen to it, all part and parcel of political machinations.<ref>For extensive examples and a discussion, see {{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

==== Table comparing Boyd K. Packer talks on homosexual behavior over time ====

{{BoydKPackerHomosexualityOverTime}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts ====
Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

==== In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount ====

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

<blockquote>
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the lastand Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn theego, and sin no more. (John 8:7–11)
</blockquote>

It is important to recognize, however, that it is not cruel to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

=== 1980s ===

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

<blockquote>
There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage. ...

Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990s ===
In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

<blockquote>
"We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us."<ref>"An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency," ''Church News'' (15 April 1995), 1.</ref>
</blockquote>

He then said:

<blockquote>
Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks also taught:

<blockquote>
Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

A recent letter is illustrative:

<blockquote>
''"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid ... schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles."''
</blockquote>

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see {{s|3|Nephi|18|22-23,30,32}}). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=Nov 1999|pages=52|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}</ref>

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking" (D&C 20:54).

=== 2000s ===

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.
</blockquote>

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

<blockquote>
Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see {{s||D&C|84|110}}).<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

<blockquote>
Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

<blockquote>
Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: "Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters." And President Packer has echoed, "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you." With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2010s ===
In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

<blockquote>
...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has [[../Non discrimination ordinances|openly supported]] other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children?lang=eng Protect the Children]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Violence is not usually the best response to a problem, but everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence ====

It is claimed that Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourages "gay bashing" or physical assaults on gay people.

The Church does not teach that violence is the best response to problems. However, everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence. This applies to all: men and women, gay and straight. As Wikipedia notes, often the ''victim'' is blamed for the ''harasser's'' acts:

<blockquote>
Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.[17] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression....
</blockquote>

In this case, it is Elder Packer and ''all'' members of the Church who come in for criticism and attack because the unacceptable sexual harassment was homosexual. Readers should ask themselves how they would react if the story was about a ''woman'' sexually harassed by a man.

Critics who make this claim are either ignorant of the contents of then-Elder Packer's talk, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for polemical gain.

To understand, we will consider four aspects:
# The relevant full text of Elder Packer's remarks will be provided.
# Some background information will be provided. Some non-members may not understand the context of the experience described by Elder Packer (missionary companions on a full-time mission for the Church), and so this will be explained.
# We will then analyze the story and advice he gives, recognizing that the critics have misrepresented it almost beyond recognition.
# Some broader issues which this charge raises will be considered.

=== #1 Elder Packer's Remarks ===

Elder Packer said:

: I repeat, very plainly, '''physical mischief with another man''' is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
:There are some men who entice young men '''to join them''' in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to '''participate''' in anything like that, it is time to '''vigorously resist'''.
:While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
:After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
:"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
:"But I floored him," he said.
:After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
:'''I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.''' <ref>Boyd K. Packer, "To Young Men Only," priesthood session, general conference, 2 October 1976.</ref>

=== #2: Background information ===

=== Missionary companions ===

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. Missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"—this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are ''forbidden'' to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

# Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
# Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

=== Missionary covenants ===

All members of the Church are expected to observe the law of chastity. This means that no sexual activity outside of marriage is permitted. Furthermore, missionaries attend the temple prior to going on their missions, where they reaffirm this commitment. As noted above, missionaries further promise to not even engage in dating or other romantic activity while in full-time Church service.

=== #3: Examining the story ===

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.
* They story is ''not'' about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you against your will.
* Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".<ref>http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god</ref>
* The response only makes sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay.
* The extent of the attempt to have sex with the missionary is not disclosed, but at the least it was sexual harassment, while potentially up to and including sexual assault and attempted rape. Either case warrants self-defense.
* The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. We are not told for how how long the sexual harassment continued.
* The story is ''not'' about members of the Church going out and beating up gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical response which the missionary launched on his companion—it was not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself."
* Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to ''defend'' himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway."

=== Sexual harassment===
* Elder Packer has given [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|similar advice]] to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|multiple articles]] discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment Sexual harassment] of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harassment against women as:

<blockquote>such '''unwelcome''' sexually determined behavior as physical contact and '''advances''', sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.<ref>United Nations [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/generl19.htm General Recommendation 19] to the Convention on the [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e1cedaw.htm Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women]; cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

The European Union notes that harassment is:

<blockquote>'''unwanted''' conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct. ... <ref>As cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

There is absolutely no context in Church mission life where ''any'' sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate—with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, ''any'' sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate, and the guilty party would know that unequivocally. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details. Furthermore, the guilty party would have expressly promised never to engage in such behavior or anything like it.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

* Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story—we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.)

* The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion—it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.

* Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young members (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the ''idea'' of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect oneself.

=== #4: Further thoughts to conclude ===

==== Sexual harassment is unacceptable ====

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity—would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual—such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation—especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion—that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS ''sister'' missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor seeking homosexual gratification, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and those who support the victim in self-defense are vilified.

This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church and its leaders.

==== Men can be victims of sexual harassment ====
Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[http://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

:While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse. They must know that they have the right to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice is a refreshing reversal of society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

=== Church teachings on the right to self-defense ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====
* "Do not let anyone at all touch or handle your body, not anyone!" - {{NewEra1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=July 1972|article=Why Stay Morally Clean}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1972/07/why-stay-morally-clean}}
* "Never allow others to touch your body in a way that would be unworthy, and do not touch anyone else in any unworthy way." - {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article-Counsel to Young Men|date=May 2009}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/counsel-to-young-men}}

==== Church magazines ====
* There is a good chance that many women will at some time need to know how to avoid rape, mugging, robbery, or any of numerous other violent crimes. We cannot turn away from facts; these assaults occur regularly in public places and in private homes. A certain amount of preparation, a "healthy paranoia," might very well save a life....If you decide you must fight back, use your keys, purse, feet, or fingernails as weapons to throw the attacker off guard or to get free. Although it sounds cruel, always strike for the eyes and face. The momentary stunning effect of wounds to the face will give you the chance you need to run." {{Ensign|author=Esther R. Tutt|article=Random Sampler: Protect Yourself|date=September 1987}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/random-sampler/protect-yourself}}

* "We need to be absolutely clear that there is such a thing as justified self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself against physical harm if you are attacked. You have a right to use physical force to protect virtue, family, freedom." - {{Ensign1|author=Larry A. Hiller|article=Somebody's Going to Get Hurt!|date=September 1997}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt}}

* If someone is attempting to hurt us physically—even to destroy us—shouldn’t we resist in self-defense? The Doctrine and Covenants says "that all men are justified in defending themselves … from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded" (D&C134:11). {{Ensign1|author=Larry E. Dahl|article=The Higher Law|date=August 1999}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/08/the-higher-law}}

* Self-defense courses for youth are suggested in the New Era in at least [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/03/fyi-for-your-information 1980], [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/12/fyi-for-your-information 1982], and [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1992/02/fyi-for-your-info 1992].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Church family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic" ====

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic." LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

==== Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children ====

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]</ref>

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

==== While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states ====

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items f{{s||rom|2|}}, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.<ref>Jessica Gail, "Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless," Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless</ref>

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.<ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.<ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called "an epidemic." <ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

==== In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average ====

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose "other than heterosexual." <ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

==== Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah ====

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as "LGBT youth centers." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref> 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 "straight" youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, "Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref>

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t "fit in" in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were "happy" 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had "no adult to turn to" 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being "out" to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were "out" with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were "out" with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said "yes." That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were "not accepting" of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).<ref>Rebecca Trounson, "Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.</ref>

==== Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth ====

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." <ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why th{{s||is|2|}}% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

==== Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth ====

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref>

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

==== Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior ====

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||D&C|83|4}} reads:

<blockquote>
All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.
</blockquote>

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

<blockquote>
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
</blockquote>

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

<blockquote>
If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.<ref>Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

<blockquote>
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.<ref>{{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?cid=+HP14TPOTF&lang=eng&old=true}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

<blockquote>
It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: "The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

<blockquote>
With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

<blockquote>
I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." <ref>{{General Conference|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/09/the-best-thing-i-can-do-for-leigh?lang=eng|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

<blockquote>
Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
</blockquote>

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

<blockquote>
It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation "free for all men" but has "commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance." <ref>{{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
====Recommending Heterosexual Marriage for Those with Same-Sex Attraction====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction ====

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

==== 1970s ====
President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

<blockquote>
When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.
</blockquote>

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

==== 1980s ====

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

<blockquote>
CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. <ref>[http://www.affirmation.org/rhetoric_on_homosexuality/oaks_interview.shtml An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS]</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1990s ====
In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

<blockquote>
Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. <ref>Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====
Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====
Elder Holland said:
<blockquote>
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction ====

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

==== The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse ====

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty|Same-sex attraction/Honesty]]) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]])

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

==== Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse ====

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

==== Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction ====

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

<blockquote>
"The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out."[http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Closet-Coming-Out-Straight/dp/0471021520#reader_0471021520]
</blockquote>

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss]

==== Prevalence of marriages ====
According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.

{{statements}}
}}
==== Alleged Hypocrisy and Potential for Change in Church Teachings ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is it hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when its members practiced plural marriage? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that it is hypocritical for the LDS Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself had an alternative form of marriage.

The Church supports all of the rights for same-sex couples that they sought for polygamous families plus some. Same-sex marriage is doing more than extending rights to same-sex couples, but is setting a new standard that excludes people with same-sex attraction who are living the gospel standards. The Church never sought to force polygamy on other people, yet the Supreme Courts and many gay right organizations are seeking to take away rights from people who do not live up to the new standards.

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Anti-polygamy laws did not allow men to live with their wives. Men were arrested for living in the homes where their children lived so that they could fulfill their parental responsibiliies. However, even where laws do not allow for same-sex marriage, same-sex couples may form a family and live together. They may even choose to hold their own "marriage" ceremony and introduce each other as husband or wife.

==== The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others ====

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others. The church never sought for polygamy to be held up as a national standard, requiring all citizens to accept a moral equivalence between polygamy and monogamy. In fact, the Church has already championed rights for people with same-sex attractions that go beyond any right they ever sought for themselves in their practice of polygamy. The right to set a new standard for marriage that would apply to the rest of the United States was not a right that the Church sought for polygamous families. It should not be a right that same-sex couples should seek for themselves.

==== Different levels of rights ====
Often, when we talk about rights, different kinds of rights get lumped together into one group. Everyone knows that humans have certain inalienable rights, but we often don't discuss what happens when those rights conflict. There are several different kinds of rights associated with sexual practices.

One basic right is the right to practice your desired sexual relationship. In most modern societies, any number or gender of consenting adults can usually practice their desired relationship without fear of legal retribution. But, even in the most liberal societies, this right is generally tempered by the right of other people to disagree about the morality of that relationship.

Another right is the right to legal protection from discrimination. This would include laws that would penalize people for treating you differently because of your sexual practices. For example, in most countries, it is illegal to treat an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple differently when it comes to housing or employment. The church has been a strong supporter of protection against discrimination in housing and employment for people with same-sex attraction, including same-sex couples.

Another set of rights includes government help in maintaining your family. This would include legal recognition of your relationship and associated rights such as visitation rights. It may also help subsidize the cost of your relationships, through tax breaks and other benefits. Some modern societies have extended these rights to same-sex couples, and the church has publicly stated that they do not oppose these rights.

A final right that might be discussed is to have your government adopt your sexual relationship as a model, requiring it to be taught in schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. The church is strongly opposed to this infringement of their religious right to determine their own standards of sexual morality according to the dictates of their own consciences.

==== Rights associated with plural marriage ====
When the church supported plural marriage, they were seeking for that most basic of rights - the right to practice their religion. They were not seeking for the United States to recognize their plural marriages, to subsidize their relationships with tax breaks, or to force all citizens to accept it as the moral equivalent of their own monogamous traditions. They only sought to be left to practice their religion in peace.

But the federal government would not allow them even this most basic of rights. Husbands were forcibly separated from their wives and children. Men who tried to sneak into their homes to provide food for their families were arrested, if they were caught. Some moved to other countries so they could continue to be with their families.

==== Rights for same-sex couples ====

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. The church has [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|publicly supported many rights]] and have pressed for changes in legal system to afford these rights to same-sex couples. The rights that the church supports for same-sex couples goes BEYOND any right that they have ever sought for polygamous families.

The Church has no problem with people living life as they see fit when it doesn't interfere with other rights. However, as is often the case, when some rights expand, others diminish. For example, while supporting the rights of people with same-sex attraction to be free from discrimination in employment and housing, the church was in essence restricting the rights of landlords to choose their tenants and employers to choose their employees.

Many people think legalizing same-sex marriage is a necessary step to ensure that same-sex couples have the rights they need to protect their families from discrimination. They do not understand why they Church would be opposed to these rights. As stated earlier, the Church is not opposed to these rights, but adopting same-sex marriage as a national standard equivalent to opposite-sex marriage goes beyond simply living peacefully with those who choose to live a different standard. It is disregarding the old standard and replacing it with a new standard. This will have a detrimental effect on those who do not live up to the new standard.

==== New standard being introduced with same-sex marriage ====

The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is setting a dangerous standard of what is expected for people with same-sex attractions. It used to be that society expected people with same-sex attraction to get married to people of the opposite-sex. This type of expectation can cause damage for people with same-sex attraction who are not ready for marriage, and has been opposed by the Church for decades. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]]

Now, a new expectation is beginning to form that people with same-sex attraction can't have a fulfilling and faithful marriage with someone of the opposite sex and that they must marry someone of the same sex. Expectations of any sort are dangerous and hurt people who do not meet those expectations. About half of faithful members of the Church with same-sex attraction are heterosexually married, and many others have found fulfillment in celibacy. The new standard being adopted by several courts does not have room for these faithful members.

For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that, for people with same-sex attraction, their "choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex", and that was what their "true identity" should be. Later, Judge Walker ruled that the marriages of many members of the church with same-sex attraction was "unrealistic". The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that these relationships were "unappealing" and was "no right at all".

While many same-sex marriage supporters do not wish to harm those who follow the law of chastity, many major organizations have actively sought to take away rights from those people who do not live up to the new standard. For example, the Human Rights Campaign has actively opposed anti-discrimination employment rights for gay people who do not have gay sex.[http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/victory-disney-shareholders-reject-ex-gay-proposal/] It is ironic that while the Church has been actively lobbying to extend employment rights for all LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign has worked and has succeeded in taking away those exact same rights from LGBT people who live Church standards.

By the Supreme Courts encoding this new standard into law, people with same-sex attraction who do not live up to the standard can be discriminated against in the private sector. For example, Apple recently removed an app from its iTune collection because the organization who put it up was composed of gay Christians who lived the law of chastity. A spokesperson for Apple explained that having an app for gay people who live the law of chastity "violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people". [http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/03/apple-removes-exodus-anti-lgbt-iphone-app/][http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-responds-to-apple-petition-to-pull-gay-cure-app-49513/][http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/23/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-following-controversy/] There is a difference between seeking for the right to live an alternative lifestyle and taking away rights from those who do not choose your lifestyle because you find it "offensive". It is interesting to note this organization has made a statement supporting people's right to choose same-sex relationships.[http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm]
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Isn't the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary ====
President McKay taught:
<blockquote>
There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.com/howtoreach.html]
</blockquote>

==== The priesthood ban was not based on a choice ====
Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

==== It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed ====

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:
<blockquote>
"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."<ref>Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, ''The Teachings of President Brigham Young'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard. ====

President Hinckley taught:
<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.<ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=969567700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a]</ref>
</blockquote>

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

==== 1983 ====

<blockquote>
Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, '''but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord.''' For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2012 ====
<blockquote>
Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. '''That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change.''' As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "How To Survive in Enemy Territory," address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2013 ====
<blockquote>
Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, '''the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.'''<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.'''<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity," video, [1:01-1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Central to God’s plan, '''the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and [https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions will not change].'''" "If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, '''that is incorrect.''' Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, '''traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.'''<ref>Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, "LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment," Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also "Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage," press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda—same-sex-marriage</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2015 ====
<blockquote>
When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "'''No.'''"<ref>Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2016 ====
<blockquote>
'''There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right.''' But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction," https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:'''

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.<ref>"Church Leaders," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2019 ====
<blockquote>
These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. '''The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.'''<ref>Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2020 ====
McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for ''The Atlantic'', quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):
<blockquote>
But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, "God loves all his children, just like you and I do," and "There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church." But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. '''"As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law," he said. "We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now."'''<ref>McKay Coppins, "The Most American Religion," ''The Atlantic'', December 18, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2022 ====
President Dallin H. Oaks:

<blockquote>
Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.<ref>Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," ''Church News'', April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.</ref>
</blockquote>

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

==== Scriptural precedence ====

* Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|Christ's teachings on homosexuality]])
* The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

==== It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. ====
As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"<ref>{{s||Mosiah|18|9}}.</ref> As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."<ref>"Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Question ====
Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

=== Response to Question ===
==== Feelings are Not Being ====
It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Is-Ought Fallacy] in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.<ref>Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.</ref>

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:
<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book ''Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self'', award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

==== The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage ====
We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
:16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
:17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:
#Marriage is ordained of God
#Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
#We were designed by God to be married this way.
#Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
#We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

<blockquote>
The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A "unifying good" is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.
 
Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.

They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called "common law marriage").

The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, "Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together." That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.<ref>"The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," ''Discussing Marriage'', accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.</ref>
</blockquote>

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

=== Objections to Church Standard ===
==== The Argument from Personal Revelation ====
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}}) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

{{Main|How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?}}

==== The Argument from Priesthood Restriction ====
As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

{{Main|Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?}}

=== Conclusion ===
Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8–9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in {{s||Mosiah|18|8-9}} and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

{{Seealso|Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?}}
}}

==== Aversion Therapy ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s ====

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

==== In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality ====

The Church is a religious body, not a medical institution. People who are members of the Church or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a member or for everything done by someone at BYU (despite what one might think, not everyone at BYU is a member of the Church).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

==== The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done ====

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the Church.

==== Academic freedom at BYU ====
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|58|26}} reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy'' ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

<blockquote>
Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.
</blockquote>

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.
</blockquote>

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.
</blockquote>

==== In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences ====

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

=== Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Vomiting was not used ====

McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

<blockquote>
The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]
</blockquote>

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come f{{s||rom:|1|}}) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

=== Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Participation was voluntary ====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

=== How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Aversion therapy is a standard technique that is still used today for a variety of treatments ====

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." <ref>Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010</ref> The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

<blockquote>
A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. <ref>[http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s ====

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

==== History of therapy and homosexuality ====

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." <ref>Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156</ref> Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). <ref>[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007</ref>

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" <ref>"Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994</ref> and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

<blockquote>
Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). <ref>[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. </ref>
</blockquote>

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

==== Aversion therapy at other institutions ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{{AversionTherapyatHospitals}}
</center>

==== Purpose of psychological therapy ====

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Boyd K. Packer Oktober 2010 Konferenzansprache]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Das Gesetz des Mose]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Neigungen und Gefühle oder Handlungen]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Was Christus darüber lehrte]]
[[en:Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?]]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Transgenderism

2026-04-02T14:36:03Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Mormonism and gender issues|Social Issues in the Church]] | Transgenderism
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{Summary1}} This page answers questions and criticisms of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it regards transgenderism.
----
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Question: If gender is "enforced", is it true that it can't be immutable?===
| state = closed
| content =
===Introduction to Question===
On February 21, 2020, progressive Latter-day Saint scholar of gender studies and early Christianity Taylor G. Petrey published an opinion piece in the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' entitled “[https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/21/taylor-g-petrey-if/ Taylor G. Petrey: If biology was immutable, it wouldn’t need to be enforced]”. Petrey took aim at the Church’s then-recently-published policies for transgender individuals. The entire article, no longer than 10 paragraphs, will be reproduced below. Following the reproduction of the article, we will provide commentary on it and respond to several of Petrey’s points. Throughout the article, we will highlight in green the portions of Petrey’s article that we will respond to.
----
Cassandra Hedelius, a member of the FAIR board, presented more on the wisdom of the Church's current transgender policies at the 2022 FAIR Conference. A transcript of her remarks can be found [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2022-fair-conference/compassion-and-evidence here].

A video of Hedelius' presentation is found below.

<embedvideo service="youtube">v=yI3uc0zHYfk</embedvideo>
----
====Taylor G. Petrey, “Taylor G. Petrey: If biology was immutable, it wouldn’t need to be enforced”===-
On Feb. 19, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly released a new “[https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/02/19/lds-church-puts-new/ General Handbook],” a guide for church teachings and policies. There were a number of updates, but among them were new teachings about [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number118 transgender individuals]. In addition, the church launched a new website resources on “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng Transgender].” The new teachings relax earlier church policies in some ways, but remain committed to a belief in a fixed and immutable “sex” identity that is increasingly discredited.

The new changes are significant. In sum, the old policies outlined that “elective transsexual surgery” would result in excommunication from the church. The old policy was more narrow in prohibiting only surgical transition, leaving a gray area for “social” and hormonal transitions.

In contrast, the new policy explicitly discourages non-surgical transitions, but otherwise seems more accommodating. It allows for trans individuals to use their preferred pronouns in church and on church records, to be baptized and attend and participate in church meetings. Those who transition will not be excommunicated, but transitioning will result in restrictions of certain aspects of church membership, including the ability to exercise priesthood (perform blessings and participate in rituals), participate in rituals in LDS temples and receive some, but not all, church callings.

While those who are affected by these policy changes might laud or lament aspects of the new teachings, it is clear that the church is more inclusive than it used to be on this issue, even if it restricts the freedoms that some leaders offered the trans members of their congregations.

The new pastoral website “[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng Transgender]” counsels individuals who have transitioned or are transitioning, as well as their families. It advises about the restrictions on church membership, but encourages communities, families, and individuals to be open, supporting, and loving of those who transition.

The new teachings attempt to straddle an impossible compromise. On one hand, church leaders have become increasingly explicit that “gender” is an immutable aspect of one’s eternal identity, going so far as to reinterpret the 1995 Proclamation on the family to refer to “biological sex at birth.” On the other hand, the recognition of the ambiguities of intersex persons (another [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number125 updated entry] in the “General Handbook”), and the [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/transgender/understanding?lang=eng admission] that “the Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender,” leave “biology” an ambiguous arbiter of a supposedly fixed characteristic.

Today, scientists generally [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/sex-biology-binary.html reject the idea of a fixed “biological sex,”] since there is no single universal biological marker of sexual difference, let alone one that would determine social concepts like what kinds of clothing one should wear or what bathroom one should use.

Though the new policy appeals to “biological sex,” it also reveal the ways that such a concept carries social, not scientific value in LDS thought. While LDS teachings today no longer replicate the false teachings of earlier leaders that transgender identity is a species of homosexuality, and no longer speculate on its causes, the shifting reasons for opposing transgender practices still indicate that bodies alone, or “biological sex,” does not establish gender identity.

The new policy demonstrates this point in stark terms. The discouragement of “social transitioning,” including practices like pronouns, dress and other forms of self presentation, undermine the claim that what is at stake is “biological sex.” The focus on these “social” practices show that “sex” here functions as a social norm, not a biological fact. There is no biological reason for restricting these social practices. The policy reveals that enforcing social boundaries between male and female remains the primary goal.

If biology was so immutable, it wouldn’t need to be ecclesiastically enforced. In spite of themselves, these new guidelines show that for Latter-day Saints, gender is what one does, not what one is or has. The admission that even biology cannot be the universal arbiter of a sexual identity, and the allowance of trans identities in albeit limited ways, reveal that ultimately “sex” here is a fluid social category, not a fixed biological one.

===Response to Criticisms===
====Biological Sex is Not Discredited====
The first incredibly obvious point is that biological sex is not being discredited at all. 98% of all people on earth identify as male or female, are genetically-constructed male or female, have male or female reproductive organs, and produce male or female gametes. This represents the truth articulated by President Spencer W. Kimball that "With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female."<ref>Spencer W. Kimball, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/11/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng God Will Not Be Mocked]," ''Ensign'' 4, no. 11 (November 1974): 8.</ref>

====How Does Petrey Know that The Brethren Have "Reinterpreted" The Family Proclamation?====
Petrey presents no evidence for the assertion that the Brethren have "reinterpreted" the family proclamation.

====Biological Sex Can Still Be a Marker of Eternal Identity====
Since 98% of all people on earth identify as male or female, are genetically-constructed male or female, have male or female reproductive organs, and produce male or female gametes, biological sex can represent an eternal identity for those 98% of people. It can also represent an eternal identity for transgender people. Indeed, if we have female reproductive organs, female sex chromosomes, and produce female gametes and our brain tells us that we are not a member of the biological sex our body is organized as, then there is clearly an underlying mental disorder. Why is it that the liberal faction of the medical establishment is trying to mainstream conforming our bodies to our mental content rather than our mental content to our bodies? The latter has almost always been typical approach for healing since it helps us bring our minds into acceptance of reality.

There are intersex individuals and they certainly complicate the picture. Perhaps in the future our Heavenly Father will reveal more about how intersex people fit into the plan. Perhaps patriarchs can reveal the underlying gender of a person's spirit. It's not a current practice of the Church, but it is a logical possibility for what can come in the future.

====Scientists Do Not Generally Reject the Notion of A Fixed Biological Sex====
Scientists do not generally reject the notion of a fixed biological sex. Petrey cites a ''New York Times'' opinion piece by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Fausto-Sterling Anne Fausto-Sterling], a notoriously liberal and controversial sexologist to represent this "scientific majority" Petrey has in mind.

Scientists and even lay people can recognize that maleness is intelligible by recognizing the ensemble of genetic, biological, and phenotypic characteristics that make up the vast majority of males and females. Men have XY chromosomes, produce sperm, have male reproductive organs, and are organized for impregnation. Women have XX sex-chromosomes, produce ova, have female reproductive organs, and are organized for conception.

====The Social Policies of Church Leaders May Have More to Do With Brain Plasticity====
Petrey's point that policies against social transitioning show that gender is more about a social practice rather than a biological marker of identity is also dubious. This since we know about the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity neuroplasticity]. The brain can reorganize its synapses to adapt to new environments and learn new habitual behaviors. Doing things that make us learn maleness and femaleness is important for the development of our gender identity. Taking social transitioning as a serious option for transgender care can condition the merely intellectually curious to develop synapses that make them actually believe they are a member of the sex they were not born as. For those suffering with gender dysphoria, it can create or intensify desires for cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and "corrective" surgeries to alter their appearance and biological sex. These treatments are not conducive to helping a gender dysphoric individual come to accept and be comfortable with their biological sex which should be the ultimate goal for any in the medical field who have taken the Hippocratic oath.

====There are Biologically-Determined, Sex-Specific, Psychobehavioral Differences Between Men and Women====
For what it's worth, majority opinion in the scientific community is that there are indeed biologically-determined, sex-specific, psychobehavioral differences between men and women. Thus, even "gender roles" and gendered behavior unique to male and female have a biological basis.<ref>Bruce Goldman, "Two minds: the cognitive differences between men and women," ''Stanford Medicine'', Stanford University, May 7, 2021, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html; John Stossel, "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain," ''YouTube'', October 15, 2019, video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTEi2-FAEZE; David C. Geary, "The Real Causes of Human Sex Differences," ''Quilette'', October 20, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/20/the-real-causes-of-human-sex-differences/; ''Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences'', 3rd ed. (Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020). Indeed, every single cell of our body is influenced by our sex. See Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences; Theresa M. Wizemann, Mary-Lou Pardue, eds., ''Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?'' (Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US), 2001), Executive Summary, 2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/#!po=1.11111. For further info on male-female neuroanatomy and psychobehavior, see Amber N. V. Ruigrock et. al, “[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011 A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure],” ''Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews'' 39 (2014): 34–50; Larry Cahill, “[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359593/ A Half-Truth is a Whole Lie: On the Necessity of Investigating Sex Influences on the Brain],” ''Endocrinology'' 153 (2012): 2542; “[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/his-brain-her-brain-2012-10-23/ His Brain, Her Brain],” Scientific American, October 1, 2012. For a paradigm of gender compatible with the Gospel, see Ryan T. Anderson, ''When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment'' (New York: Encounter, 2017), chap. 7. For the most thorough coverage of the literature exploring sex differences in neuroanatomy and psychobehavior in one book, see Charles Murray, ''Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class'' (New York: Twelve, 2020), 11–127.</ref>

===Conclusion===
All of these points show that biological sex can be and is a marker of eternal identity and one that is essential to "progress toward perfection and ultimately [realizing our] divine destiny as heirs of eternal life."<ref>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng ''The Family: A Proclamation to the World''], paragraph 3.</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal gender? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Criticism ====
Some secularist critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints point to the existence of intersex humans, people who experience gender dysphoria, or people who identify as transgender in order to invalidate the doctrine of eternal, binary gender.

''Intersex people'' are defined as those that:

<blockquote>
are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies."<ref>"Intersex," ''Wikipedia'', accessed January 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex.</ref>
</blockquote>

''Transgender people'' are those that identify with, dress as, and/or have gender-reassignment surgeries performed on them to become, identify with, and or act as a different gender than the one they were proclaimed to be at birth.

''Gender dysphoria'' is the dissonance caused by not identifying with the gender (male or female) that one is proclaimed to be a part of at birth.

It is claimed that this invalidates the doctrine of gender as outlined by "The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World":

<blockquote>
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.<ref>"The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World," ''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', accessed January 4, 2019, {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true}}.</ref>
</blockquote>

It should be noted here that "gender" is used synonymously with "biological sex".<ref>"General Conference Leadership Meetings Begin," ''Church Newsroom'', accessed October 7, 2019, https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session. "'Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in The Family: A ''Proclamation'' to the World 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.' For example, 'the intended meaning of gender in the family ''Proclamation'' and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.'"</ref>

==== Our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female ====
One immediate point to make is that, according to the Family ''Proclamation'' above and the Doctrine and Covenants, our spirits are eternally gendered either male or female ( {{s||D&C|49|15-17}} ). A male or female spirit can still be housed in an intersex body. The existence of intersex individuals does not invalidate the possibility that we have male and female spirits only.

As it concerns transgender individuals, there are four logical possibilities:
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by their choice.
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong bodies by God's choice.
#Their spirit has legitimately been housed in the wrong body by the joint agreement of them and God.
#There is a deeper mental condition that doesn't allow their brains to accept that they actually belong to the right body.

We don't know which of these actually are happening. It's best to wait for science and revelation to converge. Eventually, we know they will. As President Russell M. Nelson has taught, "[t]here is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both[.]"<ref>"Elder Nelson: 'There Is No Conflict Between Science and Religion'," ''LDS Living'', April 17, 2015, {{link|ttps://www.ldsliving.com/Elder-Nelson-There-Is-No-Conflict-Between-Science-and-Religion-/s/78668}}.</ref>

==== Feelings are not being ====
Some may be offended by the last possibility. It does remain a logical possibility.

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity. He related it to sexuality but it can equally apply to gender dysphoria.

<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self, award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

These points demonstrate that we all have to seek out something else to determine identity that is enduring, real, and meaningful. Some of us turn to God for that identity. Others may subconsciously or consciously create some form of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism platonic] entity to ground our morality and identity i.e. "Love binds the universe. Love is my religion". But the basic point still stands—our feelings may be used to form identity, but that identity—the identity based in our feelings that we are having now—isn't enduring; and we must turn to the unseen world to form abiding and real identity.

==== The Argument from Personal Revelation ====
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that they are meant to identify as the gender that they currently identify as and/or that gender is not meant to be binary.

There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as transgender and other members of the Church who support transgenderism that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept transgenderism and so on in the future. Since this is an important theological topic that involves the entire human family and their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as transgender or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God ( {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|28|2-4}}; 42:53-60; 112:20). We should wait for the Lord to reveal more officially as to what is occuring with transgender individuals. As it regards those that have felt like they've received revelation that gender isn't binary, the Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}} ) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that gender is binary ( {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|28}} ). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits ( {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|50|1-2}} ) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels ( {{s||Alma|12|9}} ).

{{Related articles
|title=main
|link1=How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?
|summary1 =
|subject1=How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?
}}

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

{{Related articles
|title=seealso
|link1=If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?
|summary1 =
|subject1=If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples?
}}
}}
{{endnotes sources}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-01T04:41:52Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21; Mosiah 3:17; Alma 38:9; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 18:23).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-01T04:27:28Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (Helaman 5:9).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law, sin ignorantly, or die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54).
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-01T02:55:49Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (Helaman 5:9).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law and those that die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54)
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-04-01T01:23:19Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atonement, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (Helaman 5:9).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law and those that die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54)
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T23:40:34Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atoneent, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's name and Atonement are the only means by which mankind can be saved (Helaman 5:9).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; 4:2; Alma 24:13; Helaman 5:9; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14; Mosiah 3:18). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law and those that die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16, 18; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54)
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T23:27:18Z

SpencerMarsh:

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atoneent, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Mosiah 3:16; Alma 24:13; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). Christ was a god at the time He performed the Atonement (Alma 42:15). He became fully divine at the time that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him at His Baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 93:15–19). The Atonement is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law and those that die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:11, 16; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7). The age of accountability is eight years old (Doctrine and Covenants 68:25–27; JST Genesis 17:11).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54)
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T23:16:17Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Scriptural Requirements */

__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
{{UnderConstructionSuggestions}}
'''Summary:''' Why did Jesus have to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of mankind? Why could not God have simply forgiven men for their sins when they repented and turned to Him without requiring Jesus to die? These are the central questions of Atonement theory. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official Atonement theory, the questions posed are important to answer for Christian and Latter-day Saint belief. This page will combine scripture and philosophy to propose an unofficial though strong theory as to why Christ had to die.
----
====Scriptural Requirements====
The requirements for a theory of Atonement are outlined in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets and apostles.

The words most often used for Christ's action are "save," "redeem," and "atone" and the corresponding nouns atoneent, savior, salvation, redeemer, and redemption.<ref>T. Benjamin Spackman, "Atonement in the Old Testament: Implications for Latter-day Saints," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 15–30.</ref><ref>Eric D. Huntsman, "Latter-day Saints and the Atonement in the New Testament," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nicole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois, 2024), 31–67.</ref>

# The Atonement was planned from before the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6–7; Alma 13:3–5).
# Christ's Atonement is ''necessary'' rather than ''supererogatory'' (Alma 34:9; 42:15; Helaman 14:15; Jacob 7:12). It was necessary to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament (Luke 24:46), bring about our salvation (Alma 34:9; 42:15), and reconcile us to God (Hebrews 2:17; Jacob 4:11).
# Christ's ''blood''—shed in Gethsemane and on the cross—atones for our sins (Alma 24:13; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69).
# Christ's Atonement somehow justifies us (Romans 3:21–4:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30) and sanctifies us (Mosiah 3:19; Doctrine and Covenants 76:69) through our faith.
# Christ's Atonement is said to "ransom" us (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6). In some way, we were "bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20).
# Christ's Atonement is not merely ''expiatory'' in that it brings us back to union with God (Jacob 4:11), but ''propitiatory'' in that it appeases God's wrath against our sin (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:1–2; 4:10; Doctrine and Covenants 45:3–5).
# The Atonement cannot declare Christ "guilty" or ''punish'' him for our sins (Alma 34:11).
# The author of 1 Peter declares, "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).
# Paul wrote, "''I am crucified with Christ'': nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:19–20, emphasis added). To the Romans, he wrote, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore ''we are buried with him by baptism into death'': that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3–4, emphasis added).
# The Atonement delivers humanity from "that awful monster, death and hell"; from "the devil, and death, and hell" (2 Nephi 9:10,19); from “this evil world” (Galatians 1:4). Christ's Atonement "destroy[s] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Hebrews 2:14). Christ's Atonement "delivers [us] who through fear of death were all [our] lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:15).
# Christ's Atonement covers the whole world and not merely a limited group of people that believe in Him (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Nephi 25:16; Mosiah 4:7; Alma 34:8; 36:17; Articles of Faith 1:3)
# The Atonement ended the practice of offering sacrifice and burnt offerings for sin (3 Nephi 9:19).
# Christ's Atonement was superior to the system of animal sacrifice because animal sacrifice could not perfect the conscience (Hebrews 9:9–14).
# Performance of the various, prescribed rituals under the law of Moses could not provide salvation to those that performed those sacrifices. The sacrifices only became efficacious ''because'' of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:15; Mosiah 13:28)
# As a result of Christ's Atonement and as a prerequisite for forgiveness, we must now offer Christ—not a sacrifice of animals—but the "sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (2 Nephi 2:7; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2).
# Those that do not repent are delivered unto the "demands of justice" (Alma 34:16). Christ has satisfied and appeased the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9; Alma 42:15).
# Christ's Atonement must be "infinite." It must be infinite in the sense that it must be done by a Divine Being (Alma 34:10–14). Men, being mortal, could not perform the Atonement (2 Nephi 9:6–7). It is also infinite in that it applies to ''all mankind'' (2 Nephi 25:16).
# The Atonement is ''retroactive'' in that it applies to those souls—and their individual sins—that came before the mortal life of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15; Mosiah 3:13).
# Christ's Atonement (2 Nephi 9:7; Moroni 7:41) and Resurrection (Alma 33:22; Moroni 7:41) brings about ''our'' resurrection. In the words of Alma, "the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead" (Alma 42:23). Christ, in this way, redeems us from the Fall (2 Nephi 2:26) and becomes the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45–47). Were the Atonement not infinite, our resurrection could not happen (2 Nephi 9:7). If we repent, we can be part of those who are resurrected ''first'', before anyone else (Jacob 4:11).
# Were it not for the Atonement, our redemption—including our reconciliation to God and resurrection—could not have happened (Alma 21:9).
# Christ's Atonement covers those that do not have the law and those that die before the age of accountability (2 Nephi 9:25–26; Mosiah 3:16; Moroni 8:20–22; Doctrine and Covenants 74:7).
# A punishment is affixed to various infractions of divine law so that the Atonement's purposes can be fulfilled (2 Nephi 2:10; Alma 42:15–16).
# Christ's Atonement redeems all mankind from original guilt (Moses 6:54)
# Christ's Atonement has not merely a ''salvific'' power, but also an ''enabling'' power whereby we are given strength against sin and greater fortitude in doing good that we would not have but for the Atonement.<ref>David A. Bednar, "[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2004/10/in-the-strength-of-the-lord?lang=eng In the Strength of the Lord]," ''Ensign'' 34, no. 11 (November 2004): 76–77.</ref>
# Christ's Atonement does ''not'' cover every kind of sin, as there are sins that are unforgivable. One sin that is described as such is murder while being a baptized member of the Church (Doctrine and Covenants 42:18).
# Christ does not currently suffer for our sins. His sacrifice, offered in the meridian of time, was the last sacrifice that will be offered for sins on this earth (John 4:34; 19:28–30; Hebrews 10:10–14; Alma 34:10; Doctrine and Covenants 19:19).
# The Savior's atoning sacrifice ''may'' be efficacious for people living on other worlds (besides this one) created by Him.<ref>Tad R. Callister, ''The Infinite Atonement'' (Deseret Book Company, 2000), 87–90.</ref>
# Christ's sufferings ''and'' ''death'' atone for ''sins'' (Alma 22:14).
# The Atonement was an act of mercy (Alma 42:23; Doctrine and Covenants 29:1).
# Were the Atonement not to happen, we would suffer "everlasting death" (2 Nephi 10:25).
# Alma 13:3–5: "And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such. And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren. Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared."

====Thought-To-Be-Scriptural Requirements====
There are several things that people might believe are scriptural requirements for a theory of Atonement but, actually, are not requirements.

# The Atonement does not necessarily allow Jesus Christ to experience, in some way, "the pains and sicknesses of his people," so that "he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:11–12). Scott C. Woodward, a professor of religion at BYU-Idaho, has demonstrated that the "empathetic aspect" of the Atonement is not borne out in scripture. Woodward is careful to say that a future, authoritative pronouncement might change that. However, for now, the idea is not scriptural.<ref>Scott C. Woodward, "[https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-close-look-at-scriptural-teachings-regarding-jesus-feeling-our-pains-as-part-of-his-atonement A Close Look at Scriptural Teachings Regarding Jesus Feeling Our Pains as Part of His Atonement]," ''BYU Studies Quarterly'' 62, no. 2 (2023): 23–41.</ref>

====General Considerations====
Two scholars of the Book of Mormon claim that the Book of Mormon does not present a single theory of Atonement.<ref>Nicholas J. Frederick, "'Atonement' in the Book of Mormon," in ''Latter-day Saint Perspectives on Atonement'', eds. Deidre Nichole Green and Eric D. Huntsman (University of Illinois Press, 2024), 94–96; Blake T. Ostler, "[https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/lds-perspectives-on-the-atonement LDS Perspectives on the Atonement?]" ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 62 (2024): 73.</ref> However, as Noel Reynolds has pointed out, "The Nephite sermons reference the power of the Father, the victory over death, the sufferings of Christ, and the notion of a divine kinsman redeeming his people from the captivity of the devil. Whereas these various features of the Atonement have been developed in Christian tradition as competing theories of atonement, the Nephite prophets understood them all as compatible pieces of one coherent explanation, which is fully elaborated by Jacob."<ref>Noel B. Reynolds, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/atonement The Atonement]," in ''New Testament History, Culture, and Society: A Background to the Texts of the New Testament'', ed. Lincoln H. Blumell (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2019), 355–56.</ref>

====The Classical Theories of Atonement====

=====Satisfaction Theory=====

=====Governmental Theory=====

=====Moral Influence Theory=====

=====Moral Example Theory=====

=====Penal Substitution Theory=====

=====Ransom Theory=====

=====Christus Victor Theory=====

====Emerging Theories====
=====Participationary Theories=====
=====Non-Violent Theories=====
=====Collective Theories=====

====Latter-day Saint Theories of Atonement====
=====Empathy Theory=====
=====Divine Infusion Theory=====
=====Demand of Intelligence Theory=====
=====Self-Rejection Moral Theory=====
=====Compassion Theory=====

====Theories Can Be Mixed====

====The Problem with Metaphors====
Most Atonement theorists would recognize that if one were to take all the metaphors that the scritpures use to illustrate the Atonement are taken literally and simultaneously affirmed, that would lead to contradictory results.

One scholar described some of the metaphors as "word-pictures" that simply illustrate the underlying intuitions behind the Atonement.

It's impossible to know what metaphors as "word-pictures" and which are to be taken literally.

However, any Atonement theory that does not attempt to take all the metaphors of scripture and attempt to explain ''how those metaphors can accurately get at the intuitions'' cannot be considered a theory that is thoroughly-grounded in scripture.

This article will propose a "mash-up" theory that makes sense of all of the metaphors.
{{endnotes label}}

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T22:15:05Z

SpencerMarsh: /* Scriptural Requirements */

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T22:03:21Z

SpencerMarsh:

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T21:24:31Z

SpencerMarsh:

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T21:07:54Z

SpencerMarsh:

Atonement Theory and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

2026-03-31T18:35:13Z

SpencerMarsh:

Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon's "Narrow Neck of Land"

2026-03-31T18:04:53Z

SpencerMarsh:

[[Book of Mormon]] | Mesoamerica and the "Narrow Neck of Land"
__NOTOC__
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Most Latter-day Saint scholars of the Book of Mormon accept a Mesoamerican setting for the events described in the book. Those scholars believe that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is the "narrow neck" referred to in the Book of Mormon, which separates the land northward from the land southward. Many question how the Isthmus of Tehuantepec could be the Book of Mormon's "narrow neck" when the Isthmus is 137 miles wide at its narrowest point.

FAIR takes no position on the geography of the Book of Mormon, but we do want to help those seeking a plausible setting for the events described in the Book of Mormon. Issues like these might allow people to dismiss Mesoamerica out of hand. Without a plausible setting for the Book of Mormon's events, people's testimony of the Book of Mormon's divine origins might founder. For this reason, the editors have decided to address two issues that might seem like easy reasons to dismiss the Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon. [[The Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican Directionality|The first relates to how Mesoamerica is geographically situated and the Book of Mormon's directionality]]. The second is the one this page responds to.

While scholars do not agree on a specific location for the narrow neck of land today, the proposals that have been given are all defensible. They are well-grounded in the text of the Book of Mormon as well as ancient topography and culture.
----
====The Narrow Neck of Land in the Context of the Book of Mormon====
In the Book of Mormon, the “narrow neck of land” is a geographic feature that functions as a critical connector and boundary within the narrative, separating the “land northward” from the “land southward.” The term appears most explicitly in the Jaredite record, where Ether 10:20 states that the Jaredites “built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land.” In the Nephite record, the same landform is described more indirectly. Alma 22:32 explains that the land southward and the land northward were “nearly surrounded by water,” with a “small neck of land” connecting them, and that the distance across this neck could be traversed “in a day and a half’s journey.” These passages suggest a relatively narrow land connection between two larger regions, flanked by bodies of water, and significant for travel and defense.

Closely related to the narrow neck of land are references to a “narrow pass” or “narrow passage,” which appear to denote more specific routes or chokepoints within or near this broader neck region. For example, Alma 52:9 and Alma 52:17 describe Nephite military efforts to control the “narrow pass which led by the sea, into the land northward,” indicating that access through the neck could be strategically restricted. Mormon 2:29 and Mormon 3:5 similarly place large-scale movements and final defensive efforts near the narrow passage and land northward. Together, these passages portray the narrow neck of land not merely as a geographic curiosity, but as a strategically vital corridor that shaped migration, settlement, and warfare. Within the text itself, therefore, the narrow neck of land is best understood as a transitional region—limited in breadth relative to surrounding lands, associated with nearby seas, and central to the political and military history recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Scholars have provided different proposals to the identity of the "narrow neck."

====The Isthmus of Tehuantepec====
The first proposal is that the narrow neck is to be identified in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. This proposal is defended by the likes of John Sorenson and Michael R. Ash.

In an article for ''Deseret News'', Ash defends the Isthmus as a promising candidate for the narrow neck of land described in Alma 22:32, despite its substantial width. The article explains that this region plausibly fits several narrative criteria: it is a constricted land connection between larger territories, it lies between significant bodies of water, and travel across part of it could reasonably be a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite if measured from inland delineations rather than strictly from sea to sea. Scholar John Sorenson’s observations about Nephite endurance and Lawrence Poulsen’s identification of local geographic features—such as cliffs and wilderness areas corresponding to Book of Mormon descriptions—provide context that makes the Tehuantepec isthmus a compelling real-world candidate, bolstering efforts by Latter-day Saints to correlate the text with ancient geography.<ref>Michael R. Ash, "Challenging Issues, Keeping the Faith: A journey across the 'narrow neck'," ''Deseret News'', March 7, 2011.</ref>
====Panama or southern Costa Rica====
In his article “The Narrow Neck of Land” (2008), Andrew H. Hedges reexamines this identification by focusing closely on scriptural descriptions of travel time and distance. He compares the day and day and a half journey references associated with the narrow neck to other distance statements in the Book of Mormon and argues that these passages reflect ordinary, not exceptional, travel speeds.
Hedges notes that if standard daylight travel distances are assumed, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec may be too wide to fit comfortably within the text’s constraints—particularly in light of passages that imply relatively rapid east–west movement across the narrow neck. He therefore questions whether Sorenson’s model relies on unusually high travel speeds in order to make the geography fit.

Based on these observations, Hedges suggests that narrower land connections in Central America, particularly in Panama (and possibly southern Costa Rica), may better align with the textual description of a neck of land narrow enough to cross within the stated travel time. These regions feature isthmian stretches closer to 30–50 miles between seas, which Hedges argues may correspond more naturally with the narrative geography.

Importantly, Hedges does not assert a definitive identification of the narrow neck of land. Rather, he emphasizes that alternative candidates should be considered and that geographic correlations should be driven primarily by the internal details of the text rather than by inherited assumptions.<ref>Andrew H. Hedges, "[https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-9-no-3-2008/narrow-neck-land The Narrow Neck of Land]," ''Religious Educator'' 9, no. 3 (2008): 151–160.</ref>

====Coastal Shelf of Southeastern Mexico====
Joe V. Andersen challenges the common assumption that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico corresponds to the Book of Mormon’s “narrow neck of land.” Building on earlier work by F. Richard Hauck, Andersen argues that this identification relies more on modern geographic analogy than on careful attention to the internal text. He emphasizes that the Book of Mormon distinguishes between a “small” or “narrow neck of land” and an east–west “line” separating the land Desolation from the land Bountiful (Alma 22:32), which functioned as a strategic and defensible boundary repeatedly referenced in the narrative.

Andersen contends that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec does not fit these descriptions because it runs primarily north–south, separates the Pacific Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico rather than the lands northward and southward, and lacks an identifiable east–west line running from the west sea as described in the text. Instead, he proposes that the Isthmus more plausibly represents part of the Jaredite land northward, while the “narrow neck of land” itself was a much narrower coastal corridor along the Pacific coast, providing limited access between the lands northward and southward. Andersen does not claim a definitive geographic solution but argues that the Tehuantepec isthmus should not be assumed to be the Book of Mormon narrow neck and that alternative interpretations better aligned with the text deserve serious consideration.<ref>Joe V. Andersen, "Isthmus of Tehuantepec: Not the 'Narrow Neck of Land'," ''Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum'', 2015, https://scripturecentral.org/archive/articles/web-article/isthmus-tehuantepec-not-narrow-neck-land.</ref>

====North American/Carribean Plate Boundary====
In his study “The Narrow Strip of Wilderness,” Kirk Magleby examines the Book of Mormon’s references to the narrow strip of wilderness—most clearly mentioned in Alma 22:27 but also described under related terms in Alma 22–50—and proposes a detailed geographic correlation grounded in the internal narrative rather than in preconceived modern locations. Magleby argues that the narrow strip of wilderness functioned as the principal boundary between the Nephite and Lamanite lands, running east–west from the east sea to the west sea, separating the greater land of Zarahemla to the north from the greater land of Nephi to the south. He reviews multiple scriptural passages that describe the feature as a wilderness at the head of the river Sidon, the line of possession between Nephites and Lamanites, and the southern boundary of Zarahemla.

Magleby develops 32 criteria for identifying this boundary on modern maps, emphasizing its linear and constricted character, its orientation, and its role as both a natural boundary and a defensible line. He proposes that the narrow strip corresponds to a distinct tectonic boundary feature—the North American/Caribbean plate boundary—which forms a long, relatively narrow band of cliffs and east-west running valleys from present-day Livingston, Guatemala to near Huixtla, Chiapas, Mexico. According to Magleby, this feature satisfies the textual requirements of the Book of Mormon and is consistent with the wilderness characteristics implied in the text: it is narrow relative to its length, lies between major drainage basins, runs from sea to sea, and would have served as a natural defensive barrier and boundary between peoples. He further argues that light ancient occupation patterns along this line are compatible with wilderness terrain described in the narrative.

Magleby's is the most exhaustive and wide-ranging study to date. It's a promising candidate for the Book of Mormon's ancient "narrow neck."<ref>Kirk Magleby, "The Narrow Strip of Wilderness," ''Book of Mormon Resources'', April 10, 2013, https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/magleby/2016-04-28/kirk_magleby_the_narrow_strip_of_wilderness_4-10-2013.pdf.</ref>

{{endnotes sources}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2026-03-31T15:04:05Z

SpencerMarsh:

{{Main Page}}
__NOTOC__
{{Navigation:Social issues}}{{blankline}}
{{Header}}
'''Summary:''' Several questions have arisen regarding the Church's approach to relations with the LGBT community. This page responds to those questions.
----
====General Questions About Identity====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?===
| state = closed
| content = The Church does not reject those who are attracted to those of their own sex. If such attraction leads to an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered sinful, just as sexual acts outside of marriage are for heterosexuals.

In 1998, President Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves ... gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1999, President Hinckley taught:

<blockquote>
"As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While President Hinckley avoided directly labeling anyone as gay or lesbian, he was directing his welcome to those who did make use of the label. He did not say that only those who shun the label are welcome, but specifically said that those who considered themselves to be gay could move forward as all other members do. There was no request for them to hide their identity or to change their vocabulary.

In general, Church leaders recommend against labeling anyone, including yourself. Labels detract from our divine nature as children of God. President Russell M. Nelson has counselled us about such things in areas far beyond sexual desire or orientation:

{{Set off quote 1
|color =
|image=Russell Nelson 2018 Portrait.png
|I believe that if the Lord were speaking to you directly tonight, the first thing He would make sure you understand is your true identity. My dear friends, you are literally spirit children of God. ...

Labels ''can'' be fun and indicate your support for any number of positive things. Many labels will change for you with the passage of time. And not all labels are of equal value. But if any label replaces your most important identifiers, the results can be spiritually suffocating. ...

''Who are you?'' First and foremost, you are a child of God.

Second, as a member of the Church, you are a child of the covenant. And third, you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Tonight, I plead with you not to ''replace'' these three paramount and unchanging identifiers with any others, because doing so could stymie your progress or pigeonhole you in a stereotype that could potentially thwart your eternal progression.

For example, if you are identified mainly as an American, those who are not Americans may think, “I know everything there is to know about you” and attribute erroneous beliefs to you.

If you identify yourself by your political affiliation, you will instantly be categorized as having certain beliefs—though I don’t know anyone who believes everything that their preferred political party presently embraces.

We could go on and on, rehearsing the constraints of various labels that we put on ourselves or that other people place upon us. ...

How tragic it is when someone believes the label another person has given them. ...

[Satan] rejoices in labels because they divide us and restrict the way we think about ourselves and each other. How sad it is when we honor labels more than we honor each other.

Labels can lead to judging and animosity. Any ''abuse'' or ''prejudice'' toward another because of nationality, race, sexual orientation, gender, educational degrees, culture, or other significant identifiers is offensive to our Maker! Such mistreatment causes us to live beneath our stature as His covenant sons and daughters!

There are various labels that may be very important to you, of course. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that other designations and identifiers are not significant. I am simply saying that no identifier should ''displace'', ''replace'', or ''take priority over'' these three enduring designations: “child of God,” “child of the covenant,” and “disciple of Jesus Christ.”

Any identifier that is not compatible with these three basic designations will ultimately let you down. Other labels will disappoint you in time because they do not have the power to lead you toward eternal life in the celestial kingdom of God.

Worldly identifiers will never give you a vision of who you can ultimately become. They will never affirm your divine DNA or your unlimited, divine potential.<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Choices for Eternity," Worldwide Devotional for Young Single Adults, 15 May 2022 {[link|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson?lang=eng}}</ref>}}

This counsel can also apply to using the label "straight" or "gay" to refer to children of God. In 1995, Elder Oaks taught:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words ''homosexual'', ''lesbian'', and ''gay'' are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual ''behavior''.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The way we think about such things can determine whether we apply a theological lens to them, as Bishop Keith B. McMullin taught in 2010:

<blockquote>
When I was a youngster, my mother discouraged me from using common language when speaking of sacred or special things. For example, instead of referring to an expectant mother as being pregnant, she encouraged me to say "she is expecting a baby." In Mother’s view, the latter description was more respectful and reverential, the former more clinical and common. Her teachings have had a salient effect upon me. The older I become, the more meaningful is her wisdom. The more we see and speak of intimate things as mere biology, the less likely we are to view and understand them in the context of exalting theology.
</blockquote>

Church leaders have, therefore, consistently emphasized that such temptations and desires do not form a core or irreducible part of our nature. As Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

<blockquote>
And so, now to the subject. To introduce it I must use a word. ... Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptations. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one. <ref>{{Book:Packer:To The One}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== This explains why Latter-day Saints often refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" ====

Latter-day Saint doctrine emphasizes that people are not the sum of their desires, temptations, or sins. Secular evidence suggests that those who self-identify with their desires in this way are more likely to engage in acts which the gospel of Christ teaches are sinful.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out a natural human tendency to use a single facet of our personality or experience as a large part of a self-definition:

<blockquote>
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Our choice of terminology should not be construed to deny others the privilege of choosing their own acts or self-labels ====

When labels such as "homosexual," or "heterosexual", and labels such as "gay," "lesbian," or "straight" are used by members of the Church, this terminology should be understood to:
* reflect the self-understanding of those referred to; ''or''
* serve as an adjective (e.g., "gay activists" are those [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|working politically]] on behalf of those who self-identify as gay; or "heterosexual marriage" is a marriage between two people of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation).

=== The language used to describe people or phenomena influences how we perceive or think about them. ===

==== Definition of sexual orientation ====
The American Psychological Association {APA) gives the following definition for sexual orientation:

<blockquote>
"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." <ref>"[http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx Orientation]," American Psychological Association (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>
</blockquote>

The term sexual orientation in and of itself is ambiguous. There are many members of the Church who are primarily attracted to the same sex, but their sense of identity and community is more closely connected to a heterosexual lifestyle. Depending on which definition of sexual orientation that being used, the same person may have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation.

The APA notes further: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." <ref>{{nc}}</ref>

Thus having same-sex attractions, participating in same-sex relationships, and identifying as gay or lesbian are three separate things.

A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same sex have never engaged in homosexual behavior. Of those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, only 13% of men and 4% of women who so identified have never engaged in homosexual behavior. <ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).
</blockquote>

==== Identity and behavior ====

Some use a self-identity as "homosexual" to imply or argue that ''acting'' on homosexual desires is an inevitable or proper outcome, since it is simply "who I am." The Church teaches, rather, that our temptations, unhealthy desires, or sins do not define who we are as children of God.

==== Definition of homosexuality, homosexual, and gay ====
In regards to the terms homosexual, lesbian and gay, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.
</blockquote>

In regards to the term homosexuality, Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
the First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the practices of homosexuality.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

How does this compare with the dictionary? The ''American Heritage Dictionary'' defines ''homosexual'' as someone exhibiting ''homosexuality''. It defines ''homosexuality'' as:

# Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
# Sexual activity with another of the same sex. <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality Definition of Homosexuality], ''dictionary.reference.com'', s.v. "homosexuality," (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref>

Both the dictionary and Elder Oaks illustrate that ''homosexual'' can refer to thoughts or behaviors. Latter-day Saints may wish to communicate one thing about their thoughts, but quite another by their behavior. They therefore often choose language that makes this distinction clear.

==== Avoiding using gay as a noun ====
With regards to using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.<ref>{{NC}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style'' gives a similar warning against using ''gay'' as a noun:

<blockquote>
Gay is often considered objectionable when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in "There were two gays on the panel"; here phrasing such as "Two members of the panel were gay" should be used instead. <ref>[[http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=%22Gay+is+often+considered+objectionable+when+used+as+a+noun+to+refer+to+particular+individuals,+as+in+%22There+were+two+gays+on+the+panel%22;+here+phrasing+such+as+%22Two+members+of+the+panel+were+gay%22+should+be+used+instead.%22&source=bl&ots=225hcickre&sig=RibPu7wKH1p58B8edHK1dB9e5bg&hl=en&ei=iWPxTIelBcSblgevg52kDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Gay%20is%20often%20considered%20objectionable%20when%20used%20as%20a%20noun%20to%20refer%20to%20particular%20individuals%2C%20as%20in%20%22There%20were%20two%20gays%20on%20the%20panel%22%3B%20here%20phrasing%20such%20as%20%22Two%20members%20of%20the%20panel%20were%20gay%22%20should%20be%20used%20instead.%22&f=false ''American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style''] (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 201.</ref>
</blockquote>

According to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide, many newspapers have also advised their newspaper writers to avoid using gay as a noun. <ref>[http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=380 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) Media reference guide] (last accessed 27 November 2010).</ref> They cite the following examples:

''New York Times'':
<blockquote>
Do not use gay as a singular noun. Gays, a plural noun, may be used only as a last resort, ordinarily in a hard-to-fit headline.
</blockquote>

''Washington Post'':
<blockquote>
When it is necessary to mention it, gay may be used as an adjective but not as a noun, except as a plural: gay man, gay woman, gay people, gays. Not a gay ...

Often, simply reporting the facts obviates the need for labels. Describing a slaying, for instance, should suffice without referring to it as a homosexual slaying. Ask yourself if you would use the term heterosexual slaying. In a recent story, a man "charged" that his former wife "was a lesbian" as if it were a slur, when simply alleging an affair between the ex-wife and the other woman would suffice.

Be wary of using homosexual as a noun. In certain contexts, it can be seen as a slur.
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have Church leaders taught about the distinction between desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content = Those who claim that the Church has long condemned those who had homosexual feelings or inclinations regardless of whether they acted upon such feelings have not accurately reflected the long-standing teaching of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Recent teaching of this doctrine is not a novelty, but merely an emphasis of that which has been long taught.

==== We are held accountable for things that we can choose. We are not held accountable for things outside of our control ====

This principle applies to sexual thoughts and actions. Church leaders have always taught that we need to learn to control our sexual actions. Our sexual natures are sacred, and should only be shared between a husband and a wife. But this law is not limited to sexual acts, but includes sexual feelings. The church teaches members to "never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage". It is the intentional stimulation of sexual feelings that is prohibited, not merely having sexual feelings. This standard applies equally to all.

==== D&C ====

In a revelation given to William E. McLellin, the Lord reveals some of the feelings of McLellin:

<blockquote>
Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled. (D&C 66:10)
</blockquote>

Even though he had been troubled with thoughts of adultery (there is no indication whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature) the Lord still gave the following praise:

<blockquote>
Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servant William E. McLellin—Blessed are you, inasmuch as you have turned away from your iniquities, and have received my truths, saith the Lord your Redeemer, the Savior of the world, even of as many as believe on my name. (D&C 10:1)
</blockquote>

==== 1980 ====

President Spencer W. Kimball, in one of the first extensive treatments of this topic by a President of the Church regarding homosexual acts, was clear about the difference between the temptation and the act. That distinction has persisted in LDS discourse and teaching ever since:

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such '''desires and tendencies''', he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this '''practice''' with a vigor equal to his condemnation of '''adultery and other such sex acts'''. And the Church will excommunicate as readily '''any unrepentant addict'''.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

We note that homosexuality is compared to ''acts'' such as petting, fornication, or adultery. Those who are excommunicated are those who are unrepentant persist as "addicts": i.e., those who will not desist.

<blockquote>
Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, '''like fornication''', is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means '''total abandonment''' and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such '''behavior''' from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the '''practice'''. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which can be defiled.<ref>{{NC}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Again, the "behavior," and "practice" are that which is condemned.

President Kimball continued:

<blockquote>
James said: 'A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. … 'Blessed is the man that '''endureth temptation''': for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

'Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

'Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

'Do not err, my beloved brethren' (James1:8,12-16).
</blockquote>

Again, one is tempted but it requires a sinful ''response'' to temptation from our own lust to "bring...forth sin."

<blockquote>
'God made me that way,' some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. 'I can’t help it,' they add. This is blasphemy. ... Man is '''responsible for his own sins'''. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. '''The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted'''. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. ...

"Be wise in the days of your probation," said Mormon, "strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God" (Moroni 9:28).<ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Kimball emphasizes that some may be more vulnerable or susceptible to this temptation (or any other temptation) but emphasizes that one is only unworthy (or sinful) if he yields to temptation.

President Kimball had high hopes that people could overcome the practice of homosexuality, but warned that the feelings could well remain and need to be controlled on an on-going basis. He said:

<blockquote>
In a few months, some have totally mastered themselves ... We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.
</blockquote>

==== 1987 ====

President Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. ... Mankind has been given agency to choose between right and wrong. ... Mental control must be stronger than physical appetites or desires of the flesh. As thoughts are brought into complete harmony with revealed truth, actions will then become appropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1988 ====

In 1988, Elder Dalin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:

<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Free Agency and Freedom," Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; an edited version is available in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1991 ====

The First Presidency wrote in 1991:

<blockquote>
There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.<ref>First Presidency, letter, 14 November 1991.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1994 ====
Elder Richard G. Scott:

<blockquote>
'''Some bad thoughts come by themselves'''. Others come because we invite them by what we look at and listen to. ... The mind can think of only one thing at a time. Use that fact to crowd out ugly thoughts. Above all, don’t feed thoughts by reading or watching things that are wrong. If you don’t control your thoughts, Satan will keep tempting you until you eventually act them out.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Making the Right Choices|date=October 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/making-the-right-choices?lang=eng}}, {{ea}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1995 ====

In 1995, Elder Oaks stated:
<blockquote>
Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)....

Persons cannot continue to engage in serious sin and remain members of the Church. And discipline can be given for encouraging sin by others. There is no Church discipline for improper thoughts or feelings (though there is encouragement to improve them), but there are consequences for behavior. ...

[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior," the Presidency added: "Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World|date=Women's Meeting, Sept 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They [the feelings or temptations] may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations. One is held accountable for transgression. (See {{s||D&C|101|78}}; {{s||A+of+F|1|2}}). If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/-the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in {{s|1|Corinthians|16|16}}: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====

In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland published an article in the ''Ensign'', which read in part:

<blockquote>
A pleasant young man in his early 20s sat across from me. He had an engaging smile, although he didn’t smile often during our talk. What drew me in was the pain in his eyes.

"I don’t know if I should remain a member of the Church," he said. "I don’t think I’m worthy."

"Why wouldn’t you be worthy?" I asked.

"I’m gay."

I suppose he thought I would be startled. I wasn’t. "And … ?" I inquired.

A flicker of relief crossed his face as he sensed my continued interest. "I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. I’ve tried to ignore these feelings or change them, but …"

He sighed. "Why am I this way? The feelings are very real."

I paused, then said, "I need a little more information before advising you. You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings. Do you violate the law of chastity?"

He shook his head. "No, I don’t."

This time I was relieved. "Thank you for wanting to deal with this," I said. "It takes courage to talk about it, and I honor you for keeping yourself clean.

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

He sat up a little straighter. I continued, "You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son of God, and He loves you.

"What’s more, I love you. My Brethren among the General Authorities love you. I’m reminded of a comment President Boyd K. Packer made in speaking to those with same-gender attraction. ‘We do not reject you,’ he said. ‘… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’ "

We talked for another 30 minutes or so. Knowing I could not be a personal counselor to him, I directed him to his local priesthood leaders. Then we parted. I thought I detected a look of hope in his eyes that had not been there before. Although he yet faced challenges to work through—or simply endure—I had a feeling he would handle them well.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>

He went on to emphasize: "[L]et me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy. ... If you do not act on temptations, you have not transgressed."
</blockquote>

In a Church booklet published in 2007, the Church taught:

<blockquote>
Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has set—that sexuality be expressed "only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). ''The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven''. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. ...

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to ''resist all improper conduct'', keeping your life free from sin.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}, {{ia}}}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2009 ====

D. Todd Christopherson:

<blockquote>
All of us experience temptations. So did the Savior, but He "gave no heed unto them" (D&C 20:22). Similarly, we do not have to yield simply because a temptation surfaces. We may want to, but we don’t have to. An incredulous female friend asked a young adult woman, committed to living the law of chastity, how it was possible that she had never "slept with anybody." "Don’t you want to?" the friend asked. The young woman thought: "The question intrigued me, because it was so utterly beside the point. … Mere wanting is hardly a proper guide for moral conduct."

In some cases, temptation may have the added force of potential or actual addiction. I am grateful that for an increasing number of people the Church can provide therapeutic help of various kinds to aid them in avoiding or coping with addictions. Even so, while therapy can support a person’s will, it cannot substitute for it. Always and ever, there must be an exercise of discipline—moral discipline founded on faith in God the Father and the Son and what They can achieve with us through the atoning grace of Jesus Christ. In Peter’s words, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations" (2 Peter 2:9).<ref>{{General Conference|author=G. Todd Christopherson|article=Moral Discipline|date=October 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/moral-discipline?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Bruce C. Hafen:

<blockquote>
You may not have consciously chosen to have same-gender attraction, but you are faithfully choosing to deal with it. Sometimes that attraction may make you feel sinful, even though the attraction alone is not a sin if you do not act on it. Sometimes you may feel frustration or anger or simply a deep sadness about yourself. But as hard as same-gender attraction is, your feeling that attraction does not mean that your nature is flawed. Whenever the adversary tries to convince you that you are hopelessly "that way," so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying. He is the father of lies...

It’s true that the law of chastity forbids all sexual relations outside the bonds of a married heterosexual relationship. And while same-gender attraction is not a sin, you need to resist cultivating immoral, lustful thoughts toward those of either gender. It’s no sin if a bird lands in your tree, just don’t let him build a nest there. ... if you feel an attraction you didn’t seek and haven’t acted on, you have nothing to repent of.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2010 ====

On 12 October 2010, Michael Otterson (head of Church Public Affairs) noted:

<blockquote>
None of us is limited by our feelings or inclinations. Ultimately, we are free to act for ourselves.

The Church recognizes that those of its members who are attracted to others of the same sex experience deep emotional, social and physical feelings. The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation

There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine. Their struggle is our struggle.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The 2010 version of the Church's Handbook of Instructions notes:

<blockquote>
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinance.<ref>{{Book:Church:CHI:2:2010|section=21|sub1=4|sub2=6}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== What does science have to say about this? ====
According to the American Psychological Association: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors."

As discussed above,{{nc}} self-identity determines behavior more than sexual orientation. Not only are there significant differences between a person's sexual orientation and their chosen behavior, but such things can change over time. The study indicated that of the 4.9% of men and 4.1% of women who have ever had a homosexual experience since the age of 18, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women had one in the last year. Some people change their sexual behavior based on religious beliefs. Others reported that they were no longer attracted to the same sex. The American Psychiatric Association has stated "Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."<ref>American Psychiatric Association (May 2000). "[http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210 Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues]". Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists.</ref> The way this develops varies from person to person. A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."<ref>{{NC}}</ref>

==== The Religions Dimension ====

Many people have testified that through the atonement of Christ, they no longer are attracted to people of the same gender. Others have also had faith in Christ, but still have same-sex attractions. Elder Holland taught: "Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life."<ref>"Helping Those Who Struggle," 42-45.</ref>

We are freed from some temptations over time, and must bear with others our whole lives.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === In the Church of Jesus Christ, what are the ramifications of denying a gay identity? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship.

No harm has been demonstrated in not having a homosexual orientation identity, and in some cases, it may even prove beneficial. There are, of course, many questions about homosexuality that have not been studied scientifically, but Latter-day Saints nevertheless can be sure about the wisdom of following the example and teaching of the Lord's chosen servants. Not only can members with same-sex attraction be content rejecting a gay identity, but they can gain greater clarity about things and find great joy in preparing themselves for all of the eternal blessings the Lord promises them through His Gospel.

==== The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God ====

The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.

{{SeeAlso|Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity|l1=LGBT identity}}

Taking on a sexual identity, whether gay or straight, has not been shown to have any benefit over those who choose not to assume a sexual identity. Most of the people with same-sex attractions who have not had a homosexual experience also do not identity as gay.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann
|first=Edward O.
|date=1994
|publisher=University of Chicago Press
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1
|pages=299}} [http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1 link]</ref> Critics argue that it is not healthy for homosexual people to reject a gay identity or suppress their homosexual attractions. They argue that the only way to be well-adjusted is to come out as a gay person. Many faithful members of the church as well as other Christians have found peace and joy in rejecting a gay identity. Others have incorporated a gay identity into a lifestyle of celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Because of the massive opposition to people who want to reject a gay identity, a task force set up by the APA investigated the matter. They found that there is no clear harm in denying a gay identity. They found that for some people, a religious identity was stronger than their sexual identity, and instructed counselors not to preclude the goal of celibacy, but to help clients determine their own goals in therapy, and that together with support groups, the therapy can change a client's sexual orientation identity. Dr. Glassgold, the leader of the taskforce, summarized the findings by saying that there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124950491516608883.html A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions]</ref>

Due to the results of this study, the task force recommended sexual orientation identity exploration for clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. Psychologists are recommended to help clients explore which sexual orientation identity best suits their needs and values. It is then recommended that psychologists help clients transition to their new identity. They list as possible new sexual orientation identities for people with same-sex attractions as:

# Heterosexual
# LGBT
# Disidentify from LGBT (such as ex-gay)
# No specific sexual orientation identity<ref> {{NC}} was footnoted as "task.force"</ref>

A person could assume any of these identities and still be a member of the Church in good standing. None of these identities have been found to cause any harm.

==== Effects of adopting a gay identity ====

While there is no evidence that the failure to adopt a gay identity is harmful for people with same-sex attractions, there is evidence that adopting a gay identity may lead to undesired results for some people.

There is a strong correlation between identifying as gay or lesbian and having gay sex. This is an important part for members who want to follow the law of chastity. A study by the Social Organization of Sexuality found that 60% of men and 68% of women who were attracted to the same gender have never engaged in homosexual behavior. This number differs from those who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. For them, only 13% of men and 4% of women have never engaged in homosexual behavior.<ref>{{cite book
|title=The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States
|last=Laumann|first=Edward O.|date=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#PPA299,M1|pages=299}}</ref> This lead the researchers to conclude that sexual identity (i.e., how people label and conceive of themselves) was a stronger indicator of sexual behavior than sexual orientation (i.e., the feelings or inclinations which people have).

Dr. Gary Remafedi, the director of the Youth and AIDS Projects at the University of Minnesota, did a study on people with same-sex attraction. He found that those who adopted a gay or bisexual identity at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide than those that did not.<ref>{{NW}} http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/6/869</ref>It is not clear why this is the case. Another study on Norwegian adolescents found that when sexual attraction, identity and behavior were factored together, only homosexual behavior was predictive of suicide.<Ref> {{NW}} http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0021-843X.112.1.144</ref> It may be that those who adopt a gay identity at a younger age are more likely for suicide simply because they are more likely to have gay sex, and not because of their sexual identity in and of itself. Another possible explanation may be because of increased exposure to bullying and intimidation of people who identify as gay, which bullying the Church strongly opposes. Whatever the reason, it seems that youth with same-sex attractions who do not adopt a gay identity may be less prone to suicide.

Research by Schneider found that for some married me with same-sex attraction, a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2079706 {{nc}}</ref> Other research by Yarhouse found that the sexual identity of a spouse with same-sex attraction was an important resilient factor in helping marriages succeed.<ref>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss {{nc}}</ref>

Research seems to indicate that adopting a gay identity may have a negative impact on youth and married men.
}}
==== Scripture and History ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content = As Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be guided by modern revelation. We do not need to limit our understanding to what has been written in ancient texts. However, some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships should have been recinded with the rest of the law of Moses.

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures in the ancient near east,

<blockquote>
The Levitical laws, however, criminalized not only the behavior of all homosexual rapists but also the behavior of both partners in a consensual act of same-sex intercourse. Both have committed an abominable act. They also applied the same sanctions to Israelite and resident alien alike and made no concessions for homosexual intercourse with a person of unequal social status. ...

The level at which the Levitical laws stigmatize and criminalize all homosexual intercourse, while not discontinuous with some trends elsewhere, goes far beyond anything else currently known in the ancient near east. ...

The question of homosexual orientation was surely irrelevant to the denunciation of same-sex intercourse [in Israelite scripture], just as any debate about an orientation toward incest (or bestiality) would have been irrelevant. It was the act that mattered. ...

In our own cultural context we think that the banning of male cult prostitution does not take into account consensual, non-cultic, loving homosexual relationships. In the cultural context of the ancient Near East the reasoning has to be reversed: to ban homosexual cult prostitutes was to ban all homosexual intercourse. In any case, the authors of {{s||Lev|18|22}} could have formulated the law more precisely by making specific reference to the [cultic prostitutes] (as in {{s||Deut|23|17-18}}), if it had been their intent to limit the law's application. That they did not do so suggests that they had a broader application in mind. Moreover, the Levitical rejection of same— sex intercourse depends on Canaanite practices for its validity about as much as the rejection of incest, adultery, and bestiality.
<ref name="gagnon">Robert A. J. Gagnon, ''The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics'' (Abingdon Press, 2010).</ref>{{Rp|69, 80-81, 132}}
</blockquote>

==== Adultery, which includes all sexual relationships outside that of a husband and a wife, was forbidden under the 10 commandments ====
{{s||Exodus|20|14}} reads: "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Leviticus expands on what types of relationships qualify as adultery. As with much of the Old Testament, it was written for a male audience. Sexual relationships between females was not specifically condemned in Leviticus, but is covered in the 10 commandments. {{s||Leviticus|18|22}} reads:

<blockquote>
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
</blockquote>

{{s||Leviticus|20|13}}:

<blockquote>
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
</blockquote>

There are aspects of the Leviticus commands that involve ritual uncleanness (e.g., avoiding sexual intercourse during menstruation). However, the way Leviticus ''discusses and describes'' those commands—which were rescinded in the Christian era—and the commands about adultery, incest, beastiality, and homosexual behavior—which remained in force, are quite different.

<blockquote>
The word ''toebah'' [= abomination] is restricted in Leviticus to forms of sexual immorality that can be characterized in three ways: (1) a sexual act regarded by Yahweh as utterly detestable and abhorrent; (2) a sexual act which rendered the individual participants liable to the death penalty or being "cut off from God's people"; (3) a sexual act which, if left unpunished by the nation, put the entire nation at risk of God's consuming wrath, God's departure from the midst of the people, and expulsion of the people from the land of Canaan (18:22, 26-30; 20:13). Homosexual intercourse is singled out among other abominable sexual acts in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and 20 as a form of sexual misconduct particularly worthy of the designation ''toebah''. It is dificult to see how one can speak of this or other acts in {{s||Leviticus|1|}} 8 and 20 as "ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil".<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|118-119}}
</blockquote>

This author then quotes another expert, who writes<ref>David F. Greenberg, ''The Construction of Homosexuality'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195-196.</ref>:

<blockquote>
Leviticus does recognize forms of ritual uncleanness that are not morally condemned, e.g., childbirth, seminal emission, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation. Purification from these pollutions is accomplished quite simply through bathing and sacrifice. The word ''toevah'' is not used to refer to these conditions, nor are they punished. ... Idolatry was not simply unclean; it was a grave offense. ... That intercourse with a menstruating woman is also classified as an abomination along with homosexuality is an indication not, as Boswell suggests, that the latter offense [homosexuality] was considered trivial, but rather that the former was considered extremely grave.
</blockquote>

So for an Israelite was there no difference between sex with a menstruating woman and homosexuality? No—the punishment for homosexual offenses was death, unlike the penalty for having sexual relations with a menstruating woman. In the latter case,

<blockquote>
The menstrual period was the time that God had given women to cleanse their bodies from impurity as a prelude to renewing a cycle of fertility (a sabbath of sorts from sex). It was not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs. Deliberate intercourse during a menstrual period not only had the effect of "wasting seed" but also of putting one's own desires at cross-purposes with God's timing. Men were required to exercise self-restraint and wait for divinely created processes to run their course.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|138}}
</blockquote>

By contrast, homosexual acts were part of a very small group of behaviors for which capital punishment could be imposed, as Gagnon points out:

<blockquote>
in {{s||Leviticus|0|}}, the only other acts that are specifically connected with the death penalty are:

[a] child sacrifice (20:2), 
[b] cursing one's parents (20:9), 
[c] adultery (20:10), 
[d] some forms of incest (20:11-12), marriage to a wife and her mother (20:14), and 
[e] bestiality (20:15-16).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|195n182}}
</blockquote>

He continues:
<blockquote>
most of {{s||Leviticus|8|20}} can be thought of as an expanded commentary on the ten commandments, with prohibitions against idolatry and witchcraft, stealing and lying, adultery and incest; and commands to honor one's parents, keep the sabbath, and to "love one's neighbor as oneself" (Lev 19:18). Ritual and moral, eternal and contingent, are combined in the profile of holiness developed in {{s||Leviticus|7|26}}. Christians do not have the option of simply dismissing an injunction because it belongs to the Holiness Code [of Leviticus].<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|123}}
</blockquote>

Therefore, as one biblical scholar noted:

<blockquote>
One might then counter, "Okay, these biblical authors were opposed to male, same-sex cult prostitution. But that only tells us what the author believed about consensual homosexual practice conducted in the context of idolatrous cults and prostitution, not the kind of loving expressions of homosexuality we witness today." Such a rationale would overlook the ancient Near Eastern context. The Mesopotamian evidence ... makes clear that the most acceptable form of same-sex intercourse—not the least acceptable was precisely same-sex intercourse conducted in a [pagan] religious context. Otherwise, for a man to want to be penetrated by another man was generally regarded as disgraceful. ...

When the biblical authors rejected homosexual cult prostitutes ... they were in effect rejecting the whole phenomenon of homosexual practice. They were repudiating a form of homosexual intercourse that was the most palatable in their cultural context. If they rejected that particular form of homosexual practice, how much more all other forms? Certainly the prohibition against cross-dressing in {{s||Deut|22|5}} [which cultic prostitutes engaged in] puts this beyond doubt (any obscuring of male-female sexual differences is "an abomination [toebah] to Yahweh your God, everyone who does these things"), as does the absolute form of the prohibition in {{s||Lev|18|22}} and {{s_short|Leviticus|20|13}}.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|112-113}}
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships rescinded when the rest of the law of Moses was rescinded? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Did Jesus say anything about homosexual acts? ====
Some try to minimize the seriousness of homosexual acts by pointing out that Jesus did not preach against them specifically. This stance completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation in Jesus' day.

First, how did Jews in Jesus' day understand homosexual acts? Because of the Leviticus Holiness Code, they were completely opposed to them: "early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct. We are unaware of any dissenting voice."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|215}} In fact, "given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse."<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|217-218}}

The Jewish world in which Jesus lived set a very strict moral standard, especially against the backdrop of the infamous promiscuity of the Greeks and Romans. Sexual relationships were absolutely forbidden outside of marriage. Christ validated these teachings, by teaching against adultery and fornication (Matthew 19:18; 15:19)

Second, Jesus tended to ''intensify'' or ''strengthen'' commandments about sexual matters, not loosen them. Rather than not committing adultery, his followers were not to even lust after someone, for "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The law of Moses made provision for divorce, but Jesus taught against it except in cases of sexual infidelity (Matthew 19:8–9).

All sexual relations outside of marriage were sinful in Judaism, and Jewish marriage presupposed a male/female marriage, as Jesus emphasized:

<blockquote>
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.(Matthtew 19:5–6).
</blockquote>

Jesus did differ with the Judaism of his day on some points, but on these matters he was clear and direct about his opposition. Without him saying anything about same-sex behavior, none of his audience would have assumed anything except that such things were grave sins:

<blockquote>
The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus' day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' silence on the issue ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate afi‘irmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first—century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249-250}}
</blockquote>

In short,

<blockquote>
the silence of Jesus on the subject, combined with other factors, makes Jesus' opposition to same-sex intercourse historically probable. Indeed, the word "silence" can only be used in a very constricted sense. Jesus made no ''direct'' or ''explicit'' comments on samesex intercourse, just as he made no direct comments about many other important subjects. In a larger sense, though, Jesus was not silent about same-sex intercourse inasmuch as the inferential data speaks loud and clear about Jesus' perspective. ... [T]he ways in which Jesus integrated demands for mercy and righteous conduct in his teaching and ministry do not lend support for the view that Jesus might have taken a positive or neutral approach to same-sex intercourse.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|249}}
</blockquote>

Jesus also did not mention other sexual sins also listed in the Holiness Code (e.g., incest, bestiality). We would not, however, conclude from that that he thought such behavior was acceptable.

<blockquote>
The portrayal of a Jesus as a first-century Palestinian Jew who was open to homosexual practice is simply ahistorical. All the evidence leads in the opposite direction. Why, then, did Jesus not make an explicit statement against homosexual conduct? The obvious answer is that Jesus did not encounter any openly homosexual people in his ministry and therefore had no need to call anyone to repentance for homosexual conduct. He also did not address other sexual issues such as incest and bestiality, but that hardly indicates a neutral or positive stance on such matters. What is clear from the evidence that the texts do offer is that the historical Jesus is no defender of homosexual behavior. To the contrary, Jesus, both in what he says and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|286}}
</blockquote>

====The Early Church and the New Testament Apostles====
Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, but the early Christians were not sure what this meant. At the beginning, the Christians continued to follow the law of Moses, including prohibitions against same-sex relationships. Then Peter had a vision where he saw a sheet containing four-footed beasts, which were ritually unclean under the law of Moses. He was commanded to eat, but he resisted, because of the ritual laws. The Lord responded:

<blockquote>
What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15)
</blockquote>

Later Peter was invited to eat with a Gentile names Cornelious, which was also against the law of Moses. Peter understood the revelation meant that it was no longer necessary to follow the law of Moses in such matters. (See {{s||Acts|0|}} for the whole story) However, the question remained—what parts of the law were rescinded, and which needed to be followed by Gentiles who converted to Christianity?

==== The Jerusalem council ====
Of particular concern was whether circumcision was necessary—this is partly because of the physical pain which adult males might fear, but also because Gentile culture tended to regard circumcision as a barbarous practice. The apostles met in conference at Jerusalem, and concluded:

<blockquote>
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you [Gentile Christian converts] no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29)
</blockquote>

The word translated "fornication" is ''porneia''—it had a broader sense even than "fornication". (The word "porno-graphy" comes from ''porenia''.) Jesus had taught against ''porneia'', and the apostles repeated it:

<blockquote>
In {{s||Mark|7|21-23}}, Jesus interprets his saying about what defiles a person as follows: "for it is from . . . the human heart that evil intentions come: sexual immoralities (porneiai) . . . adulteries . . . licentiousness . . . . All these evil things come from within and defile a person." No first- century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in {{s||Leviticus|8|}} and {{s_short||Leviticus|20|}} (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|251-252}}
</blockquote>

==== Incest condemnation ====
There can be little doubt that the early Christians would have understood this—for example, Paul cited Christ's teachings on fornication to condemn and excommunicate a man who had sex with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). This was a form of incest condemned by the Holiness Code in Leviticus just as homosexual acts were.

==== Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ====
This is further illustrated by the first to second century A.D. text ''Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs''. A historian of the radical differences between Jewish/Christian sexual ethics and the pagan ethics of the Romans wrote:

<blockquote>
[In] the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs ... ''porneia'' has become the "mother of all evils." The Testament is invaluable because its unusual detail confirms that ''porneia'' could be used to describe a whole array of improper sexual configurations: incest, prostitution, exogamy, homosexuality, and unchastity.
</blockquote>

The apostles therefore made it clear that most of the Mosaic laws were no longer operative—but the sexual restrictions of the Holiness Code remained a key part of Christian life.

====Paul====

The New Testament's most detailed condemnation of same-sex acts comes from Paul, however, in {{s||Romans|1|}}. This too is a good example of how Jesus and other devout Jews would have understood matters.

Paul uses the example of same-sex behavior in an interesting way. He is attempting to demonstrate that pagans are sinners and require atonement to reconcile them to God. This is something that no first century Jew would have doubted.

But, we might ask, why would pagans/gentiles be condemned for not living the law of Moses, which they had not received? Paul agreed. He therefore chose two areas which knew he and his audience would agree that all people on earth were bound by.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|198n185}}

==== The first command—no idolatry ====
Paul starts with the first such command—the command not to worship idols. Paul argues that even Gentiles have had this revealed to them:

<blockquote>
[18] The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, [19] since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. [20] For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[21] For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:18–23, NIV).
</blockquote>

==== The second command—no homosexual sin ====
As a second bit of evidence of the gentiles' need to repent, Paul offers—homosexual acts. "Therefore," he writes, [because they became fools and made idols], "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts" (Romans 1: 24, 26, NIV):

<blockquote>
[26] Even their women exchanged ''natural'' sexual relations for ''unnatural'' ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned ''natural'' relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26–27, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul also argues that even a pagan should be able to tell that this is a sinful act, since it requires using the body in an "unnatural" way—in a way that God did not intend. That does not mean (and it would not have meant to Paul) that some people do not naturally have such desires.

Instead, Paul is appealing to something that "even a gentile" can see. They might not have Torah, they might not have the Law of Moses, they might not be Christians—but even they should be able to see that male and female organs are intended to go together, to "fit." In the same way, Paul was arguing that it was obvious that males and males were not "designed" for sexual relations.

And, Paul uses this as both ''evidence'' for the gentiles' wilfull blindness, and as the ''punishment'' for their wilfull blindness about the nature of God as greater than their idols:

<blockquote>
The power of Paul's argument lies precisely in its simplicity: if one disregards the book of Leviticus and asks oneself what clues existing in nature might aid in discerning the Creator's will for sexual expression, then human anatomy and procreative function comprise the most unambiguous indications of divine intent. One can debate the "naturalness" of homosexual urges. Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter to God's intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Romans 5:12–21). However, anatomy is not quite as skillful a deceiver and for that reason is a more effective mediator of the truth. All of this explains why Paul selects female and male homosexual conduct as "exhibit A" of culpable gentile depravity. First and foremost, along with idolatry, same-sex intercourse represents one of the clearest instances of conscious suppression of revelation in nature by gentiles, inasmuch as it involves denying clear anatomical gender differences and functions (leaving them "without excuse").§ Second, it stakes out the common ground between Paul and his imaginary Jewish [audience] since for Jews in antiquity homosexual conduct was a particularly repulsive example of gentile depravity.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|339}} </blockquote>

==== These represent all gentile sins ====
Paul thus chooses homosexual acts as a stand-in for ''all'' of the evils for which gentiles are known. It functions as something of a symbol, and he expands its application in the next verses:

<blockquote>
[29] They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, [30] slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; [31] they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. [32] Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:29–32).
</blockquote>

==== Springing the trap on his Jewish listeners ====
Up to this point, Paul's Jewish audience would be nodding along. These examples are intended to be "no brainers," sins so dramatic and obvious that no one doubts them—''of course'' the gentiles sin in these ways. We see it all around us!

But Paul's intent is not to simply "pile onto" idolaters or homosexuals. Instead, he starts from a place that he knows that his entire audience will agree. He then extends his condemnation out further, to all gentile sins. Even to here, a Jewish audience would be in agreement. But then, Paul springs his trap:

<blockquote>
[1] You [Jewish listener], therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. [2] Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. [3] So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? [4] Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

[5] But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” [7] To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [8] But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. [9] There will be trouble and distress for every human being [Jews and Gentiles!] who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; [10] but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [11] For God does not show favoritism.

[12] All who sin apart from the law [Gentiles] will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law [Jews] will be judged by the law (Romans 2:1–12, NIV).
</blockquote>

Paul's trap is clever but clear—just as all Gentiles are under condemnation, so are all Jews! Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs repentance, and all need Christ.

These verses, then, are not intended—and we should not use them—as a reason to harshly condemn or ridicule or shun those who commit homosexual sin. After all, Paul points out, we are ''all'' in the same boat.

But if we are trying to decide if Jesus and the early Christians and the scriptures were opposed to all same-sex sexual acts, then we must acknowledge that Paul ''used such acts as an example and metaphor for all sin'' because he was so certain that his audience would understand how serious they are.

==== ''Porneia'' again ====
Paul's condemnation applies to us all—but his symbolism shows how seriously homosexual sin was regarded. Like all ''porneia'' he saw it as a particularly serious problem:

<blockquote>
"Flee ''porneia''! Every (other) sin, whatever a man does, is outside of the body; but the one who commits ''porneia'' (''ho porneudn'') sins into/against (''eigfi'') his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18).<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|369}}
</blockquote>

And, of anyone, Paul was the apostle most concerned about not imposing the Mosaic Law's ritual requirements on Christians—he even fought with Peter about it! {{Nc}} If Paul is concerned about ''porenia'', then we cannot decide that it simply a ritual matter. Instead, it is a vital part of the Christian life and sexual ethic.

==== Did Paul have any examples of "healthy" gay relationships? ====
Some have claimed that since the Roman empire's homosexual acts were largely pederasty (i.e., older men having sex with young boys) or rape (masters against slaves) that this condemnation does not apply today.

As we have seen, the Holiness Code and Jesus' doctrine make that reading extraordinarily unlikely. But the claim that Paul and the early Christians had no "positive" models to draw on is simply false:

<blockquote>
Even on the surface of it, the notion that mutually caring same-sex relationships first originated in modern times sounds absurd. Are we to believe that nobody with homosexual or lesbian urges in all of antiquity was able to provide a healthy example of same-sex love? In fact, moving statements [472] about the compassionate and beautiful character of same-sex love can be found in Greco-Roman literature. Among the examples are the speeches in Plato's Symposium. ...

Indeed, one might expect to see in the homosexual community a negative reaction against stereotyping all expressions of homoerotic behavior in antiquity as sordid, since such a stereotype would deprive the homosexual community of ancient precedents for healthy homoerotic relationships. ... [480]

There were certainly instances of exploitative homosexual relationships in antiquity and pederasty was the most common form of homoerotic expression. Yet that is a far cry from making the case that homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was inherently exploitative or that it was so prone to exploitation that Jews and Christians could not make the distinction between exploitative and non-exploitative forms. Victimization simply did not factor significantly in the arguments that Jews and Christians made in the ancient world. All forms of homosexual and lesbian conduct were wrong simply because of what it was not: natural sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.<ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|471}}
</blockquote>

===The Early Christians===
The early Christian church was a beleaguered minority. It was unpopular and persecuted. Their opposition to same-sex acts were not, then, an accidental or small thing. They were not simply "following their culture"—in fact, they were swimming and struggling against it.

The Roman emperor Hadrian (ruled AD 117–138) had a male lover who was mourned over the entire empire and granted divine status upon his death. As Kyle Harper, a student of the change in sexual ideals from Rome to Christianity wrote:

<blockquote>
Nothing belies the claim that pederastic discourse lost its vitality like the relationship between
Hadrian and his Bithynian favorite, Antinous. Possibly a slave, Hadrian’s beloved died on the
Nile under clouded circumstances. Hadrian’s sorrow was demonstrative, but what still defies
easy comprehension is the paroxysm of empire-wide mourning that ensued. A city was
founded at the site of his death; Hadrian believed reports that a new star had appeared in the
sky, and Antinous was worshipped as a god or hero; statues of Antinous proliferated until his
face was a universal image, known "across the inhabited world." Indeed, the haunting image
of Antinous ranks behind only Augustus and Hadrian in the number of sculptures extant
today. Dozens of cities issued coinage in his honor; games were being founded in his memory
decades after Hadrian was in the grave. Provincial sycophancy and credulous paganism do not
suffice to explain such an uncontrolled efflux of grief. The image and story of Antinous
resonated in powerful and unexpected ways.<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|551}}
</blockquote>

So once again, the Christians did not lack examples of loving or devoted homosexual couples. Despite this, they remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about ''porneia'', including same-sex acts.

Harper continues:

<blockquote>
Regardless, in no sense should early Christian sexual morality be construed as
an offshoot of Roman conservatism. The ideas about sex emanating from the new religion
marked a discrete and categorical rupture. For the community of the faithful, the pleasures of
the flesh became caught in a cosmic battle between good and evil. New rules, more
interesting and less predictable than sometimes argued, formed. Porneia, fornication, went
from being a cipher for sexual sin in general to a sign for all sex beyond the marriage bed, and
it came to mark the great divide between Christians and the world. Same-sex love, regardless
of age, status, or role, was forbidden without qualification and without remorse. Unexpectedly,
sexual behavior came to occupy the foreground in the landscape of human morality, in a way
that it simply never had in classical culture. "Above all else take thought for chastity; for fornication has been marked out as an exceedingly terrible thing in God’s eyes."<ref name="harper"></ref>{{Rp|1673}}
</blockquote>

===Conclusion—Jesus, New Testament, and early Christians===
In sum:

<blockquote>
the odds of any major positive figure connected with earliest Christianity having either no opinion or a positive opinion about homosexual conduct in any form is extremely remote. To assert otherwise is to lose all touch with the historical personalities behind [554] the texts and to foster an arbitrary, gnostic exegesis. The burden of proof is decidedly on anyone who would want to argue that Jesus or any New Testament writer would have been open to same- sex intercourse. Textual silence cannot be equated with neutrality or openness, let alone support, without grossly distorting history. ...

In short, the universal silence in the Bible regarding an acceptable same-sex union, when combined with the explicit prohibitions, speaks volumes for a consensus disapproval of homosexual conduct. To say that there are only a few texts in the Bible that do not condone homosexual conduct is a monumental understatement of the facts. The reverse is a more accurate statement: there is not a single shred of evidence anywhere in the Bible that would even remotely suggest that same-sex unions are any more acceptable than extramarital or premarital intercourse, incest, or bestiality. <ref name="gagnon"></ref>{{Rp|553-556}}
</blockquote>

That Paul or others did not mention these sins frequently is no surprise, and does not tell us that they were taken lightly. Their sinfulness was known by all. There is only a single reference to the sinfulness of incest in the entire New Testament in 1 Corinthians—and it is only there because Paul was condemning a member guilty of this sin. But we do not conclude thereby that incest does not matter, even if it is a loving relationship between equals.

===Latter-day Scripture===

====God and Christ repeated the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in this dispensation in {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} =====
{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|49|15-17}} announces:
<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>
This revelation was given in answer to the Shakers who rejected marriage and believed in being totally celibate for their lives. Therefore what we have here is not simply a temporary definition of marriage, but a full restatement of what marriage is and why. Look at ''why'' marriage is ordained of God in these verses: it is because marriage fulfills the end of our creation. What creation? The creation announced in {{s||Genesis|1|}}, {{s||Moses|3|24}}, and {{s||Abraham|5|18}}—the creation that made man and woman the ideal partner for each other.

{{s||Doctrine and Covenants|131|1}} states:
<blockquote>
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, '''he cannot obtain it'''. (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Were Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy?===
| state = closed
| content =
====The evidence does not indicate that nineteenth-century Church members regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence ====

It is claimed that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Latter-day Saints were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. <ref>{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Same Sex Dynamics|pages=1–}}</ref>

The evidence does not suggest that nineteenth-century Mormons regarded homosexual acts with anything but abhorrence. Attempts to prove otherwise seem largely founded on agenda-driven writing and a distortion of the historical evidence.

D. Michael Quinn's book, ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example'' is responsible for this claim, though some later, agenda-driven works cite him as evidence without addressing the numerous problems with his work. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, he distorts and ignores evidence, and has been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.

The FAIR Wiki contains an analysis of this book's claims, with links to further reviews and resources: [[Specific_works/Same-Sex_Dynamics_Among_Nineteenth-Century_Americans:_A_Mormon_Example|here]].
}}
==== Challenges ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== A theology that, without question, favors heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships ====
Latter-day Saints have always believed that men and women were designed to be together in marriage. The Lord told Joseph Smith in 1831 (D&C 49:15-17) that

<blockquote>
And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.
</blockquote>

Thus, for Latter-day Saints, men and women are a sexual binary, and were intended to be together sexually and maritally. This design and plan began before earth life, and will continue after it.

==== Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with homosexual feelings or inclinations ====

Elder Bruce C. Hafen in 2009:

<blockquote>
During a recent stake conference in Europe, I asked the stake president if Sister Hafen and I might visit one or two of his stake members who could use a little encouragement. As we visited one young man, a single returned missionary, we found that he cared deeply about the Church but was also very troubled. When we asked how he was doing, he began to cry and, with a look of real anguish he said, "I suffer from same-gender attraction." My heart went out to him. The longer we talked, the more compassion I felt, as I learned that the operative word for him really was "suffer."<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Latter-day Saints with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Honesty, inclusion, and fellowship are core values to the Church ====
It is claimed that:
*Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation
*This encourages dishonesty
*This isolates them from other members

There is no counsel or necessity to hide, lie, or isolate oneself from others. At the same time, members do not have to make their sexual feelings the subject of unnecessary attention in order to be honest with themselves and with others. As discussed above, members are discouraged from allowing any identity or group to which they belong supercede or interfere with their role as children of God, disciples of Christ, and covenant-keeping members of the Church.

Scripture repeatedly commands that we are to be one. {{s||D&C|38|27}} reads:

<blockquote>
I say unto you, be one; and if you are not one ye are not mine.
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself interfers with the process of being one.

President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
It is important that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together. <ref>As quoted by Adam Olson in [http://lds.org/ensign/2008/04/maintaining-the-course?lang=eng Maintaining the Course]</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Robert D. Hales taught:

<blockquote>
Why is it that some of us fail to learn the very critical point that we did not come to this life to live it alone? You can’t hide your actions from self and others. Polonius’ advice to his son, Laertes:

<blockquote>
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet, I, iii, 78-80
</blockquote>

is valid, but must be qualified and expanded to include the concern for how to be true to yourself and your fellowman. The "isolated self" shut off from the Light of Christ makes us become fallible—open to delusion. The balance and perspective which come from caring about others and allowing others to care for us form the essence of life itself. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Not only are members counseled to care for others, but to allow others to care for them. Part of being one is mourning with those that mourn, and comforting those that stand in need of comfort. (Mosiah 18:8) This applies equally to those who have struggled with their sexual desires that cannot now be satisfied, regardless of the orientation. Elder Oaks teaches:

<blockquote>
All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members, who have signified by covenant their willingness "to bear one another’s burdens"<ref>{{NC||</ref>
</blockquote>

Isolating yourself from others and carrying your burdens by yourself intefers with these other commandments. Not only are members allowed to disclose their sexual feelings to others, they are encouraged to share their feelings with their bishop if needed.

==== Are members encouraged to lie about their sexual feelings? ====

The counsel not to give sexual feelings undue attention is very different than lying about them or completely ignoring them. There is a difference between being prudent in disclosing sensitive topics and being dishonest. It would also be inappropriate to divert attention from the worship of the Savior (such as in a sacrament meeting) with talk of sexual struggles or desires. This is true whatever one's orientation. Not every subject is appropriate at every time—but that is not an encouragement to lie.

Honesty with others and with oneself has always been taught and encouraged in the church. In {{s||D&C|97|8}}, the Lord says the only ones that are acceptable before Him are those who are honest in heart. The 13th Article of Faith teaches that we believe in being honest and true. President Monson taught:

<blockquote>
The oft-repeated adage is ever true: "Honesty [is] the best policy." A Latter-day Saint young man lives as he teaches and as he believes. He is honest with others. He is honest with himself. He is honest with God. He is honest by habit and as a matter of course. <ref>{{nc}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from disclosing that they struggle with alcohol. But, they should not define themselves solely by their addiction. Nor should they talk of nothing but their addiction, or distract meetings focused on other purposes by instigating a discussion about their addiction.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders teach that people with same-sex attraction should not associate with each other? ===
| state = closed
| content = No. As with any temptation, it may be wise not to associate too closely with those who have tempted us in the past, or with whom we have made serious mistakes.

With any behavioral change, sometimes people need to give themselves distance from old associates and friends, and find a new social circle that will support, rather than hinder, their ability to keep the commandments.

In the same way, the Church teaches against the consumption of alcohol. Alcoholics or those tempted by alcohol are not forbidden from associating with other alcoholics—but if they find that such associations lead to a preoccupation with alcohol that increases the temptation they experience, it may be wise to withdraw somewhat. An alcoholic seeking to remain sober might well go to Alcoholics Anonymous—he would be unwise, however, to go to a bar.

==== Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen ====

Many members with same-sex attraction associate with each other through Evergreen. While the Church is not officially affiliated with Evergreen, it sends a general authority to its annual conference, and many bishops refer their members to Evergreen and attend themselves.

The Church's pamphlet ''God Loveth His Children'' counsels:

<blockquote>
In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.
</blockquote>

There are many with same-sex attraction who lead constructive, righteous lives and are not inappropriate in their display of sexual feelings. (In like way, there are many heterosexually attracted people who likewise moderate their sexual desires and keep discussion and display of them within appropriate bounds.)

This is not advice to refuse association with anyone who has same-sex attraction. In a similar fashion, it would not be wise to spend time with someone who is obsessed with or flaunts their tendency towards pornography or heterosexual promiscuity, especially if you are struggling with those tendencies yourself. There is a difference between associating with people who have a common tendency and who are working on overcoming that tendency, and associating with people who indulge in that tendency.

Just because it is better to have close friends with similar standards does not mean that we cannot ever associate with people who have different standards than we do. We are commanded to be "in the world, but not of the world" {{nc}}. Even if we have a family member, friend, or coworker who is inappropriate in their sexual display, that does not mean that we cannot ever associate with that person. There is a way to maintain our own integrity while interacting with people who have different standards. We simply need judgment and self-awareness to know which influences will be unhelpful for us at certain times of our lives.
}}
==== The Causes of Homosexuality ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction ====

Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science. This is not to be confused with teachings on the ''practice'' of homosexuality, which is a behavior.

Many leaders have also indicated that discerning a ''cause'' for this (or any other) temptation is, in a sense, immaterial—given that one has such a temptation, what ought one to do about it? Below are collected a variety of quotes; most deal with same-sex attraction specifically, while a few speak in more general terms about weakness, frailties, or other mortal afflictions. All of these principles apply to a wide variety of sins, weaknesses, and temptations.

=== 1980 ===

==== President Spencer W. Kimball ====

<blockquote>
The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict....

Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility. <ref>{{NewEra1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=[http://new.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality]|date=October 1980|pages=39}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1987 ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Obedience is powerful spiritual medicine. It comes close to being a cure-all. ... Some frustrations we must endure without really solving the problem. Some things that ought to be put in order are not put in order because we cannot control them. Things we cannot solve, we must survive. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Balm of Gilead|date=October 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/balm-of-gilead?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1988 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see {{s|2|Nephi|2|2}}). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Obedient, Paul concluded:
<blockquote>
‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

‘Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Corinthians 12:9–10).
</blockquote>
Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim’s freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction. ...

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental. <ref>"Free Agency and Freedom," ''Brigham Young University 1987-88 Devotional and Fireside Speeches'' (Provo: BYU Publications, 1988), 46-47; the edited version printed here is found in {{Book:Nyman Tate:Second Nephi|pages=13-15}}; cited in {{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law. ...

We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency.

We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory. ...

It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, nor can he erase the temptation. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Covenants|date=October 1990|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1993 ===

==== Boyd K. Packer ====

<blockquote>
Doctrines teach us how to respond to the compelling natural impulses which too often dominate how we behave…. After the Fall, natural law had far-reaching sovereignty over mortal birth. There are what President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., called "pranks" of nature, which cause a variety of abnormalities, deficiencies, and deformities. However unfair they seem to man’s way of reasoning, they somehow suit the purposes of the Lord in the proving of mankind. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=For Time and All Eternity|date=October 1993|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1993/10/for-time-and-all-eternity?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1994 ===

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is important to understand that His healing can mean being cured, or having your burdens eased, or even coming to realize that it is worth it to endure to the end patiently, for God needs brave sons and daughters who are willing to be polished when in His wisdom that is His will.

Recognize that some challenges in life will not be resolved here on earth. Paul pled thrice that "a thorn in the flesh" be removed. The Lord simply answered, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." He gave Paul strength to compensate so he could live a most meaningful life. He wants you to learn how to be cured when that is His will and how to obtain strength to live with your challenge when He intends it to be an instrument for growth. In either case the Redeemer will support you.

That is why He said, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Don’t say, "No one understands me; I can’t sort it out, or get the help I need." Those comments are self-defeating. No one can help you without faith and effort on your part. Your personal growth requires that. Don’t look for a life virtually free from discomfort, pain, pressure, challenge, or grief, for those are the tools a loving Father uses to stimulate our personal growth and understanding. As the scriptures repeatedly affirm, you will be helped as you exercise ''faith in Jesus Christ''. That faith is demonstrated by a willingness to trust His promises given through His prophets11 and in His scriptures, which contain His own words. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=To Be Healed|date=April 1994|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/to-be-healed?lang=eng}} {{io}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1995 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Essential to our doctrinal position on these matters is the difference between our freedom and our agency. Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. The contrast between freedom and agency can be illustrated in the context of a hypothetical progression from feelings to thoughts to behavior to addiction. This progression can be seen on a variety of matters, such as gambling and the use of tobacco and alcohol.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Corinthians 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only "free according to the flesh" [{{s|2|Nephi|2|27}}]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9 Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 1995|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
It is so hard when sincere prayer about something we desire very much is not answered the way we want. It is especially difficult when the Lord answers no to that which is worthy and would give us great joy and happiness. Whether it be overcoming illness or loneliness, recovery of a wayward child, coping with a handicap, or seeking continuing life for a dear one who is slipping away, it seems so reasonable and so consistent with our happiness to have a favorable answer. It is hard to understand why our exercise of deep and sincere faith from an obedient life does not bring the desired result. ...

When you face adversity, you can be led to ask many questions. Some serve a useful purpose; others do not. To ask, Why does this have to happen to me? Why do I have to suffer this, now? What have I done to cause this? will lead you into blind alleys. It really does no good to ask questions that reflect opposition to the will of God. Rather ask, What am I to do? What am I to learn from this experience? What am I to change? Whom am I to help? How can I remember my many blessings in times of trial? Willing sacrifice of deeply held personal desires in favor of the will of God is very hard to do. Yet, when you pray with real conviction, "Please let me know Thy will" and "May Thy will be done," you are in the strongest position to receive the maximum help from your loving Father.

This life is an experience in profound trust—trust in Jesus Christ, trust in His teachings, trust in our capacity as led by the Holy Spirit to obey those teachings for happiness now and for a purposeful, supremely happy eternal existence. To trust means to obey willingly without knowing the end from the beginning (see {{b||Proverbs|3|5-7}}). To produce fruit, your trust in the Lord must be more powerful and enduring than your confidence in your own personal feelings and experience. ...

How grateful I am personally that our Savior taught we should conclude our most urgent, deeply felt prayers, when we ask for that which is of utmost importance to us, with "Thy will be done" (Matthew 26:42). Your willingness to accept the will of the Father will not change what in His wisdom He has chosen to do. However, it will certainly change the effect of those decisions on you personally. That evidence of the proper exercise of agency allows His decisions to produce far greater blessings in your life. I have found that because of our Father’s desire for us to grow, He may give us gentle, almost imperceptible promptings that, if we are willing to accept without complaint, He will enlarge to become a very clear indication of His will. This enlightenment comes because of our faith and our willingness to do what He asks even though we would desire something else….

Please learn that as you wrestle with a challenge and feel sadness because of it, you can simultaneously have peace and rejoicing. Yes, pain, disappointment, frustration, and anguish can be temporary scenes played out on the stage of life. Behind them there can be a background of peace and the positive assurance that a loving Father will keep His promises. You can qualify for those promises by a determination to accept His will, by understanding the plan of happiness, by receiving all of the ordinances, and by keeping the covenants made to assure their fulfillment. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Trust in the Lord|date=October 1995|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1996 ===
==== Richard G. Scott ====

<blockquote>
You are here on earth for a divine purpose. It is not to be endlessly entertained or to be constantly in full pursuit of pleasure. You are here to be tried, to prove yourself so that you can receive the additional blessings God has for you. The tempering effect of patience is required. Some blessings will be delivered here in this life; others will come beyond the veil. The Lord is intent on your personal growth and development. That progress is accelerated when you willingly allow Him to lead you through every growth experience you encounter, whether initially it be to your individual liking or not. When you trust in the Lord, when you are willing to let your heart and your mind be centered in His will, when you ask to be led by the Spirit to do His will, you are assured of the greatest happiness along the way and the most fulfilling attainment from this mortal experience. If you question everything you are asked to do, or dig in your heels at every unpleasant challenge, you make it harder for the Lord to bless you….

Find the compensatory blessings in your life when, in the wisdom of the Lord, He deprives you of something you very much want. To the sightless or hearing impaired, He sharpens the other senses. To the ill, He gives patience, understanding, and increased appreciation for others’ kindness. With the loss of a dear one, He deepens the bonds of love, enriches memories, and kindles hope in a future reunion. You will discover compensatory blessings when you willingly accept the will of the Lord and exercise faith in Him. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Richard G. Scott|article=Finding Joy in Life|date=April 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/finding-joy-in-life?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Of course our genes, circumstances, and environments matter very much, and they shape us significantly. Yet there remains an inner zone in which we are sovereign, unless we abdicate. In this zone lies the essence of our individuality and our personal accountability. ...

[W]e become the victims of our own wrong desires. Moreover, we live in an age when many simply refuse to feel responsible for themselves. Thus, a crystal-clear understanding of the doctrines pertaining to desire is so vital because of the spreading effluent oozing out of so many unjustified excuses by so many. ...

Some seek to brush aside conscience, refusing to hear its voice. But that deflection is, in itself, an act of choice, because we so desired. Even when the light of Christ flickers only faintly in the darkness, it flickers nevertheless. If one averts his gaze therefrom, it is because he so desires. ...

What we are speaking about is so much more than merely deflecting temptations for which we somehow do not feel responsible. Remember, brothers and sisters, it is our own desires which determine the sizing and the attractiveness of various temptations. We set our thermostats as to temptations. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=According to the Desires of [Our] Hearts|date=October 1996|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/-according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts-?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1999 ===
==== Henry B. Eyring ====

<blockquote>
A second truth about our accountability is to know that we are not the helpless victims of our circumstances. The world tries to tell us that the opposite is true: imperfections in our parents or our faulty genetic inheritance are presented to us as absolving us of personal responsibility. But difficult as circumstances may be, they do not relieve us of accountability for our actions or our inactions. Nephi was right. God gives no commandments to the children of men save He prepares a way for them to obey. However difficult our circumstances, we can repent.

Similarly, the world might be willing to excuse our bad behavior because those around us behave badly. It is not true that the behavior of others removes our responsibility for our own. God’s standards for our behavior are unchanged whether or not others choose to rise to them…. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Henry B. Eyring|article=Do Not Delay|date=October 1999|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1999/10/do-not-delay?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2000 ===
==== Neal A. Maxwell ====

<blockquote>
Yet there are other fixed limitations in life. For instance, some have allotments including physical, mental, or geographic constraints. There are those who are unmarried, through no fault of their own, or yearning but childless couples. Still others face persistent and unreconciled relationships within their circles of loved ones, including offspring who have "[become] for themselves," resistant to parental counsel (3 Nephi 1:29). In such and similar situations, there are so many prickly and daily reminders.

Being content means acceptance without self-pity. Meekly borne, however, deprivations such as these can end up being like excavations that make room for greatly enlarged souls.

Some undergo searing developments that cut suddenly into mortality’s status quo. Some have trials to pass through, while still others have allotments they are to live with. Paul lived with his "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7).

Suffice it to say, such mortal allotments will be changed in the world to come. The exception is unrepented sin that shapes our status in the next world. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Neal A. Maxwell|article=Content With The Things Allotted Unto Us|date=April 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/content-with-the-things-allotted-unto-us?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2006 ===
==== Dallin H. Oaks ====

<blockquote>
A man wrote a General Authority about how the power of the Atonement helped him with his problem of same-gender attraction. He had been excommunicated for serious transgressions that violated his temple covenants and his responsibilities to his children. He had to choose whether to attempt to live the gospel or whether to continue a course contrary to its teachings.

<blockquote>
"I knew it would be difficult," he wrote, "but I didn’t realize what I would have to go through." His letter describes the emptiness and loneliness and the incredible pain he experienced from deep within his soul as he sought to return. He prayed mightily for forgiveness, sometimes for hours at a time. He was sustained by reading the scriptures, by the companionship of a loving bishop, and by priesthood blessings. But what finally made the difference was the help of the Savior. He explained:

"It [was] only through Him and His Atonement. … I now feel an overwhelming gratitude. My pains have been almost more than I could bear at times, and yet they were so small compared to what He suffered. Where there once was darkness in my life, there is now love and gratitude."

He continues: "Some profess that change is possible and therapy is the only answer. They are very learned on the subject and have so much to offer those who struggle … , but I worry that they forget to involve Heavenly Father in the process. If change is to happen, it will happen according to the will of God. I also worry that many people focus on the causes of [same-gender attraction]. … There is no need to determine why I have [this challenge]. I don’t know if I was born with it, or if environmental factors contributed to it. The fact of the matter is that I have this struggle in my life and what I do with it from this point forward is what matters" (letter dated Mar. 25, 2006). <ref>{{General Conference|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=He Heals the Heavy Laden|date=October 2006|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/he-heals-the-heavy-laden?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

=== Discussion with Church Public Affairs by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman ===

<blockquote>
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2007 ===
==== Church booklet produced in 2007 notes ====

<blockquote>
Despair is another adverse influence. It often results from a lack of understanding and trust in God’s continuing love as made available through the power of the Atonement. You can find hope in the fact that every blessing contemplated by Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness remains available for each of His children. Despair and doubt may lead to withdrawal, fault-finding, and impatience that all answers and resolutions for life’s problems are not immediately forthcoming. The Spirit of God brings good cheer and happiness. Trust the Lord. Do not blame anyone—not yourself, not your parents, not God—for problems not fully understood in this life. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Jeffrey R. Holland ====

<blockquote>
If you are a parent of one with same-gender attraction, don’t assume you are the reason for those feelings. No one, including the one struggling, should try to shoulder blame. Nor should anyone place blame on another-including God.

I too affirm that God loves all His children and acknowledge that many questions, including some related to same-gender attraction, must await a future answer, perhaps in the next life. Unfortunately, some people believe they have all the answers now and declare their opinions far and wide. Fortunately, such people do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Further research will hopefully shed more light on the subject, but whatever reason science gives for same-sex attraction, it does not affect Church doctrine.

=== What if same-sex attraction is genetic? ===

Let us suppose that it was shown that same-sex attraction is genetic. Would this be a doctrinal problem for the Law of Chastity? No—even if same-sex attraction were enitrely biological, the Church still teaches we should overcome the natural man. Anger or violence are likewise natural tendencies with deep biological roots. We are still required to control and master them, and we are also not to express them in unrighteous ways. For many, this is a great challenge, but the Lord does not excuse us from that challenge. He promises to help us and to change us so that we can, with his help, behave as he would.

Many people experience opposite-sex desires that seem natural, but remain sinful. The church does not lift restrictions on practicing these behaviors either. Elder Packer spoke of a husband who expressed his heterosexuality by viewing pornography. Elder Packer explains why this expression of heterosexuality can be overcome:

<blockquote>
Pornography will always repel the Spirit of Christ and will interrupt the communications between our Heavenly Father and His children and disrupt the tender relationship between husband and wife.

The priesthood holds consummate power. It can protect you from the plague of pornography—and it is a plague—if you are succumbing to its influence. If one is obedient, the priesthood can show how to break a habit and even erase an addiction. Holders of the priesthood have that authority and should employ it to combat evil influences.

We raise an alarm and warn members of the Church to wake up and understand what is going on. Parents, be alert, ever watchful that this wickedness might threaten your family circle.

We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.<Ref>{{Ensign|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng Cleansing the Inner Vessel]|date=October 2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Just as improper expressions of heterosexuality can be overcome, the same is true for expressing homosexuality in improper ways.

=== Understanding explanations of homosexuality ===

In the past, when leaders have spoken about homosexuality or homosexual orientation, they may not have been referring to same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks has stated:

<blockquote>
"The First Presidency's letters condemning homosexuality are, by their explicit terms, directed at the ''practices'' of homosexuality {{ia}}."
</blockquote>

When President Kimball spoke on homosexuality, he often clarified that he was talking about the "sexual act" and said that those attractions would often never go away, even in the repentant.
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Does the Church deny the reality of a persistent orientation, which minimizes the effect the law of chastity has on people with a minority orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content = The Church believes everyone has a the freedom to choose their actions. However, actions are very different from orientation. The Church teaches that same-sex attractions can run deep, and form a significant part of how a person experiences life. They are not, however, the only part.

=== Quotes from leaders ===

Speaking of same-sex attraction, Elder Packer said in 2000:

<blockquote>
That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.[https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng]
</blockquote>

Elder Wickman was asked in an interview about how to respond to a son who said that he was gay. He responded:

<blockquote>
We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Elder Holland expressed a similar feeling when he said:

<blockquote>
Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them.[http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Church leaders ever teach that masturbation can cause someone to have a homosexual orientation? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Criticism ====
Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aver that President Spencer W. Kimball asserted that masturbation causes one to be attracted to the same sex in h{{s||is|9|}} book ''Miracle of Forgiveness''.

President Kimball wrote the following:

<blockquote>
Most youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas—drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few—depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
 
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.

While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation—and thence into homosexuality.<ref>Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 77–78.</ref>
</blockquote>

This response will examine this charge and conclude that the notion that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual orientation is not and never has been taught by the Church.

=== Response to Criticism ===
==== Masturbation, according to President Kimball, may lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality rather than a homosexual ''orientation'' ====

Commenting on President Kimball's claims above, Gregory L. Smith wrote:

:This purported link between self-stimulation and homosexuality has often been ridiculed. O’Donovan refers to Kimball’s "absurd theory that masturbation leads to homosexuality."<ref>Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’: A Revised History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," Connell O’Donovan (website), last revised 2004, http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html. This is a revised version of Connell "Rocky" O’Donovan, "‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980," in ''Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays in Sex and Family'', Essays on Mormonism Series, No. 7, ed. Brent Corcoran (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 138-40. In that earlier version, he omits the word "absurd."</ref> And, such skepticism is justified if one reads ''homosexuality'' as ''homosexual orientation'' in the modern sense. Most people masturbate sometime, and few of these are gay.

:Such an analysis assumes and relies on modern definitions, however. As I have shown, leaders’ use of the term ''homosexuality'' in this period — especially the homosexuality that they sought to discourage — was almost exclusively concerned with ''behavior''.<ref>''Compare Welfare Services Packet'' 1, 8: "homosexuality is possible only with others."</ref>

:Seen in this light, Kimball’s claim becomes both more plausible and more understandable. It is important to remember that he had long experience counseling practicing homosexuals (19, 68-70).<ref>See also Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', ix–x.</ref> He would likely have learned that solo masturbation while entertaining homosexual fantasies would often precede acting on those fantasies with another person. From that perspective, Kimball’s claim is less controversial and may even be valid.

:Kimball was not alone in these realizations. Clinicians with exposure to the homosexual demi-monde had long remarked that homosexual masturbatory practices tended to precede homosexual acts with others, though the former did not always lead to the latter.

:At the turn of the twentieth century, early sexologist Havelock Ellis wrote of a correspondent "who went to a French school, [and] told me that ''all'' the older boys had younger accomplices in mutual masturbation. … At my school, manual masturbation was both solitary and mutual; and sometimes younger boys, who had not acquired the habit, were induced to manipulate bigger boys. … In after-life they showed no signs of inversion [i.e., homosexuality]."<ref>Havelock Ellis, ''Studies in the Psychology of Sex'', vol. I (1905; repr., New York: Random House, 1942), 240, italics in original, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.179937/page/n287/mode/2up.</ref>

:In Albert Moll’s ''Sexual Life of the Child'' (1912), he wrote:

:<blockquote>
It is an indisputable fact that many boys … readily take to sexual practices with others. Examples of this constantly occur in [same-sex] boarding schools … they begin sexual practices very early in life (mutual masturbation and intimate physical contact, especially contact involving the genital organs).<ref>Albert Moll, ''The Sexual Life of the Child'', trans. Eden Paul (1912; repr., London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd: 1923), 265, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.200468/page/n275/mode/2up.</ref>
</blockquote>

:In an effort to reassure the reader that co-education of boys and girls would not be unduly risky, Moll pointed out that "even if we believe that in isolated instances coeducation may lead to unfortunate results in the way of [hetero]sexual practice. … We have to think of the fact that by the separation of the sexes during childhood we ''may'' favor the development of homosexuality."<ref>Ibid, 267, italics added.</ref>

:Moll and Havelock evidently did not think that masturbation inevitably lead to homosexual behavior, much less what is today called orientation. But, Moll would draw precisely the same conclusion as Kimball regarding behavior in the dry prose of academic German science:

<blockquote>
The German Imperial Criminal Code … assert[s] that homosexual tendencies appearing in the child necessarily indicate the future development of permanent homosexuality. [Moll disagrees.] …
 
The chief danger associated with the appearance of sexual perversions lies in the fact that the child thus affected … endeavors again and ever again to revive these pleasurably-toned sensations … and … as soon as the genital organs are sufficiently mature, the boy or girl obtains sexual gratification by masturbating simultaneously with the imaginative contemplation of perverse ideas. Such perverse psychical onanism, accompanied or unaccompanied by physical masturbatory acts, <code>is eminently adapted to favor the development of the perversion.</code> Obviously, the actual performance of the corresponding perverse sexual act <code>will be just as dangerous as its perversely associated masturbation.</code> Thus, a boy who is homosexually inclined may masturbate while allowing his imagination to run riot upon homosexual ideas; or he may take to homosexual acts with one or more other male persons. Every sort of gratification that is associated with perverse images is dangerous; and no less dangerous is the spontaneous cultivation of such perverse sexual images.<ref>Ibid, 313-14, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

:Moll saw a risk related to masturbation among the "homosexually inclined" — it would encourage unwanted behavior, but not create most inclination to that behavior.<ref>A[lbert] Moll, ''Les perversions de l’instinct genital: étude sur l’inversion sexuelle basée sur des documents officiels'', 6ième edition, traduit par Pactet et Romme (Paris: Georges Carré et C. Naud, 1897), 197, 200, 207-209, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_tpoaAAAAYAAJ/page/n249/mode/2up.</ref> Kimball, with more brevity, would write "masturbation too often leads to grievous sin, even to … homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex — and thence into total homosexuality."<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 78. Taylor Petrey's ''Tabernacles of Clay'' claims that because of Kimball’s views, LDS Social Services needed to "offer some clarification." But masturbation can hardly "lead … to homosexuality" if Kimball believed it to be a homosexual act in itself. Even mutual masturbation, for Kimball, is only a stepping stone to "total homosexuality."</ref>

:This was, in fact, precisely what a study of "non-patient" adult male homosexuals "drawn from the community" found in the same year that ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was published:

<blockquote>
Of the homosexual men, all of them had practiced self-masturbation at some time during their lives. … Even during the peak of their sexual outlet by homosexual means between the ages of 20 and 29, almost all of the subjects (97%) were engaged in self-masturbation...
 
Homosexual behavior

Cognitional Rehearsals — Those were reported in almost all of the men (99%). In 97% it was stated that cognitional rehearsals had already started before age 20. …

The majority of the subjects (86%) had already had homosexual contacts before the age of 15. …

Of the men that were engaged in homosexual activity before age 15, the large majority (93%) practiced mutual masturbation … [and] a minority (19%) practiced [homosexual] intercourse. …

Mutual masturbation was abandoned by the majority of the subjects after the age of 29. Even those who practiced it between the of 20 and 29, tended to engage in it only occasionally.<ref>Marcel T. Saghir, Eli Robins, and Bonnie Walbran, "Homosexuality: II. Sexual Behavior of the Male Homosexual," ''Archives of General Psychiatry'' 21 (August 1969): 219-23, underlining in original represents a subject heading.</ref>
</blockquote>

:For this population, Kimball was right — one started with fantasies ("cognitional rehearsals") ultimately accompanied by masturbation, progressed to mutual masturbation, and eventually abandoned that for greater intimacies. One can quibble about whether masturbation "caused" these homosexual acts in a technical sense, but it is hard to see the behaviors as utterly unrelated. And behavior was what concerned Kimball.

:In fact, he would have said that the person chose solo acts that simply made it easier to later choose other acts with someone else — one sin "leads to" another (71). He did not see the relationship as deterministic:<ref>Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'', 215.</ref>

:Small indiscretions evolve into larger ones and finally into major transgressions which bring heavy penalties. … Warning signals and guidelines are given to reduce the danger of one’s being blindly enticed into forbidden paths. …

:Those who yield to evil are usually those who have placed themselves in a vulnerable position.<ref>Ibid., x, 15.</ref>

:And, he saw other similar sins as preludes to heterosexual ones in the same way: "My beloved young folks, do not excuse petting and body intimacies. I am positive that if this illicit, illegal, improper, and lustful habit of ‘petting’ could be wiped out, that fornication would soon be gone from our world."<ref>Kimball, "Love Versus Lust," ''BYU Speeches of the Year'' 1965, 30.</ref><ref>Gregory L. Smith, "[https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/feet-of-clay-queer-theory-and-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ Feet of Clay: Queer Theory and the Church of Jesus Christ]," ''Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship'' 43 (2021): 209–213.</ref>

Smith cites "a present-day queer studies author" that further contextualizes how President Kimball understood homosexuality:

<blockquote>
Once the patient’s will-power or reason was compromised by masturbation [it was thought] … "reversion" to the primordial bestial type would be the result. … the slide from masturbation to homosexuality seems bizarre from a twenty-first century perspective. However, that is partly because current definitions of masturbation are very narrow compared to the definitions operative in the nineteenth century. We think of masturbation as self-stimulation only," while the nineteenth century did not consider anything but intercourse to be a homosexual act, even if it involved same-sex genital play.<ref>Ladelle McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual: The Construction of the Sex Pervert," in Cyd Cipolla et al, eds., ''Queer Feminist Science Studies: A Reader'' (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 118.</ref>
</blockquote>

The same author observes that nineteenth-century thinkers thought that

<blockquote>
There were two categories of inverts [i.e., homosexuals]. First, there were those whose condition was a result of self-induced degeneracy through willful vice. … However, increasingly influenced by the personal disclosures of inverts themselves, many nineteenth century physicians began to believe there was a second group. … Maybe some people are born with the gonads and genitalia of one sex but the brain and neurological system of the other. …

But it might not be fair to punish [these] congenital inverts, many physicians and sexologists believed, because their actions were not truly voluntary. As James Kiernan put it, "There can be no legal responsibility where free determination of the will is impaired." Congenital inverts were naturally weak of will … <code>unable to resist</code> the perverse urges that their degenerate condition aroused. Such individuals might undergo episodic periods of organically produced sexual furor during which they were <code>entirely devoid of self-control</code>.<ref>McWhorter, "From Masturbator to Homosexual," 120, emphasis added.</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, as Smith concludes:

:If these distinctions are understood, then Kimball’s argument makes further sense. Some believed that those with an in-born attraction for the same sex could not control their actions. Other homosexuals "learned" such behavior via a free-will choice to engage in masturbation, which, in some, could progress to group masturbation and ultimately to homosexuality (i.e., intercourse).

:The nineteenth century theorists might not condemn those who were "innate" homosexuals who had not brought their habit upon themselves through masturbatory habits. But they did not believe this group could control themselves either — their compulsive activity would be almost a type of madness. (By analogy, today’s society would not condemn a schizophrenic for her hallucinations, though it might well institutionalize her against her will if she sought to harm others as a result of those hallucinations.)

:Church doctrine, however, revolted at the idea that any normal person was unable to control their behavior, however they might be tempted.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 225–27.</ref> So Kimball focused on avoiding the acts that could strengthen temptation and lead to further unwanted behavior.

:Like Kimball, neither Ellis nor Moll saw same-sex mutual masturbation as fully "homosexual," per se but observed that it could (in some cases) precede homosexual intercourse. This is a different conceptual world than ours.<ref>Smith, "Feet of Clay," 214–15.</ref>

=== Conclusion ===
Thus, President Kimball is not saying that masturbation causes one to have a homosexual ''orientation''. President Kimball says that masturbation could lead to the ''practice'' of homosexuality. The church rarely (if ever) talks about the causes of a particular sexual orientation. The church is much more interested in learning to control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors rather than sexual orientation. Many other leaders have also cautioned about preoccupation with sex and about arousing sexual feelings that should only be expressed in marriage. Masturbation arouses sexual feelings outside of marriage. This could lead to sexual acts performed outside of marriage. If a person has opposite-sex attractions, it may lead to the practice of heterosexuality outside of marriage, which is considered just as much of a sin as the practice of homosexuality.
}}
==== Post-Mortal States ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = ===Does the Church teach that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death ====

All Latter-day Saints anticipate being transformed and perfected in the resurrection. The weaknesses, failings, imperfections, and unholy desires that we all have will be removed. This includes any sexual desire or temptation not in accord with God's purposes for us.

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

<blockquote>
While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, ''our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life'' so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that ''their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way'' and according to His timing. <ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages={{NC}}}} {{ia}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

<blockquote>
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, "Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?"

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is th{{s||is:|1|}}) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. <ref>Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: "[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction Same-Gender Attraction]," (undated).</ref>
</blockquote>

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

<blockquote>
I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. <ref>The Mormons, [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html Interviews: Jeffrey R. Holland], ''pbs.org'' (30 April 2007).</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

<blockquote>
If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because "there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity." And "men (and women) are that they might have joy." <ref>[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction Address] given by Elder Bruce C. Hafen at the Evergreen International annual conference, 19 September 2009.</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Legal Protections ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church has not opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships ====

The Church sees the institution of marriage in religious terms. Theologically, the Church cannot accede to a redefinition of marriage.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref> The Church has not, however, opposed measures which grant all the ''civil'' or ''secular'' benefits of marriage to other domestic partnerships (see [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]). As the Church indicated during its opposition to the redefinition of marriage in California:

<blockquote>
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>
</blockquote>

== The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law ==

The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment for them and others with same-sex attractions.

For example, Michael Otterson (managing director of the Church Public Affairs department) addressed the Salt Lake City Council meeting on 10 November 2009 and said:

<blockquote>
The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Non discrimination:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
==== Suicide ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is there an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints? ===
| state = closed
| content =
{{Set off quote 1|if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources. '''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''}}

As we have seen above, the Church recognizes that being a member of the church and having same-sex attraction can be very difficult.

It has long been known that suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction.

Critics charge that:
* Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates; and
* there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Latter-day Saints

These charges are without scientific foundation. They are not surprising, since warnings of such supposed dangers are a common strategy from those targeting unpopular social groups.<ref>rich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, ''Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance'' (Wiley-Blackwell, 1994), 147.</ref>

For example, some have claimed that the Church's policy of requiring First Presidency clearance for the baptism of children of gay couples caused a spike in suicide. These claims were fiction—in Utah "the year after the November policy saw a 21 percent decrease in youth suicide and a small decrease in suicide of those eighteen to sixty-four years old."<ref>{{BYUS|author=W. Justin Dyer|article=book review|vol=59|num=1|date=2020|pages=226|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/59.1DyerGayRights.pdf}}</ref>

There are three studies that have looked at precisely this quesiton—in all cases, those with same-sex attraction who were members of the Church had ''lower'' suicide rates than those with same-sex attraction outside the Church.

Because this is such an important issue, we will consider these points in detail.

=== Background risk ===

To answer questions about the Church’s impact, if any, we have to know first about background risk. If you were going to study the effects of, say, smoking on cancer, first you have to know how likely cancer is in people who don’t smoke. It doesn’t do much good to point out that 10% of people who smoke die of cancer, if 10% of people who don’t do too. Sadly, we’ve known for decades that LGBTQ people have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and probably higher rates of actual suicide too.<ref>Ryan M. Hill and Jeremy W. Pettit, “Suicidal Ideation and Sexual Orientation in College Students: The Roles of Perceived Burdensomeness, Thwarted Belongingness, and Perceived Rejection Due to Sexual Orientation,” ''Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior'' 42/5 (October 2012): 567, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00113.x.</ref> This is one of the great constants in research over decades.

==== Denmark ====
In Denmark, for example, a 2011 study showed that gay men in registered domestic partnerships (Denmark’s version of “gay marriage,” which they have had since 1990) were still almost ''eight times'' more likely to commit suicide as married or divorced heterosexuals. Divorce and singleness are risk factors for suicide, and so of all LGBTQ people, those in legal same-sex partnerships should have the best numbers because they are “wired in” to a close social support such as a spouse.

Denmark is an extremely secular country—it seems unlikely that religious doctrine or persecution can explain this massive disparity in suicide rates.

==== Norway ====

A Norwegian study found that when compared to heterosexual youth, youth who were attracted to the same sex and/or self-identified as LGB were no more likely to attempt suicide. Only homosexual behavior was associated with an increased rate of suicide attempt, and “[t]he increased odds [of suicidality] could not be attributed to GLB students' greater exposure to risk factors for suicide attempt.”<ref>Lars Wichstrøm and Kristinn Hegna, “Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: a longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population,” ''Journal of Abnormal Psychology'' 112/1 (February 2003): 144–151, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12653422/.</ref>

So, even in two of the most tolerant, non-religious, secular societies, there are some prominent risks. We might think of this as something of a “best case scenario” for tolerance and acceptance. We aren’t likely to produce a society in or out of the Church more open to same-sex behavior than Denmark and Norway. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still work to bring these suicide rates down, but it might suggest that insisting that others need to be more "tolerant" of homosexual behavior may not provide huge gains.

===Suicide in Utah? ===

The Church is often blamed for an "epidemic" of gay suicdes in Utah. But, Utah's state expert (who is himself gay) insists that there is no such epidemic:

<blockquote>Michael Staley [who is openly gay himself], who works for Utah’s medical examiner and ranks among the most respected researchers on this topic, said in an interview with Q Salt Lake, a Utah LGBT magazine, his initial findings do not support the narrative that Utah youth suicides are rising as a result of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality or LGBT issues. “There’s no data to show that, period,” Staley said. “The people who are driving that narrative are going to be disappointed.”<ref>Layne Williams, Amy Fife, Hal Boyd, “No correlation between youth suicide and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” ''Idaho Statesman'' (22 September 2019), https://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article235270667.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Why might people be “disappointed”? Isn’t that good news? Well, it isn’t if you are trying to use suicide as a weapon to shame a religion and push it to change.

So, the claim that Utah suffered an explosion of gay suicide turns out not to be true. But people continue to say it—which suggests that either they are misinformed, or their goal may be something other than the truth.

=== Suicide in the Church ===

It is well known that religion is generally protective against suicide—so isolating someone from their religious group probably doesn’t help make them safer, all else being equal.<ref>Thomas Joiner, Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success, kindle loc. 4114-16. See also his Why People Die By Suicide, loc 1720. Evan M. Kleiman and Richard T. Liu, “Prospective Prediction of Suicide in a Nationally Representative Sample: Religious Service Attendance as a Protective Factor,” The British Journal of Psychiatry 204 (2014): 262, https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128900; Tyler J. VanderWeele et al., “Association between Religious Service Attendance and Lower Suicide Rates among US Women,” JAMA Psychiatry 73/8 (2016): 845–851, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1243. Leilani Greening and Laura Stoppelbein, “Religiosity, Attributional Style, and Social Support as Psychosocial Buffers for African American and White Adolescents’ Perceived Risk for Suicide,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 32/4 (Winter 2002): 404–417, https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333; Tobias Teismann and others, “Religious Beliefs Buffer the Impact of Depression on Suicide Ideation,” Psychiatry Research 257 (1 November 2017): 276–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.07.060. Erminia Colucci and Graham Martin, “Religion and Spirituality along the Suicidal Path,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 38/2 (April 2008): 229–244, https://doi.org/doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.229.The academic sources here are from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood cited below. </ref>

We will now look at the three studies who examined suicidality in Latter-day Saint LGBTQ members.

==== First study - Cranney (2017)====

This data from 2012–2014, published in ''Journal of Homosexuality'':

<blockquote>
LGB Mormons have more days of poor mental health than their non-LGB Mormon counterparts, but fewer than their LGB non-Mormon counterparts. When weights are applied, the only significant health difference found between LGB Mormons and any other group is a significantly higher number of days of poor mental health than non-LGB Mormons (6 days versus 3 days, p = .01 [in the last 30]); all other health comparisons are statistically insignificant. ...

[H]owever they do it, the LGB Mormon population’s reconciliation of particular facets of their sexual and religious identities does not lead them to having discernibly worse mental or physical health than their non-LBG Mormon and LGB non-Mormon counterparts.<ref>Stephen Cranney, "The LGB Mormon Paradox: Mental, Physical, and Self-Rated Health among Mormon and Non-Mormon LGB Individuals in the Utah Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System," ''Journal of Homosexuality'' 64/6 (2017): 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236570.</ref></blockquote>

So, LGB in the Church do have more days of poor mental health—but their mental health is still better than LGB ''outside'' the Church.

Separating those who are struggling from the Church may, then, not be helpful and might even be harmful.

==== Second study - Dyer, Goodman, and Wood (2022)====

The second study is from the 2019 Utah Prevention Needs Assessment, done as part of the Student Health and Risk Prevention (SHARP) survey by Utah's Department of Human Services.<ref>Justin Dyer, Michael Goodman, and David Wood, "Religion and Sexual Orientation as Predictors of Utah Youth Suicidality," BYU Studies Quarterly 61/2 (2022), {{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/religion-and-sexual-orientation-as-predictors-of-utah-youth-suicidality}}</ref>

{{HomosexualityDiscussionGraph}}

=== Why does the Church do better? ===
[[File:Figure_3b-Dyer_Goodman_and_Wood.png|thumb|200x|right|''Chart 5'': Figure 3B from Dyer, Goodman, and Wood. Once social connectedness, family connectedness, and drug use is adjusted for, the suicidality rates are not statistically different for any group.]]

There are many known risk factors for suicidality. For example, those who abuse alcohol or other substances are more likely to feel depressed, contemplate suicide, and attempt suicide. So, if the Church kept you from drinking, that would probably lower your suicide risk.

This study decided to '''adjust''' for known benefits. So, they then looked at LGBTQ suicide rates once family connectedness, social connectedness, and drug use was taken into consideration.

When that is done, there is then no difference between Latter-day Saints and other religious groups' rates of suicidality. So, one plausible hypothesis is that (1) being in the Church makes you more socially connected; (2) Families in the Church may have better connections; and (3) the Church discourages drug use.

We must remember that these are averages. There will undoubtedly be terrible families in the Church whose behavior increases their children's risk of depression, suicide, and other mental health problems. And there are also certainly equally strong families in other faiths, or in families of no faith.

''On average,'' however, an LGBTQ person is better off in terms of depression and suicidality in the Church than out of it.

At the very least, it is dishonest and unfair to blame the Church for suicides in LGBTQ members. There is simply no evidence that the Church is to blame, and considerable evidence that on balance it is helpful.

Individuals may have different experiences, and certainly some families or people in the Church do things contrary to Church doctrine which could make things much worse. But that is not the Church's fault.

==== Third study - McGraw et al. (2023)====

Looking at the same dataset as the second study,<ref>James S. McGraw, Meagan Docherty, Jay R. Chinn, and Annette Mahoney, “Family, Faith, and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors (STBs) Among LGBTQ Youth in Utah," Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 20/2 (2023): 257-258, https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000517</ref> the non-LDS authors concluded:

<blockquote>
LGBTQ participants’ reports of higher family conflict and lower parental closeness were tied to higher depression, self-harm, and substance misuse, and these three factors were, in turn, associated with higher levels of STBs for LGBTQ youth in Utah. This path model did not differ significantly due to LDS versus non-LDS religious affiliation. ...

Among LGBTQ youth, non-LDS youth had higher mean levels of STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, substance misuse, a lower mean level of parental closeness. ... [Slide 27–31] Non-LDS LGBTQ youth reported the highest STBs, family conflict, depressive symptoms, self-harm, and substance misuse scores, and had a lower [average] level of parental closeness scores, followed by LDS LGBTQ, non-LDS heterosexual … youth, and then LDS heterosexual … youth
</blockquote>

So again, family conflict, lower family closeness, and substance misuse led (unsurprisingly) to more suicidal experience and behavior. These problems on balance were better in the LDS group than the non-LDS group, but when controlled for religion did not make a significant difference.

=== Suicide contagion ===

All of this matters a great deal, and the biggest problem is ''not'' that the Church and its members and leaders are slandered and tarred with causing the deaths of their LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

The reason this matters is that there is a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion." This is a well-recognized phenomenon whereby people's tendency to suicide ''can be increased or decreased'' based on how media and other voices talk about suicide.<ref>Joiner, ''Why People Die of Suicide'', loc. 1846–49.</ref>

Psychiatric, psychologic, and suicide prevention agencies have done a great deal to publicize these risks, and have provided guides for media to talk about suicide in a helpful, not harmful.

A non-LDS expert on LGBTQ youth made this point very strongly:

<blockquote>
For me, first off, scientifically it's not true. That is that, as a developmental psychologist, when we look at the wide population of youth who identify as gay or who have same-sex attractions, it appears to me when I look at the data that they're actually just as healthy, and just as resilient, and just positive about their life as are straight youth. … So from a scientific perspective, there is certainly no gay suicide epidemic. But the more problematic aspect for me is that I worry a great deal about the image that we are giving gay-identified youth.<ref>Ritch Savin Williams, interview, “A Look At The Lives of Gay Teens,” ''All Things Considered'', National Public Radio (21 October 2010), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130732158. </ref>
</blockquote>

Telling gay youth that there is an epidemic breaks one of the cardinal rules of suicide prevention: '''Messages linking particular groups with high rates of suicide or mental illness'''.<ref>“The Messaging ‘Don’ts’,” suicidepreventionmessaging.org (accessed 23 January 2024), https://suicidepreventionmessaging.org/safety/messaging-donts</ref> Not only is this not true, as the quote above notes, but telling people the falsehood makes it more likely to happen!

Other messaging rules that the Church's critics often engage in include:

==== Don't include personal details ====
* ''"Don’t include personal details of people who have died by suicide."'' - Sadly, many LGBTQ advocates think they are helping by telling tragic, dramatic, tear-jerking stories about specific suicides. Each suicide is a tragedy and a devastating outcome for family and friends. But publicizing the suicide in this way just makes it more likely that other depressed teens may identify with the victim, and thus be more likely to immitate them.

==== Don't portray suicide as more common than it is or a typical way of coping ====

* ''"Don’t portray suicidal behavior as more common than it is or as a typical way of coping with adversity."'' - Again, when LGBTQ advocates insist that the Church's policies or doctrines lead to a great many suicides, and that nothing can stop this until the Church changes its doctrines, they ironically increase the risk of that happening. As the suicide prevention group cautions:

<blockquote>
While we don’t want to minimize the magnitude of the suicide problem, we also don’t want to imply that suicidal behavior is ''what most people do'' in a given circumstance. The vast majority of people who face adversity, mental illness, and other challenges—even those in high risk groups—do ''not'' die by suicide, but instead find support, treatment, or other ways to cope.</blockquote>

==== Don't use language or data to suggest suicide is inevitable or unsolvable ====
* ''Don’t use data or language that suggests suicide is inevitable or unsolvable'' - Calling suicides "an epidemic" (especially when there ''is'' no epidemic) plays right into this problem.

==== Don't oversimplify ====

* ''Don’t oversimplify causes'' - Suicide is a complex subject. It is not helpful—in fact, it is downright harmful—to use a suicide death to tell a simple cause-and-effect story, such as "The Church opposed gay marriage, and so John killed himself." Suicide is almost always accompanied by significant mental illness, and mental illness almost by definition involves choices and thoughts that are not rational or reasonable.

====Hurting when intending to help ====
Many of those who spread these rumors or propaganda probably think that they are helping solve a serious problem. If you are approaching the issue in this way, we encourage you to ''stop'' spreading false rumors, and to especially stop talking about this subject in ways that increases the risk of a mentally ill person acting on a suicidal thought or plan.

And, if you or someone you know is thinking or talking about suicide, please get help. Suicide is preventable, and there are many resources.

'''''In the United States and Canada, dial 9-8-8 anytime to get help.'''''

===Reducing suicide risk===
Steps that can help reduce suicidal thoughts and actions include some of the following encouraged by the Church:

==== Church encouragement to seek medical and mental health treatment ====
*"The Church finds situations when the trained (mental health professional) is called in for assistance. There is a proper place for these professionally trained specialists. The Church has an organization for this purpose. It is called LDS Social Services. There are also other faithful Latter-day Saints who are in public or private practice and who can be called upon as a bishop feels the need."[http://lds.org/liahona/1979/07/questions-and-answers?lang=eng]

==== Church encouragement to develop conflict resolution skills ====
*"Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences...We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility." (''Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley'' [1997], 661, 665).

==== Church encouragement to develop and maintain strong family ties ====

*1999: "Keep in mind that this is the same person you have always known: a child of God. Be grateful that this individual is willing to share his or her burden with you...Let it be understood that you value him or her and that this difficult journey will not have to be traveled alone."[http://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng]
*2007: "I’d begin by recognizing the courage that brought your son, daughter, sibling, or friend to you. I’d recognize the trust that person has extended. Discussing the issue with someone of trust is a healthy first step to dealing with confusing feelings, and it is imperative that these first steps be met with compassion. Above all, keep your lines of communication open. Open communication between parents and children is a clear expression of love, and pure love, generously expressed, can transform family
ties."[http://lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]

==== Church counsel regarding others' behavior toward members with same-sex attraction ====

*1974: "To "persecute" homosexuals would be wrong, just as it would be wrong for us to persecute anyone. We must try to understand why they have chosen this way of life."[http://lds.org/ensign/1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng]
*1991 Letter from the First Presidency: "We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1995: "We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation...[Letters from those with same-sex attraction expressing feelings of isolation and non-acceptance] surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding."[http://lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng]
*1998: "We love them as sons and daughters of God. ... We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties."[http://lds.org/ensign/1998/11/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng]
*2004: "Equal to my fears of going to the bishop were my feelings of unworthiness to be at church with people who were living good lives and had not indulged in the sins I had committed. I was sure the first Sunday I returned to church that everyone would see right into my soul and know what I was guilty of and the feelings I was struggling with. Instead, my anxieties were put to rest when members of the ward welcomed me back with loving fellowship."[http://lds.org/liahona/2004/09/compassion-for-those-who-struggle?lang=eng]
*2007: "You are a son or daughter of God, and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life." [http://lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng]
}}
==== Bullying and Ostracization ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What did President Boyd K. Packer say during the October 2010 general conference of the Church on homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content = On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference.

Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. It is meant as an examination, not an interpretation. FAIR does not seek to provide official interpretation for the words of our leaders. However, we believe that President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented, and hope that our analysis will show that.

Critics have claimed:
* President Packer's talk was just about homosexuality;
* Calls to overcome inclinations towards illicit sexual behavior was a call to change sexual orientation;
* President Packer made statements at variance with official Church policy;
* President Packer was "muzzled" by other members of the LDS "hierarchy";
* President Packer's address has been "censored," or otherwise "suppressed" because of public outcry.
* President Packer believes or claims that homosexual feelings/temptations are chosen by those so afflicted.
* President Packer is guilty of "hypocrisy," unchristian conduct, and/or contributing to the suicides of homosexuals.
* President Packer teaches that the "only option" for "sexual minorities" is "to become heterosexual."
* President Packer is not "trying to be like Jesus," since he is wrong to teach that "there is no such thing as a godly homosexual relationship."

President Packer did not specifically mention same-sex attractions or same-sex relationships during his talk. He ''did'' reference substitutions for marriage, with a very strong reference towards same-sex relationships, but everything he said should and could be applied equally toward illicit heterosexual behavior. There was no reference in his talk which condemned same-sex attractions, and such an interpretation would conflict with numerous previous statements made by President Packer.

Such tactics are nothing new in politics, and are certainly not new when directed at members of the Church. As President Packer once indicated, he is more concerned about communicating his message than worrying about those who will intentionally misrepresent him:

:While we must act peaceably, we need not submit to unfair accusations and unjustified opposition…As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us. If they do understand, they have their agency and can accept or reject the gospel as they please.<ref>An address given at the Church Educational System fireside at BYU on 1 February 1998; reproduced in {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/04/the-peaceable-followers-of-christ The Peaceable Followers of Christ]|date=April 1998|pages=62}}</ref>

And, while even a few members of the Church will reject the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on the sinful nature of homosexual acts, as well as all other sexual acts outside of marriage, President Packer once remarked:

:There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

:They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

:Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/revelation-in-a-changing-world Revelation in a Changing World]|date=November 1989|pages=16}}</ref>

The core of President Packer's message has been ignored and obscured—that core is that God will reveal to those who desire above all else to do his will how they should choose and how they should act. Obedience—a sign of faith—must always come before revelation and knowledge. But, only both revelation and faith can resolve this issue outside of politics, polemics, and propaganda tactics.

Our temptations and weaknesses do not define who we are, nor do they dictate our acts and choices. President Packer has been misrepresented and sometimes vilified in part so listeners will not even seriously consider the fundamental question—does God speak to prophets and apostles in our day? And, if so, has he spoken to them about what all would agree is a vital matter?

:But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men—not to ordinary men. That doubt and disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world—but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us—and of that there is no doubt. We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/05/a-tribute-to-the-rank-and-file-of-the-church A Tribute to the Rank and File of the Church]|date=May 1980|pages=65}}</ref>

{{Epigraph|Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it.    —President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference}}

President Packer's talk was presented to a world-wide audience. The original audio and visual files continue to be available on [http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html the Church's official website]. The originals have also been provided to those who produce material for the blind and print disabled, a clear sign that the Church does not intend to "suppress" or repudiate them.

Misrepresentation and misunderstanding began soon after the talk was delivered. (Ironically, though President Packer did not mention same sex attraction specifically—and despite the fact that he both opened and closed his talk with a discussion of pornography—many listeners applied his wording and reasoning solely to issues of homosexual temptation.) The resulting flurry of comment and complaint led a Church spokesman to indicate that President Packer's meaning had been clarified in the published version of the talk:

:The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent.<ref>Scott Taylor, "Mormon youths support President Packer through Facebook," ''Deseret News'' (11 October 2010) {{link|url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700072794/Mormon-youths-support-President-Packer-through-Facebook.html}}</ref>

The published version is now [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html available on-line]. The key passage of interest is compared in the table below.
<center>
{{BoydKPackerHomosexuality}}
</center>

Clearly, the Church cannot be intending to suppress or hide President Packer's original comments, since it continues to make his original address available. Church spokesmen have also pointed out directly to the media that the printed version has been clarified. This would be a strange way to run a cover-up.

It is also clear in context that President Packer's meaning in the original talk is reflected in the edited print version. For example, in both his spoken and printed version, immediately following the above phrases, President Packer said/wrote:

:Paul promised that "God . . . will not suffer you to be '''tempted''' above that ye are able; but will with the '''temptation''' also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." You can, if you will, '''break the habits and conquer an addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

:Isaiah warned, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

In context, President Packer was clearly speaking about being able to resist ''temptation''. His use of the word "tendencies" led some to assume that he was arguing that such inborn temptations could be eliminated. But, such a reading is inconsistent with the scriptural citation which he uses to prove his point—Paul does not argue that Christians will be freed from temptation, but rather that they need not yield to temptation. It would indeed make little sense for God to allow us to have temptations we could not resist—such a state contradicts the core LDS doctrine of moral agency (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}).

The same scripture was used in a discussion of same-gender attraction by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in 2006:

:The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. '''It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation.''' Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

:The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." {{ea}}<ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006}}</ref>

==== Subject of the talk ====

President Packer never mentioned same-sex relationships or same-sex attractions even once during the entire talk. That has been inserted later by critics of the church. During his talk, he had one concrete example, and that was of a husband looking at pornography. There is no doubt that his words were meant to be applied to same-sex relationships as well, especially given references to legalizing immorality and the recent battle over Proposition 8. However, it would be inaccurate to say he was singling out same-sex relationships or that what he said only applied to same-sex relationships.

By starting off with a the heterosexual example of unnatural affection towards pornography, he made sure that those with opposite-sex attractions were not under the false assumption that they were off the hook. Any inclination towards the impure and unnatural, including pornography, fornication, adultery, prostitution, or rape with either gender by either gender can be overcome, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. There is no reason to assume that his comments only referred to those with same-sex attraction and did not apply equally to those who struggle with the improper expression of opposite-sex attractions. Many people with opposite-sex attractions incorrectly believe they are "preset" to indulge in illicit behavior. His talk was about overcoming any type of temptation, not just those of a homosexual nature.

==== Feelings vs. acts ====

Another area of confusion is whether by asking people to overcome inclinations towards the impure, Elder Packer was asking them to change their sexual orientation. Answering this requires us to understand that his comments were directed towards both those with same-sex attractions and those with opposite-sex attractions.

The man who had a problem with pornography did not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his tendency towards pornography. A single member with opposite-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the opposite sex in order to overcome his or her tendency towards pre-marital sex. Likewise, a member with same-sex attractions does not need to lose all attraction to the same-sex in order to overcome tendencies towards same-sex acts.

It is easy to think that because Elder Packer had references to Proposition 8, that he was referring only to same-sex attractions. Proposition 8 was about same-sex relationships or acts, not about same-sex attraction. The Church's leaders in general, President Packer in particular, have made a very strong distinction between the two. While President Packer is clearly teaching that you can choose not to be in a same-sex relationship, he is not saying you can choose not to have same-sex attractions. Same-sex relationships would be considered a counterfeit for marriage. Same-sex attraction would not. Interpreting his message to mean that same-sex attraction can be changed in this life contradicts his long- and frequently-expressed stance that experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and may not ever be overcome in this life.<ref>{{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

Speaking of same-sex attractions, he said:

:"That may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt."<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god?lang=eng}}</ref>

President Packer's talk continued a long tradition of emphasizing the difference between sinful acts (including, but not limited to, homosexual ones), and those individuals tempted to commit such acts because of strong desires or feelings. These include multiple talks given by Pres. Packer over a period of thirty years.

The message of the gospel has never been that if you pray hard enough or had enough faith that God would take away all trials and temptations in this life. The message is that we are free to choose good or evil, not that we can avoid ever being enticed by the evil in the first place. The emphasis of the church has always been on controlling behavior by overcoming temptations, not by eliminating all temptations from our lives.

The emphasis on actions is even clearer when put together with the surrounding paragraphs. As printed in the Ensign, the section reads:

:We teach a standard of moral '''conduct''' that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or '''counterfeits for marriage'''. We must understand that any persuasion to '''enter into any relationship''' that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that "wickedness never was happiness."

:Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

:Paul promised that "God … will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." 14 You can, if you will, break the '''habits''' and conquer an '''addiction''' and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must "watch and pray continually."

There are many things that fall under the category of "counterfeits for marriage", such as pornography, prostitution, same-sex relationships, and so forth, but same-sex attraction would not be included in that group. His message seems to be that no one is preset to enter into any type of sexual relationship, and that any tendency or temptation to '''do''' anything impure (such as pornography or be in a same-sex relationship) can be overcome so that the impure act is not performed. Same-sex attractions is not a relationship, nor an act. President Packer has been very clear in distinguishing the two, while critics tend to blur the difference.

==== The usage of overcome in other scriptures ====
Many people have had issues with the usage of the word "overcome" in conjunction with desires to enter immoral relationships. Overcoming is an important part of the Church's teachings. Bishop McMullin taught:

:"But as with all mortal conditions, if the inclination of same- or opposite-gender attraction leads a person to violate the laws of God or to mar one’s immortal possibilities, this inclination needs to be controlled and overcome."<ref>Bishop Keith B. McMullin, "[http://newsroom.lds.org/article/remarks-by-bishop-keith-b.-mcmullin-to-evergreen-international Remarks]," given at 20th annual Evergreen International conference held in Salt Lake City, 18 September 2010.</ref>

Learning to overcome is prevalent throughout scripture, and has been generally applied to everyone, without singling out any particular sexual orientation.

{{b||Revelations|3|21}}

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

{{s||D&C|75|16}}

And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.

{{s||D&C|76|53}}

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

{{s||D&C|63|47}}

He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.

{{s||D&C|64|2}}

For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

{{s||D&C|76|58-60}}

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.

{{s||D&C|63|20}}

Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.

Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.

{{s||D&C|52|18}}

And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

{{S||D&C|50|8}}

But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

{{b|2|Peter|2|19}}

For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

==== Past talks on the same issue ====

It would be unlikely for President Packer espouse a position on issues of same sex attraction or other sexual sins which differed from his long-expressed position. He has long emphasized that although the attractions might not be reversed, the sin can be overcome.

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page, and discussed by their date of delivery below.)

==== 1978 ====
In 1978, at President Spencer W. Kimball's request, then-Elder Packer addressed BYU on the subject of homosexual temptation.<ref>"I was asked on one occasion by President Kimball if I would care to talk to the students at Brigham Young University on the subject of perversion. I begged him to excuse me from doing it, for I thought myself incapable of talking on that subject to a mixed audience. Later I repented of having declined the invitation and worked with great care to do as he had asked me to do. While "To the One" was given before a large audience at a Brigham Young University fireside, I singled out the afflicted individual for help, and also tried to inform and guide anyone who might have responsibility to help "the one" find his way." - Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 154.</ref> It is clear from this early talk that Elder Packer regarded such temptations as deep, and relatively fixed. He even went so far as to indicate that those thus afflicted might have to spend ''the rest of their lives'' resisting such temptations. This view is in keeping with both his original address of October 2010, and the clarification issued in print.

Significantly, in neither case does it match with the claim which critics wish to put in President Packer's mouth—that temptations to homosexual acts can, in all cases, be eliminated from one's life. President Packer taught precisely the opposite more than thirty years earlier. He made it very clear that in at least some cases, the member might well struggle for their entire life to resist these temptations or tendencies. After having compared such struggles to the need to undergo serious surgery, he said:

:[194] And yet our hospitals are full to overflowing with patients. They count it quite worthwhile to submit to treatment, however painful. They struggle through long periods of recuperation and '''sometimes must be content with a limited life-style thereafter, in some cases in order just to live'''. Is it not reasonable that recuperation from this disorder might be somewhat comparable?...

:[195] Now, I hope I will not disappoint you too much if I say at once that '''I do not know of any quick spiritual cure-all'''. Setting aside miracles for the moment, in which I firmly believe, generally I do not know of some spiritual shock treatment that will sear the soul of an individual and '''instantly kill this kind of temptation-or any other kind, for that matter'''. No spiritual wonder drug that I know of will do it. The cure rests in following for '''a long period of time, and thereafter continually''', some very basic, simple rules for moral and spiritual health....Establish a resolute conviction that you will '''resist for a lifetime, if necessary, any deviate thought or deviate action'''. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them. Suppression is not a very popular word with many psychologists. Look what happened to society when it became unpopular!...

:[196] Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But '''if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them'''. You are in charge of you. I repeat, it is very, very difficult to eliminate a bad habit just by trying to discard it. Replace it. Read in [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+12%3A43-45&do=Search&anonymous_element_1_changed=search Matthew, chapter 12, verses 43 to 45], the parable of the empty house. There is a message in it for you....

:[197] With physical ailments we always want a quick cure. If a prescription hasn't worked by sundown, we want to get another one. For this ailment there is no other prescription that I know about. You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating—notice that word—''undeviating'' determination. The longer you have been afflicted, or the more deeply you have been involved, the more difficult and the longer the cure. Any relapse is a setback. But if this should happen, refuse to be discouraged. Take your medicine, however bitter it tastes.

:[198]...you yourself can call upon a power that can renew your body. You yourself can draw upon a power that will '''reinforce your will. If you have this temptation-fight it!'''...

:[198]...Oh, if I could only convince you that you are a son or a daughter of Almighty God! You have a righteous spiritual power-an inheritance that you have hardly touched. You have an Elder Brother who is your Advocate, your Strength, your Protector, your Mediator, your Physician. Of Him I bear witness. The Lord loves you! You are a child of God. Face the sunlight of truth. The shadows of discouragement, of disappointment, of deviation will be cast behind you.<ref>"To The One," address given to twelve-stake fireside, Brigham Young University (5 March 1978); reprinted in Boyd K. Packer, ''That All May Be Edified'' (Bookcraft, 1982), 186-200, emphasis added; italics in original.</ref>

==== 1990 ====
In 1990 General Conference, then-Elder Packer said:

:My message is to you who are tempted either to promote, to enter, or to remain in a '''life-style''' which violates your covenants and will one day bring sorrow to you and to those who love you.

:Growing numbers of people now campaign to make spiritually dangerous '''life-styles legal''' and socially acceptable. Among them are abortion, the gay-lesbian movement, and drug addiction…For Latter-day Saints, morality is one component which must not be missing when these issues are considered—otherwise sacred covenants are at risk! Keep your covenants and you will be safe. Break them and you will not….

:Several publications are now being circulated about the Church which defend and promote gay or lesbian conduct. They wrest the scriptures attempting to prove that these impulses are inborn, cannot be overcome, and '''should not be resisted'''; and therefore, such '''conduct''' has a morality of its own. They quote scriptures to justify '''perverted acts''' between consenting adults….

:All of us are subject to feelings and impulses. Some are worthy and some of them are not; some of them are natural and some of them are not. We are to control them, meaning we are to direct them according to the moral law….

:We receive letters pleading for help, asking why should some be tormented by desires which lead toward addiction or perversion. They seek desperately for some logical explanation as to why they should have a compelling attraction, even a predisposition, toward things that are destructive and forbidden.

:Why, they ask, does this happen to me? It is not fair! They suppose that it is not fair that others are not afflicted with the same temptations. They write that their bishop could not answer the "why," '''nor could he nullify their addiction or erase the tendency'''.

:We are sometimes told that leaders in the Church do not really understand these problems. Perhaps we don’t. There are many "whys" for which we just do not have simple answers. But we do understand temptation, each of us, from personal experience. Nobody is free from temptations of one kind or another. That is the test of life. That is part of our mortal probation. Temptation of some kind goes with the territory.

:What we do know is where these temptations will lead. We have watched these '''life-styles''' play themselves out in many lives. We have seen the end of the road you are tempted to follow. It is not likely that a bishop can tell you what causes these conditions or why you are afflicted, '''nor can he erase the temptation'''. But he can tell you what is right and what is wrong. If you know right from wrong, you have a place to begin. That is the point at which individual choice becomes operative. That is the point at which repentance and forgiveness can exert great spiritual power….

:A tempter will claim that such impulses cannot be changed and '''should not be resisted'''. Can you think of anything the adversary would rather have us believe?

:The Lord warned, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea" (Mark 9:42).

:Now, in a spirit of sympathy and love, I speak to you who may be struggling against temptations for which there is no moral expression. '''Some have resisted temptation but never seem to be free from it. Do not yield! Cultivate the spiritual strength to resist—all of your life, if need be.'''...

:You may wonder why God does not seem to hear your pleading prayers and '''erase these temptations'''. When you know the gospel plan, you will understand that the conditions of our mortal probation require that we be left to choose. That test is the purpose of life. While these addictions may have devoured, for a time, your sense of morality or quenched the spirit within you, it is never too late.

:'''You may not be able, simply by choice, to free yourself at once from unworthy feelings. You can choose to give up the immoral expression of them.'''

:The suffering you endure from resisting or from leaving a '''life-style''' of addiction or perversion is not a hundredth part of that suffered by your parents, your spouse or your children, if you give up. Theirs is an innocent suffering because they love you. To keep resisting or to withdraw from such a '''life-style''' is an act of genuine unselfishness, a sacrifice you place on the altar of obedience. It will bring enormous spiritual rewards.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=Oct 1990|article=Covenants|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/covenants?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

Clearly, the same themes of a distinction between temptations and acts and the potential need for life-long resistance to unworthy temptations are present.

==== 1995 ====

In 1995 General Conference, Elder Packer said:

:Save for those few who defect to perdition after having known a fulness, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness…. You may tell yourself that your transgressions are not spiritually illegal. That will not work; neither will rebellion, nor anger, nor joking about them. You cannot do that. And you don’t have to do it….

:I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ.

:How all can be repaired, we do not know. '''It may not all be accomplished in this life'''. We know from visions and visitations that the servants of the Lord continue the work of redemption beyond the veil….

:Some members wonder why their priesthood leaders will not accept them just as they are and simply comfort them in what they call pure Christian love.

:Pure Christian love, the love of Christ, does not presuppose approval of all '''conduct'''. Surely the ordinary experiences of parenthood teach that one can be consumed with love for another and yet be unable to approve unworthy '''conduct'''.

:We cannot, as a church, approve '''unworthy conduct''' or accept into full fellowship individuals who '''live or who teach standards that are grossly in violation of that which the Lord requires''' of Latter-day Saints.

:If we, out of sympathy, should approve unworthy conduct, it might give present comfort to someone but would not ultimately contribute to that person’s happiness.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=October 1995|article=The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness|url=http://new.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2000 ====

In 2000, President Packer taught:

:If you consent, the adversary can take control of your thoughts and lead you carefully toward a habit and to an addiction, convincing you that '''immoral, unnatural behavior''' is a fixed part of your nature.

Here we see the same idea expressed in Pres. Packer's 2010 talk—immoral ''behavior'' is not a fixed, unalterable part of one's nature. One can choose behavior, despite strong inclinations and temptations, as he goes on to explain:

:With some few, there is the '''temptation which seems nearly overpowering for man to be attracted to man or woman to woman.'''...

:The gates of freedom, and the good or bad beyond, swing open or closed to the password ''choice''. You are free to choose a path that may lead to despair, to disease, even to death (see {{s|2|Ne.|2|26-27}}).

:Do not experiment; do not let anyone of either gender touch your body to awaken passions that can flame beyond control. It begins as an innocent curiosity, Satan influences your thoughts, and it becomes a pattern, a habit, which may imprison you in an addiction, to the sorrow and disappointment of those who love you (see {{s||John|8|34}}; {{s|2|Pet.|2|12-14}}, 18-19).

:Pressure is put upon legislatures to legalize unnatural '''conduct'''. They can never make right that which is forbidden in the laws of God (see Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).

:Sometimes we are asked why we do not recognize this '''conduct''' as a diverse and acceptable '''lifestyle'''. This we cannot do. We did not make the laws; they were made in heaven "before the foundation of the world" (D&C 132:5; 124:41; see also Alma 22:13). We are servants only….

:We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We ''do not'' reject you, only immoral behavior. We ''cannot'' reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We ''will not'' reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

:You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend ''tough'' love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.

:We did not make the rules; they were revealed as commandments. We do not cause nor can we prevent the consequences if you disobey the moral laws (see {{s||D&C|101|78}}). In spite of criticism or opposition, we must teach and we must warn.

:When any '''unworthy desires press into your mind, fight them, resist them, control them''' (see {{s||James|4|6-8}}; {{s|2|Ne.|9|39}}; {{s||Mosiah|3|19}}). The Apostle Paul taught, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (1 Cor. 10:13; see also D&C 62:1)....:Some think that God created them with overpowering, unnatural desires, that they are trapped and not responsible (see James 1:13–15). That is not true. It cannot be true. Even if they were to accept it as true, they must remember that He can cure and He can heal (see Alma 7:10–13; 15:8).

Here again, President Packer uses the same scripture from Paul to illustrate that temptations do not inevitably translate into acts. He goes on to teach that some temptations and inclinations will not be overcome in this life:

:That may be a struggle from which '''you will not be free in this life. If you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt'''. They may be extremely difficult to resist. But that is better than to yield and bring disappointment and unhappiness to you and those who love you.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=Ye Are The Temple of God|date=November 2000|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/-ye-are-the-temple-of-god-?lang=eng}} {{ea}} {{io}}</ref>

We note again that those who do not act on such temptations are not guilty of any sin—just as Pres. Packer taught in h{{s||is|0|}} talk, and as the clarifications (not alterations) to the meaning of that talk argued.

==== 2003 ====

In 2003, President Packer again taught these same ideas, including the principle that only acts make one a sinner or subject to Church discipline:

:There are words we would rather not say. They describe things that we would rather not think about. But you are inescapably exposed to temptations in connection with fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution, perversion, lust, abuse, the unnatural, and all that grows from them....

:Some work through political, social, and legal channels to redefine morality and marriage into something unrestrained, unnatural, and forbidden. But they never can change the design which has governed human life and happiness from the beginning. The deceiver '''preys upon some passion or tendency or weakness'''. He convinces them that the condition cannot be changed and recruits them for '''activities''' for which they never would volunteer....

:'''In the Church, one is not condemned for tendencies or temptations'''. One is held accountable for transgression. (D&C 101:78; Articles of Faith 1:2) If you do not act on unworthy persuasions, you will neither be condemned nor be subject to Church discipline.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Standard of Truth Has Been Erected|date=October 2003|url=https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/10/the-standard-of-truth-has-been-erected?lang=eng}} {{ea}}</ref>

==== 2006 ====

In 2006, President Packer again taught against the idea that we must inevitably sin because of temptations or tendencies:

:It is a wicked, wicked world in which we live and in which our children must find their way. Challenges of pornography, gender confusion, immorality, child abuse, drug addiction, and all the rest are everywhere. There is no way to escape from their influence.

:Some are led by curiosity into temptation, then into experimentation, and some become trapped in addiction. They lose hope. The adversary harvests his crop and binds them down....

:The angels of the devil convince some that they are born to a life from which they cannot escape and '''are compelled to live in sin'''. The most wicked of lies is that they cannot change and repent and that they will not be forgiven. That cannot be true. They have forgotten the Atonement of Christ.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=I Will Remember Your Sins No More|date=April 2006|url=http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/i-will-remember-your-sins-no-more}} {{ea}}</ref>

(These talks are compared in [[/Table|table form]] on a separate page.)

==== Editing an apostle? ====

Some few have expressed surprise or disappointment that an apostle's remarks would be edited for publication. Others have assumed that such editing represented a "reigning in" of President Packer by other members of the "Mormon hierarchy." Such an uncharitable reading is inconsistent with the evidence that President Packer's views on this issue have not changed.

Furthermore, it is relatively common practice—in and out of the Church—to edit talks after their presentation prior to publication. President Packer himself expressed his appreciation for those of his fellow leaders or Church employees who, in the past, have suggested changes in his wording to avoid confusion:

:I was asked to write an article for the ''Improvement Era''. It was returned with the request that I change some words. I smarted! The replacement words didn't convey exactly what I was trying to say. I balked a bit, and was told that Richard L. Evans, then of the Seventy and magazine editor, had asked that the changes be made....Now, though that article is piled under thirty-five years of paper, I'm glad, very glad, that if someone digs it out, I was "invited" to change it.

:After one of my first general conference talks, I received a call from Joseph Anderson [secretary to the First Presidency]. In a very polite way he said that President McKay and his counselors suggested that I add one word to the text of my talk. Would I mind doing that? Actually the word was in my text, I just failed to read it at the pulpit. A most embarrassing lesson—the First Presidency! It was easier when Elder Evans corrected my work; even easier when one of my associates was kind enough to do it.

:Only last Friday while putting together some things for a presentation, I read part of it to some brethren from BYU. I noticed they looked at one another at one place in my reading, and I stopped and asked if there was a problem. Finally one of them suggested that I not use a certain scripture that I had included even though it said exactly what I wanted to convey. How dare they suppose that a member of the Twelve didn't know his scriptures! I simply said, "What do you suggest?" He said, "Better find another scripture," and he pointed out that if I put that verse back in context, it was really talking about another subject. Others had used it as I proposed to use it, but it was not really correct. I was very glad to make a change.

:Now you may not need a correlating hand in what you do, but I certainly do. This brother lingered after the meeting to thank me for being patient with him. Thank me! I was thankful to him. If I ever make that presentation, it will only be after some of our Correlation staff have checked it over for me.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," (18 May 1993).</ref>

President Packer's message was clear to many who heard it.<ref>See, for example, (Gay) Mormon Guy, "President Packer's Talk... From a (Gay) Mormon Perspective," blog post (14 October 2010) {{link|url=http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/president-packers-talk-from-gay-mormon.html}}</ref> Some honestly misunderstood him, and some seem to have actively sought a hostile reading. In this context, a clarification was appropriate so there can be no excuse for mistaking his meaning.

==== Propaganda and tactics ====

Many people could have innocently misunderstood President Packer's comments. The idea that just because you have certain feelings does not mean you have to act upon them is becoming more and more foreign to people outside the church. If someone does not understand this distinction, they could easily interpret a call to avoid illicit sexual relationships, including a strong reference to same-sex relationships, as a call to change your sexual orientation. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation seems to have spread, making it harder to understand Elder Packer's real intent.

It is important that those with same-sex attractions do not feel guilt for same-sex attractions, and this type of misrepresentation of the Church's teachings only compounds the problem. While many might not understand the distinction the Church makes, many people ''do'' understand the distinction but insist on perpetuating the misunderstanding. Making it sound like President Packer is trying to tell people they have to change their sexual orientation garners more sympathy towards their cause than making it sound like President Packer was telling people they can choose not to have gay sex.

This tactic is harmful, and so it is no surprise that those opposed to the Church's teachings resort to it. President Packer is an apostle of God and many members with same-sex attraction sustain him as such. If they come under the false impression that an apostle of God is telling them they can change their sexual orientation, then they will feel more pressure to do so, which can result in guilt and depression—or (as the Church's critics likely hope will happen) members with same-sex attraction will conclude that President Packer is not to be heeded because his "advice" to change their orientation doesn't succeed. He is not, they will then conclude, inspired or directed by God in his counsel. This misunderstanding, fostered by some enemies of the Church's teachings and doctrines, would then drive people away from keeping their covenants, continued faith in the atonement of Christ, and sustaining the prophets and apostles.

The actual message delivered by the Church and President Packer that "if you do not act on temptations, you need feel no guilt" can easily become lost among the misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Blurring the distinction between gay sex and same-sex attractions is not a new tactic. They match techniques which some have long advocated.

{{main|/Critics' tactics|l1=Detailed examination of critics' tactics}}

==== Critics' direputable tactics ====

Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Hopefully the clarification offered addressed their concerns.

Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand. Certainly, not all with same-sex attraction, who categorize themselves as homosexuals, or who are supportive of homosexual relationships are in this latter group, but there are some who consider themselves leaders of the gay community or gay activists who do fall into this category. For them, it is not politically expedient to accept any clarifications that may be offered because they disagree with the theological categorization of homosexual acts as "sinful." The actions taken by such individuals as a reaction to clarification was noted by the ''Deseret News'':

:Instead of seeking genuine common ground around issues of mutual concern, activists began this week with a grossly misguided caricature of the LDS Church's support of traditional morality.

:The tactic is now all-too familiar: take a statement out of context, embellish it with selective interpretation, presume hostile intent, and then use the distortion to isolate an entire group, in this case a church.<ref>Editorial, "[http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700072199/A-call-for-civility-following-Mormon-Apostle-Boyd-K-Packers-address.html A call for civility following Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s address]," ''Deseret News'' (10 October 2010).</ref>

Such tactics (pulling statements out of context, interpreting selectively, presuming hostile intent, and stereotyping) are not new in the battle for public perception and support. In fact, tactics such as this have been specifically encouraged in the gay activist community. In 1993, two gay activists wrote a call-to-arms to their community, in which they outlined the strategies that they felt would be most successful in securing societal tolerance of homosexual acts as normal and appropriate. Among other techniques, they suggested "a propaganda campaign" (xxviii):

:There's a naive notion among folks in general—especially among gays—that you can argue a person out of a prejudice (such as homohatred) by overwhelming him with facts and logic about the group he hates. This is untrue....

:Logically speaking, nothing whatever is either disgusting or sinful, except as one feels it to be so...

:...if we're going to enter into arguments with [those who disagree with us] we'd better have a strong emotional appeal in our back pocket.

:...it gets a little tiresome to keep seeing and hearing [gays who]... damn all proposals as politically incorrect to precisely the degree that they rely upon cunning manipulation rather than pugnacity....

:...thus, propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred—suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause....Note that the bigot need not actually be made to ''believe'' that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering....Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof....

:...The objection will be raised...that we would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false sterotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is ''not'' how ''all'' gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes of course—we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones....<ref>{{CriticalWork:Kirk Madsen:After the Ball|pages=112, 139-141, 151-154}}</ref>

These tactics, outlined with such clarity, seemed to be almost a script for the reaction to President Packer's talk from organizations that promote homosexual relationships. Simply put, many dislike talk of sin, and are angered by those who claim to warn against it with divine authority. Many realize that they have not prevailed via a reasoned, rational discussion of the facts, and know that an ''emotional'' appeal is the only way of achieving their goals.

It is not surprising, then, that some activists have responded to President Packer's warning by attacking the messenger, reading him in a hostile light, caricaturing his message, reading his mind, and ascribing a variety of distasteful or even evil motives to him or the Church and its members. This should be recognized for what it is—an effort to vilify the messenger, downplay the totality of the message, and shame those who might listen to it, all part and parcel of political machinations.<ref>For extensive examples and a discussion, see {{MSR-23-1-6}}</ref>

==== Table comparing Boyd K. Packer talks on homosexual behavior over time ====

{{BoydKPackerHomosexualityOverTime}}
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts ====
Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members have, through ignorance or malice, doubtless used the sinful nature of homosexual acts to justify their decision to disparage, neglect, or mistreat those who are tempted toward such acts. Such behavior is sinful, and requires repentance.

==== In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount ====

In this, as in all else, the example of Jesus is paramount. When brought a woman taken in adultery, Jesus refused to stone her:

<blockquote>
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the lastand Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn theego, and sin no more. (John 8:7–11)
</blockquote>

It is important to recognize, however, that it is not cruel to teach that homosexual acts are sins—just as the adulterous woman would not have been well served if Jesus had winked at her sin. The Church and its members will continue to teach that homosexual acts are not worthy of those who are children of God. As the Church observed, "Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not 'tolerating' transgression."<ref>{{Periodical:Church:Divine Institution of Marriage:2008}}</ref>

The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. This includes those with same-sex attraction, or those who commit homosexual sins.

=== 1980s ===

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the AIDS/HIV epidemic:

<blockquote>
There is a plague of fearsome dimensions moving across the world. Public health officials are greatly concerned, and everyone else should be. The Surgeon General of the United States has forecast an AIDS death toll of 170,000 Americans in just four years. The situation is even more serious in some other areas of the world.

AIDS is a commonly fatal malady caused primarily from sexually transmitted disease and secondarily from drug abuse. Unfortunately, as in any epidemic, innocent people also become victims.

We, with others, hope that discoveries will make possible both prevention and healing from this dread affliction. But regardless of such discoveries, the observance of one clearly understandable and divinely given rule would do more than all else to check this epidemic. That is chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage. ...

Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems.<ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 1990s ===
In discussing this issue, Elder Dallin H. Oaks quoted the First Presidency:

<blockquote>
"We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us."<ref>"An Easter Greeting from the First Presidency," ''Church News'' (15 April 1995), 1.</ref>
</blockquote>

He then said:

<blockquote>
Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Elder Oaks also taught:

<blockquote>
Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called "gay bashing"—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior....

Despite such invitations and assurances, the Church and its members continue to experience misunderstandings about our positions on these matters....

A recent letter is illustrative:

<blockquote>
''"Another concern we have is the way in which our sons and daughters are classified as people who practice deviant and lascivious behavior. Perhaps some do, but most do not. These young men and women want only to survive, have a spiritual life, and stay close to their families and the Church. It is especially damaging when these negative references are spoken from the pulpit. We believe such talks only create more depression and a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, and lack of self-worth, which they have endured throughout their entire lives. There is sometimes a real lack of the pure love of Christ expressed to help them through their ordeals. We will all appreciate anything you can do to help with the plight of these much misunderstood children of our Father in Heaven. If some of the General Authorities could express more sensitivity to this problem, it would surely help to avoid ... schisms that are caused within families. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that Church members judge them as ‘evil people,’ and they, therefore, find solace in gay-oriented lifestyles."''
</blockquote>

These communications surely show the need for improvement in our communications with brothers and sisters who are struggling with problems—all types of problems. Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see {{s|3|Nephi|18|22-23,30,32}}). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://new.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng9http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2005|pages=9}}</ref>
</blockquote>

President Hinckley taught: "Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group."<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=Nov 1999|pages=52|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}}</ref>

Each holder of the priesthood also watches to "see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking" (D&C 20:54).

=== 2000s ===

In October 2000 conference, while speaking about people in same-sex relationships, President Boyd K. Packer taught:

<blockquote>
We understand why some feel we reject them. That is not true. We do not reject you, only immoral behavior. We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you (see {{s||Heb.|12|6-9}}; {{s||Rom.|3|19}}; {{s||Hel.|15|3}}; {{s||D&C|95|1}}).

You may even feel that we do not love you. That also is not true. Parents know, and one day you will know, that there are times when parents and we who lead the Church must extend tough love when failing to teach and to warn and to discipline is to destroy.
</blockquote>

Elder Jeffry R. Holland reiterated the need for a warm and supportive atmosphere at Church toward those with SSA:

<blockquote>
Someone said that if we plant a garden with good seed, there will not be so much need of the hoe. Likewise, if we fill our lives with spiritual nourishment, we can more easily gain control over inclinations. This means creating a positive environment in our homes in which the Spirit is abundantly evident. A positive environment includes consistent private and public worship, prayer, fasting, scripture reading, service, and exposure to uplifting conversation, music, literature, and other media.

This same environment extends to experiences at church. Some with same-gender attractions have unresolved fears and are offended at church when no offense is intended. On the other hand, some members exclude from their circle of fellowship those who are different. When our actions or words discourage someone from taking full advantage of Church membership, we fail them—and the Lord. The Church is made stronger as we include every member and strengthen one another in service and love (see {{s||D&C|84|110}}).<ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=[https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}}</ref>
</blockquote>

A booklet prepared by the Church in 2007 noted the need for improved kindness from Church members:

<blockquote>
Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.<ref>{{Periodical:Church:God Loveth His Children:2007|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2009, Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke on this subject, and his address was placed on the Church's official website:

<blockquote>
Remember President Hinckley’s confidence in you: "Our hearts reach out to [you]. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and sisters." And President Packer has echoed, "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you… We will not reject you, because we love you." With that kind of leadership, I pray that all Church members are learning to be more compassionate and understanding.<ref>{{Periodical:Hafen:Evergreen:2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

=== 2010s ===
In 2010, the Church issued an official statement:

<blockquote>
...we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

This Church has felt the bitter sting of persecution and marginalization early in our history, when we were too few in numbers to adequately protect ourselves and when society’s leaders often seemed disinclined to help. Our parents, young adults, teens and children should therefore, of all people, be especially sensitive to the vulnerable in society and be willing to speak out against bullying or intimidation whenever it occurs, including unkindness toward those who are attracted to others of the same sex. This is particularly so in our own Latter-day Saint congregations. Each Latter-day Saint family and individual should carefully consider whether their attitudes and actions toward others properly reflect Jesus Christ’s second great commandment - to love one another.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has [[../Non discrimination ordinances|openly supported]] other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.<ref>{{Periodical:Otterson:Bullying:2010}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In October 2012 general conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

<blockquote>
When we consider the dangers from which children should be protected, we should also include psychological abuse. Parents or other caregivers or teachers or peers who demean, bully, or humiliate children or youth can inflict harm more permanent than physical injury. Making a child or youth feel worthless, unloved, or unwanted can inflict serious and long-lasting injury on his or her emotional well-being and development.9 Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding—not bullying or ostracism.<ref>{{Ensign|author=Dallin H. Oaks|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/protect-the-children?lang=eng Protect the Children]|date=November 2012}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Violence is not usually the best response to a problem, but everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence ====

It is claimed that Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourages "gay bashing" or physical assaults on gay people.

The Church does not teach that violence is the best response to problems. However, everyone is entitled to protect themselves (or others) against sexual harassment or sexual assault by any means necessary—including violence. This applies to all: men and women, gay and straight. As Wikipedia notes, often the ''victim'' is blamed for the ''harasser's'' acts:

<blockquote>
Retaliation and backlash against a victim are very common, particularly a complainant. Victims who speak out against sexual harassment are often labeled troublemakers who are on their own power trips, or who are looking for attention. Similar to cases of rape or sexual assault, the victim often becomes the accused, with their appearance, private life, and character likely to fall under intrusive scrutiny and attack.[17] They risk hostility and isolation from colleagues, supervisors, teachers, fellow students, and even friends. They may become the targets of mobbing or relational aggression....
</blockquote>

In this case, it is Elder Packer and ''all'' members of the Church who come in for criticism and attack because the unacceptable sexual harassment was homosexual. Readers should ask themselves how they would react if the story was about a ''woman'' sexually harassed by a man.

Critics who make this claim are either ignorant of the contents of then-Elder Packer's talk, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for polemical gain.

To understand, we will consider four aspects:
# The relevant full text of Elder Packer's remarks will be provided.
# Some background information will be provided. Some non-members may not understand the context of the experience described by Elder Packer (missionary companions on a full-time mission for the Church), and so this will be explained.
# We will then analyze the story and advice he gives, recognizing that the critics have misrepresented it almost beyond recognition.
# Some broader issues which this charge raises will be considered.

=== #1 Elder Packer's Remarks ===

Elder Packer said:

: I repeat, very plainly, '''physical mischief with another man''' is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
:There are some men who entice young men '''to join them''' in these immoral [homosexual] acts. If you are ever approached to '''participate''' in anything like that, it is time to '''vigorously resist'''.
:While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
:After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, "I hit my companion."
:"Oh, is that all," I said in great relief.
:"But I floored him," he said.
:After learning a little more, my response was "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way"
:'''I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.''' <ref>Boyd K. Packer, "To Young Men Only," priesthood session, general conference, 2 October 1976.</ref>

=== #2: Background information ===

=== Missionary companions ===

Males in the Church serve full-time missions for two years. During this time, they are expected to dedicate themselves to full-time service of the Lord, His Kingdom, and people in and out of the Church. Missionaries are forbidden from dating or engaging in any romantic activities during this period of time. Furthermore, each missionary is assigned a "companion"—this is another missionary with whom the young man lives and works.

Missionaries are ''forbidden'' to go anywhere without their companion. Companions live in the same apartment, sleep in the same room, and go everywhere together. When out of the apartment, missionaries are taught that they are never to be alone or unaccompanied by their companion (save for trips to the bathroom and the like). Keeping missionaries together in this way serves at least two purposes:

# Missionaries are protected from temptation, and it is hoped that they will also avoid behavior which might reflect poorly upon their mission and the Church
# Perhaps more importantly, missionaries are protected against false accusations. No missionary will ever be alone, and so there will always be another witness to his acts or behavior. Thus, if a missionary were (for example) falsely charged by a malicious witness with a crime, the missionary would have both his own and his companion's testimony regarding his innocence.

A missionary who intentionally leaves his companion may be in serious trouble, and could be sent home from his mission.

=== Missionary covenants ===

All members of the Church are expected to observe the law of chastity. This means that no sexual activity outside of marriage is permitted. Furthermore, missionaries attend the temple prior to going on their missions, where they reaffirm this commitment. As noted above, missionaries further promise to not even engage in dating or other romantic activity while in full-time Church service.

=== #3: Examining the story ===

We are now able to examine the story told by Elder Packer.
* They story is ''not'' about people with same-sex attraction, but about people who are trying to have sex with you against your will.
* Elder Packer talked about "physical mischief with another man", "men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts", and "If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that". Elder Packer has long made a distinction between sexual acts and sexual attraction. He has repeatedly said sexual attraction is not a sin and those with same-sex attraction "need feel no guilt".<ref>http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/ye-are-the-temple-of-god</ref>
* The response only makes sense in the context of an act: "it is time to vigorously resist" and "You must protect yourself". How do you vigorously resist someone else having same-sex attraction? This story is about a missionary who wanted an unwilling companion in a compromised position to join him in homosexual activity, not about a companion who simply confessed that he was gay.
* The extent of the attempt to have sex with the missionary is not disclosed, but at the least it was sexual harassment, while potentially up to and including sexual assault and attempted rape. Either case warrants self-defense.
* The missionary was in a compromised position. As detailed above, he was supposed to stay in close quarters with his companion. He could not simply say "No thanks, I don't want to have sex with you" and walk away. He lived with the person sexually harassing him. We are not told for how how long the sexual harassment continued.
* The story is ''not'' about members of the Church going out and beating up gay people. Elder Packer is also clear that he does not "recommend" the physical response which the missionary launched on his companion—it was not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself."
* Thus, it is clear that the missionary did what he did to ''defend'' himself against a sexual advance. This was not a matter of the companion saying, "By the way, I'm gay, I hope you can love and accept me anyway."

=== Sexual harassment===
* Elder Packer has given [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|similar advice]] to heterosexual members of the Church both before and after this talk, and Church magazines have also published [[#Church teachings on the right to self-defense|multiple articles]] discussing self-defense courses and the legitimacy of self-defense in cases where there is a sexual threat.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment Sexual harassment] of any sort is completely unacceptable. The United Nations defines sexual harassment against women as:

<blockquote>such '''unwelcome''' sexually determined behavior as physical contact and '''advances''', sexually colored remarks, showing pornography and sexual demands, whether by words or actions. Such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem.<ref>United Nations [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/generl19.htm General Recommendation 19] to the Convention on the [http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e1cedaw.htm Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women]; cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

The European Union notes that harassment is:

<blockquote>'''unwanted''' conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men at work. This includes unwelcome physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct. ... <ref>As cited at "[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm What Is Sexual Harassment?"] (accessed 10 March 2012)</ref></blockquote>

There is absolutely no context in Church mission life where ''any'' sort of romantic attachment or engagement would be appropriate—with a companion or someone else, of the same gender or someone else. Thus, ''any'' sexual advance is unwelcome and utterly inappropriate, and the guilty party would know that unequivocally. By definition, such behavior must be sexual harassment at a minimum, and might be sexual assault depending upon the details. Furthermore, the guilty party would have expressly promised never to engage in such behavior or anything like it.

This is made worse when the offender is a companion, someone who has promised to protect and look out for the spiritual and physical well-being of the companion.

* Missionaries are expected to be together at all times. The work and live together. They can never be apart. Any invitation to homosexual sex would be an extremely intimidating situation. (This ignores the fact that there could have been an element of attempted force or coercion in the story—we are not told, though this is suggested when Elder Packer says that he does not omit the option of physical violence if necessary to protect oneself.)

* The story did not recommend violence, even if you are solicited for sex. Elder Packer clearly pointed out that he "was not recommending" the physical attack which the missionary launched on his companion—it is not an ideal response. But, he does not "omit it" if necessary to "protect yourself." You wouldn't use the term "protect" to promote gay-bashing, but to make it clear that the missionary did what he did to defend himself against a sexual advance.

* Elder Packer was speaking in the 1970s; during this time period few young members (like most young Americans) would have had much exposure to even the ''idea'' of homosexuality. The missionary in question could well have been entirely naive about such things, and not even known that such behavior existed. To be suddenly confronted by encouragement to act in such a way, by someone who was supposed to be a second witness of his own faithfulness to Church doctrine and mission rules, would have been incredibly shocking, and even terrifying. If the Elder forces him into acts, who will believe him? To whom can he go for help? (We see, in the story, how difficult it was for him even to describe the experience to Elder Packer, who had to spend considerable time before he would tell the story.)

In short, it is false and extremely unfair to characterize Elder Packer's story as advocacy of "gay beating" or violence against homosexuals simply because of their desires or inclinations, or their decision to have consensual sex with others. Instead, it is a sad but realistic admission that at times even violence may be necessary, as a last resort, to protect oneself.

=== #4: Further thoughts to conclude ===

==== Sexual harassment is unacceptable ====

The bias against men in the critics' version of this story is disappointing. The matter is perhaps easier to understand if we change the roles a bit. How would we react if an LDS young woman was on a mission, and told that she must spend every minute of the day with an LDS man? They must travel together, sleep in the same room, live together in what are generally cramped quarters. Now, let us imagine that the man propositions the young woman, and urges her to violate the law of chastity—would we think her out of line if she struck him?

Sexual harassment is unacceptable, regardless of whether men or women are the target. It does not matter if the harasser is homosexual or heterosexual—such behavior is everywhere and always wrong.

Anyone who has experienced sexual harassment can attest that it is an extremely frightening and oppressive experience. It is understandable that faced with such a situation—especially one which the missionary probably have never dreamed he would encounter from another male, much less his missionary companion—that the reaction would be terror and a panicked decision to do whatever it took to make sure he was safe.

No critic would dare say anything if an LDS ''sister'' missionary defended herself against the sexual suggestions, advances, or aggression of a male LDS missionary, because such a charge's bigotry against the victim is too blatant. But, as soon as the victim is a male and the aggressor seeking homosexual gratification, suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and those who support the victim in self-defense are vilified.

This double standard would not exist if the gender roles were altered. This suggests that the critics are not trying to look at the situation fairly, but are simply trying to score points against the Church and its leaders.

==== Men can be victims of sexual harassment ====
Some believe that since the missionary was a male, he could not have been a victim of sexual abuse. They argue that men only have sex when they want to and this missionary was in no real danger from his companion. This is not the case. Studies estimate that one in 6 men have experienced sexual abuse.[http://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/] All forms of sexual abuse, including sexual harassment, can have a lasting negative impact on the victims, even males. The web site Male Survivor says this about the effects of sexual abuse:

:While some studies have found males to be less negatively affected, more studies show that long term effects are quite damaging for either sex. Males may be more damaged by society's refusal or reluctance to accept their victimization, and by their resultant belief that they must "tough it out" in silence.[http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html]

Critics who insist that the Elder should not have protected himself against the sexual advances of his companion not only do a disservice to this Elder, but to the millions of men who have experienced sexual abuse. It is important that men know that they are not at fault if they are victims of sexual abuse. They must know that they have the right to vigorously resist unwelcomed sexual advances. Elder Packer's advice is a refreshing reversal of society's apathy towards male victims of sexual assault.

=== Church teachings on the right to self-defense ===
==== Boyd K. Packer ====
* "Do not let anyone at all touch or handle your body, not anyone!" - {{NewEra1|author=Boyd K. Packer|date=July 1972|article=Why Stay Morally Clean}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1972/07/why-stay-morally-clean}}
* "Never allow others to touch your body in a way that would be unworthy, and do not touch anyone else in any unworthy way." - {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article-Counsel to Young Men|date=May 2009}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/counsel-to-young-men}}

==== Church magazines ====
* There is a good chance that many women will at some time need to know how to avoid rape, mugging, robbery, or any of numerous other violent crimes. We cannot turn away from facts; these assaults occur regularly in public places and in private homes. A certain amount of preparation, a "healthy paranoia," might very well save a life....If you decide you must fight back, use your keys, purse, feet, or fingernails as weapons to throw the attacker off guard or to get free. Although it sounds cruel, always strike for the eyes and face. The momentary stunning effect of wounds to the face will give you the chance you need to run." {{Ensign|author=Esther R. Tutt|article=Random Sampler: Protect Yourself|date=September 1987}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/random-sampler/protect-yourself}}

* "We need to be absolutely clear that there is such a thing as justified self-defense. You have the right to protect yourself against physical harm if you are attacked. You have a right to use physical force to protect virtue, family, freedom." - {{Ensign1|author=Larry A. Hiller|article=Somebody's Going to Get Hurt!|date=September 1997}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/new-era/1997/09/somebodys-going-to-get-hurt}}

* If someone is attempting to hurt us physically—even to destroy us—shouldn’t we resist in self-defense? The Doctrine and Covenants says "that all men are justified in defending themselves … from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded" (D&C134:11). {{Ensign1|author=Larry E. Dahl|article=The Higher Law|date=August 1999}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/liahona/1999/08/the-higher-law}}

* Self-defense courses for youth are suggested in the New Era in at least [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/03/fyi-for-your-information 1980], [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/12/fyi-for-your-information 1982], and [http://www.lds.org/new-era/1992/02/fyi-for-your-info 1992].
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Are Church family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic" ====

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered "an epidemic." LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

==== Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children ====

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]</ref>

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

==== While reports of homelessness among gay youth are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states ====

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items f{{s||rom|2|}}, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT.<ref>Jessica Gail, "Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless," Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless</ref>

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent.<ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range.<ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called "an epidemic." <ref>Nicholas Ray, "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf</ref> This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

==== In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average ====

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose "other than heterosexual." <ref>"Throw-Away Kids," originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.</ref> It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

==== Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah ====

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as "LGBT youth centers." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref> 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 "straight" youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, "Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole." <ref>"Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings," Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.</ref>

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t "fit in" in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were "happy" 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had "no adult to turn to" 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being "out" to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were "out" with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were "out" with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said "yes." That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. The second factor is that, when asked if their families were "not accepting" of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%).<ref>Rebecca Trounson, "Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.</ref>

==== Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth ====

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." <ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why th{{s||is|2|}}% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

==== Nothing yet released in any of the data collected definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth ====

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref>

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS.<ref>Melinda Rogers, "LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter," The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.</ref> It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

==== Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior ====

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||D&C|83|4}} reads:

<blockquote>
All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.
</blockquote>

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

<blockquote>
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
</blockquote>

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

<blockquote>
If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent.<ref>Understanding and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

<blockquote>
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.<ref>{{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?cid=+HP14TPOTF&lang=eng&old=true}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

<blockquote>
It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: "The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, "My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

<blockquote>
With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.<ref>{{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

<blockquote>
I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love." <ref>{{General Conference|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/09/the-best-thing-i-can-do-for-leigh?lang=eng|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}</ref>
</blockquote>

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

<blockquote>
Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
</blockquote>

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quentin L. Cook in 2009:

<blockquote>
It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation "free for all men" but has "commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance." <ref>{{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
====Recommending Heterosexual Marriage for Those with Same-Sex Attraction====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Do Church leaders recommend marriage as "therapy" for those with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction ====

It is claimed that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations.

Like members of all faiths, all Latter-day Saints do not live up to their ideals and principles perfectly. Some members and leaders have doubtless encouraged some people with same-sex desires to marry someone before they were ready. Such a practice has been discouraged by statements by the Church's highest authorities.

As with all decisions relating to marriage, such matters are ultimately the responsibility of the parties involved.

==== 1970s ====
President Kimball wrote a pamphlet entitled "Hope for Transgressors", in which he addressed leaders who were helping men who were involved in homosexual behavior. He said:

<blockquote>
When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and move his life towards the normal. It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl.
</blockquote>

While marriage was mentioned as a possibility, it was not presented as a part of the repentance process or a cure. The idea of marriage was to be introduced only when the young man was ready, not as a means to be ready. There have been disastrous marriages that have resulted from people getting married before they were ready, but there are many marriages that have been very successful, especially those who have headed President Kimball's advice to wait until after you are ready before marriage.

==== 1980s ====

In 1986, Elder Oaks had an interview with CBS. This was the discussion:

<blockquote>
CBS: The Church has recommended in the past marriage as a part of repentance, when you're engaging in homosexual...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended by individual bishops or priesthood leaders counseling persons in individual circumstances. I just don't know that. Marriage is not usually thought of as an act of repentance.

CBS: As part of repentance from ...there have been several cases cited of when a homosexual who wants to remain within the fold and is fighting his feelings will go to a bishop or will go for counsel and what is recommended is that you repress those feelings and get married and have children and that will set you on a better path. Is that foreign to you? Does that sound...

ELDER OAKS: I don't know whether that has been recommended or not because the counseling sessions you refer to are very confidential counseling sessions and when the bishop comes out of that counseling session he doesn't report to anyone. When the person he's talking to comes out of that session they're free to talk to anyone and say anything without fear of contradiction. So I don't know. I just don't know what has been said in such sessions. <ref>[http://www.affirmation.org/rhetoric_on_homosexuality/oaks_interview.shtml An Interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks on Homosexuality and AIDS]</ref>
</blockquote>

In 1987, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

<blockquote>
The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. <ref>{{General Conference|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Reverence and Morality|date=April 1987|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 1990s ====
In Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems, the Church stated:

<blockquote>
Marriage should not be viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement. However, some people have reported that once they are freed from homosexual problems, heterosexual feelings have gradually emerged. <ref>Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2006 ====
Elder Oaks said:

<blockquote>
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate. <ref>{{Periodical:Oaks Wickman:Same Gender Attraction:2006|pages=xxx}}</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2007 ====
Elder Holland said:
<blockquote>
For various reasons, marriage and children are not immediately available to all. Perhaps no offer of marriage is forthcoming. Perhaps even after marriage there is an inability to have children. Or perhaps there is no present attraction to the opposite gender... Recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. <ref>{{Ensign1|author=Jeffrey R. Holland|article=Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction|date=October 2007|pages=42-45}} {{link|url=https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng}}</ref>
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === How do Mormons view the issue of heterosexual marriage for people with same-sex attraction? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction ====

The Church does not recommend marriage for everyone with same-sex attraction. They recommend being and open and honest before marriage, which correlates with scientific evidence for successful marriages. Even outside the church, people with same-sex attraction are marrying an opposites sex partner at rates higher then those who are committing to a same-sex partner.

==== The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse ====

The Church encourages all of its members to be open and honest with their spouse. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty|Same-sex attraction/Honesty]]) In particular, they have discouraged members with same-sex attraction from using marriage as personal therapy or from lying in order to get married. However, they have said marriage can be appropriate in certain situations. Elder Oaks stated:

<blockquote>
"We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices." To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]])

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems."[http://newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction]
</blockquote>

Some critics have argued that by creating a culture which allows people with same-sex attraction to enter a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, the Church sets up its members for failure and heart-ache.

==== Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse ====

Some critics have claimed that it is impossible for a man with same-sex attraction to develop a "great attraction" for a daughter of God (or a woman with same-sex attraction to develop a great attraction for a son of God) and therefore marriage is impossible and the Church should stop talking about it.

We know from anecdotal evidence that many people with same-sex attractions have developed an attraction for their spouse. Some people have never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but develop an attraction for their spouse. Other people have always had some level of opposite-sex attraction. (The term same-sex attraction can be applied to anyone who is attracted to the same sex, regardless of intensity or presence of opposite-sex attractions.) Other people have done all they could and have never been able to develop an attraction for the opposite sex. There is a great variety of ways people experience their sexuality, but regardless of the attractions a person experiences now or in the future, everyone can live the gospel, either through marriage or celibacy. To say no one with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse denies the experience of many people. It would be just as naive as saying everyone with same-sex attraction can develop an attraction for a potential spouse.

==== Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction ====

Marriages where one spouse is attracted to the same sex are more prone to divorce and dissatisfaction. The Church does not recommend marriage in all cases. For example, the Church recommends being open and honest with a spouse before marriage. Research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.

Most often, the couple choose not to stay together after the disclosure. However, for those who did try to make their marriages work, they found relatively high success rates after being open and honest. The study concluded:

<blockquote>
"The significant finding is that about half of those who tried to make their marriages work succeeded, an important figure for couples who are dismayed by the fifteen percent figure to keep in mind. This low figure is based on all marriages where the husband came out."[http://www.amazon.com/Other-Side-Closet-Coming-Out-Straight/dp/0471021520#reader_0471021520]
</blockquote>

On the other hand, research by Kays found that open and honest communication lead to higher rates of stability and satisfaction in marriage. They found that some of the couples "report having a highly satisfying and stable relationship, similar to that of heterosexual marriages."[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a923933982~db=all~jumptype=rss]

==== Prevalence of marriages ====
According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are two million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the spouses is attracted to the same sex. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 3.5% of men married to women and 2.1% of women married to men reported same-sex attraction. Those are people who are actually married. Compare that with US Census Bureau's estimate that there are 646,464 same-sex couples in the United States. This includes both those who consider themselves married and those who do not. While marriage may not work for everyone with same-sex attraction, it seems that even in modern America, more people with same-sex attraction choose committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than with those of the same sex.

It is important to note that these figures include everyone who self-reported having same-sex attraction. It does not include those who did not self report same-sex attraction, nor did it report the degree of same-sex attraction. Same-sex attraction includes both those who only attracted to the same sex as well as those who have attraction to both sexes.

{{statements}}
}}
==== Alleged Hypocrisy and Potential for Change in Church Teachings ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Is it hypocritical for the Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when its members practiced plural marriage? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage ====

Critics of Mormonism argue that it is hypocritical for the LDS Church to oppose same-sex marriage, when the Church itself had an alternative form of marriage.

The Church supports all of the rights for same-sex couples that they sought for polygamous families plus some. Same-sex marriage is doing more than extending rights to same-sex couples, but is setting a new standard that excludes people with same-sex attraction who are living the gospel standards. The Church never sought to force polygamy on other people, yet the Supreme Courts and many gay right organizations are seeking to take away rights from people who do not live up to the new standards.

There is a significant difference between laws prohibiting polygamy and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Anti-polygamy laws did not allow men to live with their wives. Men were arrested for living in the homes where their children lived so that they could fulfill their parental responsibiliies. However, even where laws do not allow for same-sex marriage, same-sex couples may form a family and live together. They may even choose to hold their own "marriage" ceremony and introduce each other as husband or wife.

==== The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others ====

The Church has supported rights for all people to pursue their own happiness according to the dictates of their own consciences, both for themselves and for others. The church never sought for polygamy to be held up as a national standard, requiring all citizens to accept a moral equivalence between polygamy and monogamy. In fact, the Church has already championed rights for people with same-sex attractions that go beyond any right they ever sought for themselves in their practice of polygamy. The right to set a new standard for marriage that would apply to the rest of the United States was not a right that the Church sought for polygamous families. It should not be a right that same-sex couples should seek for themselves.

==== Different levels of rights ====
Often, when we talk about rights, different kinds of rights get lumped together into one group. Everyone knows that humans have certain inalienable rights, but we often don't discuss what happens when those rights conflict. There are several different kinds of rights associated with sexual practices.

One basic right is the right to practice your desired sexual relationship. In most modern societies, any number or gender of consenting adults can usually practice their desired relationship without fear of legal retribution. But, even in the most liberal societies, this right is generally tempered by the right of other people to disagree about the morality of that relationship.

Another right is the right to legal protection from discrimination. This would include laws that would penalize people for treating you differently because of your sexual practices. For example, in most countries, it is illegal to treat an inter-racial couple or a same-sex couple differently when it comes to housing or employment. The church has been a strong supporter of protection against discrimination in housing and employment for people with same-sex attraction, including same-sex couples.

Another set of rights includes government help in maintaining your family. This would include legal recognition of your relationship and associated rights such as visitation rights. It may also help subsidize the cost of your relationships, through tax breaks and other benefits. Some modern societies have extended these rights to same-sex couples, and the church has publicly stated that they do not oppose these rights.

A final right that might be discussed is to have your government adopt your sexual relationship as a model, requiring it to be taught in schools as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. The church is strongly opposed to this infringement of their religious right to determine their own standards of sexual morality according to the dictates of their own consciences.

==== Rights associated with plural marriage ====
When the church supported plural marriage, they were seeking for that most basic of rights - the right to practice their religion. They were not seeking for the United States to recognize their plural marriages, to subsidize their relationships with tax breaks, or to force all citizens to accept it as the moral equivalent of their own monogamous traditions. They only sought to be left to practice their religion in peace.

But the federal government would not allow them even this most basic of rights. Husbands were forcibly separated from their wives and children. Men who tried to sneak into their homes to provide food for their families were arrested, if they were caught. Some moved to other countries so they could continue to be with their families.

==== Rights for same-sex couples ====

There are many rights that same-sex couples do not have. The church has [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances|publicly supported many rights]] and have pressed for changes in legal system to afford these rights to same-sex couples. The rights that the church supports for same-sex couples goes BEYOND any right that they have ever sought for polygamous families.

The Church has no problem with people living life as they see fit when it doesn't interfere with other rights. However, as is often the case, when some rights expand, others diminish. For example, while supporting the rights of people with same-sex attraction to be free from discrimination in employment and housing, the church was in essence restricting the rights of landlords to choose their tenants and employers to choose their employees.

Many people think legalizing same-sex marriage is a necessary step to ensure that same-sex couples have the rights they need to protect their families from discrimination. They do not understand why they Church would be opposed to these rights. As stated earlier, the Church is not opposed to these rights, but adopting same-sex marriage as a national standard equivalent to opposite-sex marriage goes beyond simply living peacefully with those who choose to live a different standard. It is disregarding the old standard and replacing it with a new standard. This will have a detrimental effect on those who do not live up to the new standard.

==== New standard being introduced with same-sex marriage ====

The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is setting a dangerous standard of what is expected for people with same-sex attractions. It used to be that society expected people with same-sex attraction to get married to people of the opposite-sex. This type of expectation can cause damage for people with same-sex attraction who are not ready for marriage, and has been opposed by the Church for decades. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy|Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy]]

Now, a new expectation is beginning to form that people with same-sex attraction can't have a fulfilling and faithful marriage with someone of the opposite sex and that they must marry someone of the same sex. Expectations of any sort are dangerous and hurt people who do not meet those expectations. About half of faithful members of the Church with same-sex attraction are heterosexually married, and many others have found fulfillment in celibacy. The new standard being adopted by several courts does not have room for these faithful members.

For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that, for people with same-sex attraction, their "choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex", and that was what their "true identity" should be. Later, Judge Walker ruled that the marriages of many members of the church with same-sex attraction was "unrealistic". The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that these relationships were "unappealing" and was "no right at all".

While many same-sex marriage supporters do not wish to harm those who follow the law of chastity, many major organizations have actively sought to take away rights from those people who do not live up to the new standard. For example, the Human Rights Campaign has actively opposed anti-discrimination employment rights for gay people who do not have gay sex.[http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/victory-disney-shareholders-reject-ex-gay-proposal/] It is ironic that while the Church has been actively lobbying to extend employment rights for all LGBT people, the Human Rights Campaign has worked and has succeeded in taking away those exact same rights from LGBT people who live Church standards.

By the Supreme Courts encoding this new standard into law, people with same-sex attraction who do not live up to the standard can be discriminated against in the private sector. For example, Apple recently removed an app from its iTune collection because the organization who put it up was composed of gay Christians who lived the law of chastity. A spokesperson for Apple explained that having an app for gay people who live the law of chastity "violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people". [http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/03/apple-removes-exodus-anti-lgbt-iphone-app/][http://www.christianpost.com/news/exodus-responds-to-apple-petition-to-pull-gay-cure-app-49513/][http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/23/apple-pulls-gay-cure-app-following-controversy/] There is a difference between seeking for the right to live an alternative lifestyle and taking away rights from those who do not choose your lifestyle because you find it "offensive". It is interesting to note this organization has made a statement supporting people's right to choose same-sex relationships.[http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm]
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Isn't the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== The Law of Chastity is doctrine with scriptural precedent, whereas the priesthood ban was a practice that was always said to be temporary ====
President McKay taught:
<blockquote>
There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it. (Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright. Quoted by Genesis Group)[http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.com/howtoreach.html]
</blockquote>

==== The priesthood ban was not based on a choice ====
Just because a black man was denied the priesthood before 1978, does not mean he did anything wrong. It was a practice that was applied to all black men and had nothing to do with the choices of the individual person. Being black was not a choice that he made. Following the law of chastity is a choice. Everyone can follow the law of chastity, regardless of sexual orientation. If someone chooses to have sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is a worthiness issue and is a choice that they are making.

==== It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed ====

It was prophesied that the priesthood ban would be reversed, whereas we are told the law of chastity would always be in place.

For example, in reference to black people, Brigham Young taught:
<blockquote>
"The time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more."<ref>Brigham Young, Speech given in Joint Session of the Utah Legislature, February 5, 1952 in Fred Collier, ''The Teachings of President Brigham Young'' (Salt Lake City, UT: Collier's Publishing, 1987), 43.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== The prohibition on homosexual behavior has repeatedly been declared as a never-changing standard. ====

President Hinckley taught:
<blockquote>
Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins.<ref>[http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&sourceId=969567700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a]</ref>
</blockquote>

A cursory review of the historical record confirms his view:

==== 1983 ====

<blockquote>
Likewise, make it clear to your students what the gospel cannot do. Once individuals or nations have departed from the prescribed path, their behavior may be legalized, '''but it cannot be and will not be legitimized by the Lord.''' For example, the gospel can cure, but it cannot condone, homosexuality. It can cure mortals from the need to pursue heedless abortion, but once they have left the straight and narrow path, it cannot guide them through the dark thicket of inconsistent alternatives which lie on either side of that path.<ref>Neal A. Maxwell, "Those Seedling Saints Who Sit Before You," CES Symposium on the Old Testament, August 1983, https://si.lds.org/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/those-seedling-saints-who-sit-before-you. [Note that here Elder Maxwell follows usage of homosexuality that was then current, especially among Church leaders: they saw homosexuality as behavior not as an orientation. Thus homosexual sin can be cured—for homosexual temptation or orientation is not a sin. (Though it is a burden for many that might be lightened or removed in accord with the Lord’s will.)]</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2012 ====
<blockquote>
Do not tamper with the life-giving powers in your body alone or with members of either gender. '''That is the standard of the Church, and it will not change.''' As you mature, there is a temptation to experiment or explore immoral activities.<ref>Boyd K. Packer, "How To Survive in Enemy Territory," address on the centennial of Seminary program, 22 January 2012, http://seminary.lds.org/history/centennial/eng/how-to-survive-in-enemy-territory/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2013 ====
<blockquote>
Marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Lord’s doctrine and crucial to God’s eternal plan. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fulness of life on earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood, or misconstrued. Not if you want true joy.....Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, '''the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed.'''<ref>Russell M. Nelson, "Decisions for Eternity," general conference, October 2013 [footnotes make it clear he is speaking of same-sex marriage; these have been omitted here.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''What we do know is that the doctrine of the Church—that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married—has not changed and is not changing.'''<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Leadership Training: Chastity and Fidelity," video, [1:01-1:14 timestamp] https://www.lds.org/pages/lt/hwb84sun4af0o2tjwwyt?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman, all uses of our procreative powers are to one degree or another sinful and contrary to God’s plan for the exaltation of His children…. [L]aws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," general conference, October 2013, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods.p27.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Central to God’s plan, '''the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and [https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions will not change].'''" "If it is being suggested that the church’s doctrine on this matter [same sex marriage] is changing, '''that is incorrect.''' Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, '''traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.'''<ref>Church statement, cited in Tad Walsh, "LDS Church responds to inquiries about Harry Reid comment," Deseret News (7 November 2013), https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590140/LDS-Church-responds-to-inquiries-about-Harry-Reid-comment.html. See also "Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage," press release (11 November 2013), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda—same-sex-marriage</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called "same-sex marriage" '''do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it.''' We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "No Other Gods," Ensign (November 2013), https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2015 ====
<blockquote>
When pressed on whether he’s leaving any room for movement [on same sex marriage or acts] in the future, Christofferson simply said, "'''No.'''"<ref>Daniel Woodruff, "LDS apostle explains church's evolution on LGBT issues, says members' politics may differ from doctrine," KUTV (14 March 2015), http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Tonight-at-10-LDS-apostle-opens-up-on-evolution-of-church-s-support-for-new-antidiscrimination-law-102821.shtml#.VQZN9i6zFQB.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2016 ====
<blockquote>
'''There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right.''' But what is changing—and what needs to change—is helping Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.<ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction," https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/love-one-another-a-discussion-on-same-sex-attraction.</ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
'''Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:'''

As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The Church also affirms that God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family.<ref>"Church Leaders," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng> (21 October 2020). This comes from the Church's official website on same-sex attraction and the same statement remains there today.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2019 ====
<blockquote>
These changes [to policies regarding same-sex marriage and children raised in such marriages] do not represent a shift in Church doctrine related to marriage or the commandments of God in regard to chastity and morality. '''The doctrine of the plan of salvation and the importance of chastity will not change.'''<ref>Church Newsroom, "April 2019 General Conference News and Announcements," (3 April 2019), https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-messages-general-conference-leadership-session-april-2019#oaks</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2020 ====
McKay Coppins, a Latter-day Saint writing for ''The Atlantic'', quoted Russell M. Nelson (then president of the Church):
<blockquote>
But while some of these changes have been celebrated as signs of progress, Nelson has not budged on key issues. When I asked him what he’d say to LGBTQ people who feel that the Church doesn’t want them, he told me, "God loves all his children, just like you and I do," and "There’s a place for all who choose to belong to his Church." But when I asked whether the prohibition on same-sex relationships might someday be lifted, he demurred. '''"As apostles of the Lord, we cannot change God’s law," he said. "We teach his laws. He gave them many thousands of years ago, and I don’t expect he’ll change them now."'''<ref>McKay Coppins, "The Most American Religion," ''The Atlantic'', December 18, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/01/the-most-american-religion/617263/.</ref>
</blockquote>

==== 2022 ====
President Dallin H. Oaks:

<blockquote>
Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this Family Proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.<ref>Church News Staff, "President Dallin H. Oaks: ‘Divine Love in the Father’s Plan’," ''Church News'', April 3, 2022, https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2022-04-03/president-oaks-april-2022-general-conference-gods-love-salvation-eternal-marriage-248346.</ref>
</blockquote>

The priesthood ban needed to be reversed so all of God's children could have the blessings of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, whereas the Law of Chastity, as it stands, already allows all people these blessings.

==== Scriptural precedence ====

* Jesus Christ taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, whereas He did not teach blacks would not receive the priesthood. (See [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on|Christ's teachings on homosexuality]])
* The Law of Chastity has scriptural precedence, whereas the priesthood ban did not.

==== It's cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. ====
As a final contention, it is cruel to create a false expectation that the doctrine will change. Creating such just fosters more disappointment, depression, possible suicidality, etc. in the person with same-sex attraction each time they hear that the Church's doctrine won't change. It's advisable that we, as members of the Lord's Church, not make promises that can't be kept. We need to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort." That is true; but we also need to "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death[.]"<ref>{{s||Mosiah|18|9}}.</ref> As Elder D. Todd Christofferson has taught, "[t]here’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."<ref>"Church Provides Context on Handbook Changes Affecting Same-Sex Marriages," <https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson> (21 October 2020).</ref>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === If same-sex attraction is something that occurs naturally, why can't God and the Church accept it by allowing sealings of LGBT couples? ===
| state = closed
| content =
==== Introduction to Question ====
Some have brought up the sensitive question of why gay marriage and other LGBT relationships can't be accepted by God and the Church if the characteristic is innate. Some struggle to find a purpose in the command to not engage in homosexual behavior. Some secularist critics and even members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage co-opt this issue as a means of openly and directly challenging the Church's opposition to same-sex relationships and marriages. This article examines that sensitive question/criticism.

It must be understood that some people are very sincere when asking these questions and that the questions deserve to be treated as such when sincerity is sensed. Others simply want to emotionally manipulate people into faith crisis over this issue. Great discernment is needed to know whether one is the former or latter in any given situation.

=== Response to Question ===
==== Feelings are Not Being ====
It is important to remember that just because something occurs naturally, that doesn't mean that it is therefore a good thing. This is what is known as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Is-Ought Fallacy] in philosophy. There are plenty of things that occur naturally that we don't consider good such as depression, anxiety, and so forth. Many animals kill each other after mating.<ref>Katherine Ellen Foley, "Some animals kill each other after sex because their distinction between hungry and flirty is blurred," last modified February 14, 2017, https://qz.com/909885/some-animals-kill-each-other-after-sex-because-their-distinction-between-hungry-and-flirty-is-blurred/.</ref>

Brigham Young University professor Ty Mansfield pointed out something important in regard to feelings not forming identity:
<blockquote>
"Being gay" is not a scientific idea, but rather a cultural and philosophical one, addressing the subjective and largely existential phenomenon of identity. From a social constructionist/constructivist perspective, our sense of identity is something we negotiate with our environment. Environment can include biological environment, but our biology is still environment. From an LDS perspective, the essential spiritual person within us exists independent of our mortal biology, so our biology, our body is something that we relate to and negotiate our identity with, rather than something that inherently or essentially defines us. Also, while there has likely been homoerotic attraction, desire, behavior, and even relationships, among humans as long as there have been humans, the narratives through which sexuality is understood and incorporated into one’s sense of self and identity is subjective and culturally influenced. The "gay" person or personality didn’t exist prior to the mid-20th century.

In an LDS context, people often express concern about words that are used—whether they be "same-sex attraction," which some feel denies the realities of the gay experience, or "gay," "lesbian," or "LGBT," which some feels speaks more to specific lifestyle choices. What’s important to understand, however, is that identity isn’t just about the words we use but the paradigms and worldviews and perceptions of or beliefs about the "self" and "self-hood" through which we interpret and integrate our various experiences into a sense of personal identity, sexual or otherwise. And identity is highly fluid and subject to modification with change in personal values or socio-cultural context. The terms "gay," "lesbian," and "bisexual" aren’t uniformly understood or experienced in the same way by everyone who may use or adopt those terms, so it’s the way those terms or labels are incorporated into self-hood that accounts for identity. One person might identify as "gay" simply as shorthand for the mouthful "son or daughter of God who happens to experience romantic, sexual or other desire for persons of the same sex for causes unknown and for the short duration of mortality," while another person experiences themselves as "gay" as a sort of eternal identity and state of being.

An important philosophical thread in the overall experience of identity, is the experience of "selfhood"—what it means to have a self, and what it means to "be true to" that self. The question of what it means to be "true to ourselves" is a philosophical rather than a scientific one. In her book ''Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self'', award-winning science and medical writer Rita Carter explores the plurality of "selves" who live in each one of us and how each of those varied and sometimes conflicting senses of self inform various aspects of our identity(ies). This sense seems to be universal. In the movie The Incredibles, there’s a scene in which IncrediBoy says to Mr. Incredible, "You always, always say, ‘Be true to yourself,’ but you never say which part of yourself to be true to!"<ref>Ty Mansfield, "[https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2014/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay 'Mormons can be gay, they just can’t do gay': Deconstructing Sexuality and Identity from an LDS Perspective]," (presentation, FairMormon Conference, Provo, UT, 2014).</ref>
</blockquote>

Thus, there is ''big'' difference between ''feelings'' and the meaning or labels that we ''assign'' to feelings. Thank goodness that feelings are not being. Couldn't we imagine a time where someone would want to change feelings that they didn't feel described their identity such as impulses for pornography, drugs, or violence? This does not mean that the author is comparing sexual orientation to bad impulses, this is simply to point out that feelings do not inherently control identity. We assign identity to feelings.

==== The Latter-day Saint Argument for Marriage ====
We should turn to Latter-day Saint scripture to figure out why the Church values marriage as much as it does and why is refuses to acknowledge same-gender sexual behavior and romantic relationships.

In 1831, Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the Shakers living in Ohio regarding some of their beliefs. As part of their religious system, they forbade people to marry and made them celibate. This revelation reissues the Lord's definition of marriage to the Shakers:

:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
:16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;
:17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

This revelation makes several crucial points about the Latter-day Saint position on marriage:
#Marriage is ordained of God
#Marriage is defined as being between one man and woman
#We were designed by God to be married this way.
#Our design is not shown in the sexual orientation we have but our biological gender.
#We were designed in the pre-mortal existence to be married man and woman.

We might ask why this marriage arrangement is the ideal one? We believe that it is because the Lord endorses the conjugal view of marriage. What is the conjugal view of marriage? Another website explains:

<blockquote>
The conjugal view holds that marriage is a union between a man and a woman who share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. In other words, procreation (creating new human life) is the unifying good of a marriage relationship. A "unifying good" is that activity that most completely unites the partners in the relationship — the purpose towards which they coordinate their joint activities.
 
Let’s illustrate what this means: Consider a boyfriend and a girlfriend who share a deep emotional connection and enjoy spending time with each other. They have no particular plans for the future, and have made no commitments to each other. They may be united by many things, including mutual enjoyment, or whatever shared hobbies they pursue. Imagine that the girlfriend suddenly becomes pregnant. At that moment, their futures change completely — a whole host of duties suddenly arise that fundamentally changes their relationship.

They are now united by something more than just mutual enjoyment and emotional connection — they are united by an innocent human person, who physically embodies their union. While their relationship may still involve love and a deep emotional connection, raising the child becomes that thing that most completely unites them. This is what it means to say that child-raising is the unifying good of the relationship. They will probably consider getting married, because that is what marriage is about. In fact, if they don’t get officially married, but continue to live together and raise their kids together, many governments will still consider them married anyway (in what is called "common law marriage").

The change that occurred in their relation strikes at the heart of marriage, from the conjugal view. Marriage is when a man and a woman say to each other, in essence, "Let us extend our emotional union into something more permanent, by starting a family together." That is, a married couple arranges their lives and joins their families in anticipation of child-birth and child-raising. A pregnancy may be an unexpected interruption to a boyfriend and girlfriend, which fundamentally changes their relationship. However, as much as a child might change the lives of a married couple, she does not change the nature of their relationship. Marriage creates that difference from the get-go (before children are ever conceived), by enwrapping the relationship in norms (expectations) of permanence and fidelity. This is because marriage is oriented towards procreation. It points couples that direction.<ref>"The Conjugal vs. Revisionist Views of Marriage," ''Discussing Marriage'', accessed May 4, 2021, https://discussingmarriage.org/the-conjugal-vs-revisionist-views-of-marriage/#.YJG5gkhKjRZ.</ref>
</blockquote>

There are some objections that people have raised to this that we address below.

Latter-day Saint scripture also provides some evidence that the union of man and woman creates the spirits people in the next life (D&C 132:63).

=== Objections to Church Standard ===
==== The Argument from Personal Revelation ====
There are often claims from members of the Church who identify as LGBTQAIP+ and other members of the Church who support same-sex marriage that they have received personal revelation that the Church is wrong about this issue and that it will eventually accept LGBT sealings, relationships, and so on in the future. Since this is a topic that involves the ontological makeup of the entire human family as well as their eternal destiny, this type of revelation does not lie within the stewardship of those that identify as LGBT or those that support same-sex marriage, but with the prophet of God (Doctrine and Covenants 28:2-4; 42:53-60; 112:20). The Savior told us that the one way we could protect ourselves against deception is to hold to his word (JS-{{s||Matthew|1|37}}) and he announces himself as the source of the revelation declaring that our telos as men and women is to be united maritally and sexually (Doctrine and Covenants 49:28). Thus, it is likely that these individuals, if they have indeed felt revelation occur, have been deceived by false Spirits (Doctrine and Covenants 50:1-2) and their testimonies should be disregarded. If someone were to receive a revelation like this, it would be given to them for their own comfort and instruction. They would also be placed under strict commandment to not disseminate their revelation until it accords with the revelation of the prophets, God's authorized priesthood channels (Alma 12:9).

{{Main|How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?}}

==== The Argument from Priesthood Restriction ====
As an additional means of justifying opposition to the Church's position on same sex marriage, some point to the pre-1978 restrictions on people of African descent from holding the Church's priesthood or officiating in temple ordinances, including the Church's disavowed explanations for the restrictions. If the Church was wrong about their explanations for that, could it be wrong about this issue? This has been examined in another article on the FairMormon wiki.

{{Main|Isn't the Mormon opposition to same-sex marriage hypocritical, considering that they used to ban black from holding the priesthood until 1978?}}

=== Conclusion ===
Many LGBT members of The Church of Jesus Christ do not need to hear the points listed in this article. Many understand these points clearly but may simply need someone to love and empathize with their struggle. Members of the Church are placed under covenant at baptism to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (Mosiah 18:8–9) and should be open to helping these good men and women when they need it most.

Alternatively, there may be some that begin to debate against the Church's position out of sincere frustration and sadness or simple spite. First, those who wish to help these individuals will need to dig deep and find out why these individuals are debating against the Church's position. Some may still need to simply have someone love them and empathize with them. Others may be past that and be debating, as mentioned, out of simple spite and emotional manipulation. In these instances, members of the Church should follow the other part of their baptismal covenant as outlined in {{s||Mosiah|18|8-9}} and "stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in[.]"

As a final word which we wish to emphasize:

FairMormon joins The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in unequivocally condemning the discrimination of any of God's children based upon gender (or gender identity), race, sexual identity and/or orientation, and/or religious affiliation..

{{Seealso|Since there are people that are born intersex, experience gender dysphoria, or identify as transgender, does this invalidate the Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") doctrine of eternal male and/or female gender?}}
}}

==== Aversion Therapy ====
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) ever conduct aversion therapy? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. However, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s ====

The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU.

*[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Information regarding aversion therapy, Brigham Young University (BYU), and President Dallin H. Oaks
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/01/04/fair-examination-6-overcoming-same-sex-attraction-blake-smith/ FAIR Examination 6 - Overcoming same-sex attraction - Blake Smith] - FAIR podcast of an LDS man who underwent aversion therapy at BYU-Idaho in 1973
* [http://www.fairblog.org/2012/02/01/fair-examination-8-aversion-therapy-at-byu-dr-eugene-thorne/ FAIR Examination 8 - Aversion therapy at BYU - Dr. Eugene Thorne] - FAIR podcast featuring Dr. Thorne, who oversaw aversion therapy studies at BYU, including that of Dr. McBride.

==== In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality ====

The Church is a religious body, not a medical institution. People who are members of the Church or go to BYU do a great variety of things. The Church does not take responsibility for everything done by a member or for everything done by someone at BYU (despite what one might think, not everyone at BYU is a member of the Church).

In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU.

Church leadership does not dictate nor oversee the details of scientific research at Brigham Young University. Like many universities, there are many different research projects going on with many different views on many different subjects. The Church is not responsible for every view held by one of its researchers. The church itself has never recommended aversion therapy.

The church has posted on its website an interview with the following quote:

<blockquote>
"The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on. The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used."
</blockquote>

President Kimball once cited reputable medical sources indicating that the practice of homosexuality could be abandoned through treatments, but he did not specify any treatments by name. The point President Kimball wanted to make, and that the church still makes, is that sexual actions can and must be controlled.

==== The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done ====

The church does not direct or oversee scientific research at BYU and does not mandate what experiments are to be done or not to be done. At BYU, as at other universities, students and professors have a variety of opinions and approaches and have significant freedom to pursue their own academic interests.

As an example, retired BYU professor William Bradshaw has presented biological evidence supporting his view that homosexuality is not an acquired tendency and lifestyle.[http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488] Bradshaw is free to share this view at BYU even though the church does not have a particular position on the causes of same-sex attraction and certainly believes that the lifestyles we follow represent a choice.

In the 1970's, there were a variety of opinions about how to treat mental disorders. Some professors and students were partial to the behaviorist movement to treat mental illnesses while others focused on verbal therapy. Today, the APA recommends cognitive therapies to help people who feel distress about their sexual orientation, but, in the 1970s, it was unclear which approach was best. If a professor or a graduate student favored one approach over another, it was because they favored that approach, not because it was mandated by the Church.

==== Academic freedom at BYU ====
{{Main|Mormonism and education}}

The fact is that every member of the BYU community is free to espouse his or her own theories. As long as they remain in line with standards published by the professional societies and with the school’s academic freedom policy, all are free to pursue their own line of thinking. Actually, this situation is one of the requirements for university accreditation, and BYU is an accredited university.

It should also be remembered that, contrary to the popular caricature of the church, Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to think for themselves and find their own answers to questions, without coercion from church leadership. {{s||Doctrine and Covenants|58|26}} reads:

<blockquote>
For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
</blockquote>

And it was Joseph Smith himself who famously said:

<blockquote>
I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. [History of the Church 5:340]
</blockquote>
}}
{{CollapseHeaders
| title = === What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality? ===
| state = closed
| content =
[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,
==== In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy'' ====

In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled ''Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy''. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study. The following facts need to be kept in mind as the study is evaluated.

<blockquote>
Basis for the study. BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality. In fact, the purpose of the McBride's study was not to determine the effectiveness of aversion therapy in treating homosexuality. That question was generally accepted, at the time, to have been satisfactorily answered in the positive as a result of previous studies at other institutions.

Supervision. The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis.

Population. The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation.

Subjects. McBride discusses the subjects chosen in the following excerpt from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
Seventeen male subjects were used in the study, 14 completed treatment. Selection was on the basis of clinical evidence of homosexuality; absence of psychosis (no prior history); desire for treatment; no history of epilepsy, alcoholism or drug addiction.
</blockquote>

Disclosure. McBride describes the procedures used to ensure full disclosure of what the subjects were to expect. We quote from his dissertation:

<blockquote>
It was mandatory that all subjects chosen to participate sign and have witnessed a prepared statement explaining (a) the experimental nature of the treatment procedure, (b) the use of aversive electric shock, (c) the showing of 35 mm slides that might be construed by subject as possibly offensive, and (d) that Brigham Young University was not in any direct way endorsing the procedures used. This was to insure that all subjects were in full agreement and understanding as to what the treatment procedure would involve, provide and demand from them.
</blockquote>

Nature of the study. The techniques used by McBride followed the standard aversion therapy procedures of the time. The volunteers were subjected to electric shocks applied to their upper arms while being shown both clothed and nude pictures of men. They were able to choose to end the shocks by switching to nude and clothed pictures of women.

Materials. The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure.
</blockquote>

==== In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences ====

In the years since the study, some of the study participants have talked publicly about their experiences. Many of these reports are troubling to read, as are similar reports from participants in studies at other universities and facilities of the time. While it seems likely that the McBride study was traumatic to some of the individuals involved, it must be remembered that participation in the study was voluntary, each participant had a clear explanation beforehand what the study would entail, and participants could leave the study at any time they wanted. Indeed, three of the seventeen participants in the study did not remain to its completion. These points are not mentioned to minimize the experiences of these participants in any manner; they are only made so that the professional and ethical context of the study can be properly evaluated.

It is also important to note that aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality was not a major element of BYU research. In the APA task force report, BYU's contribution to the field of aversion therapy was not covered. This is probably because BYU's involvement was too minor to include. Other universities had more participants and many conducted their studies later than BYU.

=== Did BYU ever use vomiting as part of aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Vomiting was not used ====

McBride's thesis thoroughly describes the methods used to induce aversion. He did not use vomiting. This fact is verified in the interview with Dr. Thorne, available as the FAIR podcast referenced above, as well as by a specific statement to this effect from BYU:

<blockquote>
The BYU Counseling Center never practiced therapy that would involve chemical or induced vomiting.[http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-gay-cures-reparative-therapies-shock-today/story?id=13240700&page=2#.TzrMQ1wS2Sw]
</blockquote>

Most of the accusations of using induced vomiting come f{{s||rom:|1|}}) a person who admits that he never underwent therapy and 2) from the "documentary" 8: The Mormon Proposition (which contains several false accusations as detailed [[Criticism of Mormonism/Video/8: The Mormon Proposition|here]]). These two accounts are not consistent with each other. In short, there is no reliable documentation of the use of induced vomiting at BYU.

=== Did BYU ever force students to undergo aversion therapy? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Participation was voluntary ====

Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study. For this reason, they would not have accepted referrals from the Honor Code office even if they had been given. There was also a strict separation between what they did and what the honor code office knew about so as to remove any possibility of "pretending" to have certain results to please the honor code office. As reported in the thesis, participants could drop out at any time for whatever reason, as evidenced by the fact that some did.

=== How does aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970s relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? ===

[https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu Aversion Therapy at BYU] - Detailed information regarding aversion therapy,

==== Aversion therapy is a standard technique that is still used today for a variety of treatments ====

Aversion therapy is still used today for a variety of treatments, such as gambling, smoking, alcoholism, and violence. A 2010 article in Psychology Today states "To date, aversion therapy using shock and nausea is the only technique of quitting [smoking] that offers decent gambling odds." <ref>Nigel Barber, Ph.D., [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201002/smoking-most-effective-quitting-technique-little-known "Smoking: Most effective quitting technique little known,"] February 17, 2010</ref> The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders has this entry for aversion therapy:

<blockquote>
A patient who consults a behavior therapist for aversion therapy can expect a fairly standard set of procedures. The therapist begins by assessing the problem, most likely measuring its frequency, severity, and the environment in which the undesirable behavior occurs. Although the therapeutic relationship is not the focus of treatment for the behavior therapist, therapists in this tradition believe that good rapport will facilitate a successful outcome. A positive relationship is also necessary to establish the patient's confidence in the rationale for exposing him or her to an uncomfortable stimulus. The therapist will design a treatment protocol and explain it to the patient. The most important choice the therapist makes is the type of aversive stimulus to employ. Depending upon the behavior to be changed, the preferred aversive stimulus is often electric stimulation delivered to the forearm or leg. <ref>[http://www.minddisorders.com/A-Br/Aversion-therapy.html "Aversion Therapy,"] ''Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders''</ref>
</blockquote>

==== Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s ====

Over the years, the methods have been refined and approved. Today, we have decades of research that were not available in the 1970s, giving us a better understanding of where aversion therapy would be effective and where it would not be effective. The methods of the 1970s may seem crude compared to today's standards, but today's standards will probably seem crude in another 40 years. Forms of aversion therapy are still used today by mainstream psychologists to treat a variety of conditions.

==== History of therapy and homosexuality ====

Homosexuality was once illegal in many countries, and those convicted were forced into various therapies against their wills.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing]

In 1966, Martin E.P. Seligman conducted a study at the University of Pennsylvania which showed positive results in applying aversion therapy to help people stop engaging in homosexual behavior. According to Seligman, this led to "a great burst of enthusiasm about changing homosexuality [that] swept over the therapeutic community." <ref>Seligman, Martin E.P., ''What You Can Change and What You Can't: The Complete Guide to Self Improvement'' Knopf, 1993; ISBN 0-679-41024-4, p. 156</ref> Research was conducted by researchers at many institutions, including universities like Harvard and King's College in London.

Historically, there were two types of homosexuality that were treated, ego-dystonic homosexuality and ego-syntonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. Ego-syntonic homosexuality describes a situation where the subject is content with his or her sexual orientation. Ego-dystonic homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychological Association (APA) until 1987, and an ego-dystonic sexual orientation is still considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization ([http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 F66.1]). <ref>[http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f661 "Mental and behavioural disorders,"] ''International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems'', 10th Revision Version for 2007</ref>

Even after the APA declassified ego-dystonic homosexuality as mental illness, aversion therapy could still be used to treat distress over sexual orientation, though not the sexual orientation itself. Persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation is still classified as a sexual disorder in the DSM-IV under ''Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified'' (302.9). It was not until 1994, that the American Medical Association issued a report that stated "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians" <ref>"Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S.," American Medical Association Report, 1994</ref> and it was not until 2006 that using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality became a violation of the codes of conduct and professional guidelines of the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association.

In 2009, a task force was commissioned by the American Psychological Association to investigate therapies used to treat homosexuality, including aversion therapy. They reported:

<blockquote>
Early research on efforts to change sexual orientation focused heavily on interventions that include aversion techniques. Many of these studies did not set out to investigate harm. Nonetheless, these studies provide some suggestion that harm can occur from aversive efforts to change sexual orientation...

We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on the safety of SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts]. Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from SOCE. However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents a serious concern, as do studies that report perceptions of harm (cf. Lilienfeld, 2007). <ref>[http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf "APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation."] (2009). ''Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.'' Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. </ref>
</blockquote>

Ego-syntonic homosexuality was not addressed in the BYU studies, though it was a subject of research performed at other institutions. Furthermore, BYU only treated adults. Other institutions, such as UCLA, treated children as young as 6.[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796777901024]

==== Aversion therapy at other institutions ====

A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality:

<center>
{{AversionTherapyatHospitals}}
</center>

==== Purpose of psychological therapy ====

The purpose of therapy is to help patients towards their desired goals. One of the fundamentals in the field is patient self-determination. It is the patient who sets the goals, not the therapist. Aversion therapy, which is still administered today to help smokers, is not administered as a way to torture the subjects for smoking, but to help them achieve their goal of being smoke-free. Similarly, the therapy at BYU was administered to people who felt distress about their sexual lives. The purpose of the therapy was to relieve that stress. The volunteers for the study sought help to change their homosexuality and medical associations of that time recommended this therapy as just one among several.

An analysis of similar aversion therapy studies indicate that they may have caused or exacerbated distress and poor mental health, especially depression and suicidal thoughts. (For more information on suicides, see [[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide|Same-sex attraction/Suicide]].) Whether or not these effects were experienced by the participants at the studies run at BYU could not be determined. There is an inherent risk in therapy for mental illnesses. As with many experiments, the risks were not fully understood at the time they were being run.
}}
{{Endnotes sources}}


[[Category:Questions]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Boyd K. Packer Oktober 2010 Konferenzansprache]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Das Gesetz des Mose]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Neigungen und Gefühle oder Handlungen]]
[[de:Geschlechterthemen/Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung/Was Christus darüber lehrte]]
[[en:Did Elder Boyd K. Packer's talk "To Young Men Only" encourage physical assaults on gay people?]]