FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church/Chapter 10
Response to claims made in "Chapter 10: The Lord's University"
| Chapter 9 | A FAIR Analysis of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church A work by author: Simon G. Southerton
|
Chapter 11 |
Response to claim: 135 - Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Mormons believe that if there is a conflict between science and religion, that the science is incorrect.
Author's sources: *Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), no page number given. GL direct link
- Note: this reference is useless for establishing what statement of Elder McConkie's is being referenced.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Some Mormons may believe this. Many others believe that there is no true conflict between science and religion, but realize that scientific ideas may be inaccurate based on limited data, or that religious understandings or preconceptions may need to be modified. The Church believes that the Lord "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (A+of+F 1꞉9), which presupposes that previous ideas may be inadequate.Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?Response to claim: 135-136 - Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Mormonism reserves the right to identify scientific truth.
Author's sources: *No sources provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Absurd claim: the author presents no evidence of this assertion.Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?Response to claim: 136 - Mormonism declares that it "corners the market" on religious truth
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Mormonism declares that it "corners the market" on religious truth.
Author's sources: *JS-History 1꞉19
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Latter-day Saints recognize that there is truth and good in all religions, and that God works through men of science to reveal truth as well.Response to claim: 136 - Joseph Smith declared that all other religions were false
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Joseph Smith declared that all other religions were false.
Author's sources: *JS-History 1꞉19
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
"Joseph Smith said that all churches were wrong, and that they were an 'abomination' in God's sight. Doesn't that sound bigoted?"- Joseph also said:
- Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."[1]
Response to claim: 136 - The author states that Mormons think that all other religions are the "whore of the earth" and "church of the devil"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The author states that Mormons think that all other religions are the "whore of the earth" and "church of the devil."
Author's sources: 1 Nephi 14꞉10
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
This claim by the author is utter nonsense.
Question: Do Latter-day Saints believe that the scriptural terms "church of the devil," the "great and abominable church," and the "whore of all the earth" refer to a specific religion?
According to the Book of Mormon, the "great and abominable church" and "whore of all the earth" refers to any organization that opposes the true Church of Jesus Christ
The Church does not teach or endorse the idea that these terms refer to any specific religion or organization. It is clear that in cases where past church authorities have modified this definition through speculation, that the First Presidency has firmly declared those speculations to be in error.
The criticism is based upon references in the Book of Mormon to the "church of the devil," which is referred to as the "whore of all the earth." For example:
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14꞉10)
George Q. Cannon publicly associated the "whore of all the earth" with those that persecuted the Church
Although the scriptures do not associate this "church" with a specific organization or religion, several early 19th century church leaders stated their opinions regarding who they considered the "whore of all the earth." For example, George Q. Cannon publicly associated the "whore of all the earth" with those that persecuted the Church:
And to-day, those who are inciting mobs against this people; those who go to Congress, and incite persecutions against us; those who fulminate threats and frame petitions; those who meet together in conventions; those who gather together in conferences, are those who belong to this "mother of abominations," this "whore of all the earth," and it is through the influence of that accursed whore, that they gather together and marshal their forces in every land against the Latter-day Saints, the Church of the living God.[2]
Heber C. Kimball associated the "whore of all the earth" with the national government
Heber C. Kimball associated the "whore of all the earth" with the national government that failed to help the Saints during their times of persecution:
It is very easy to be seen that the nation that has oppressed us is going down. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith something about the judgments that await the inhabitants of the earth, and he said in the revelations that the judgments should commence at the house of God. I will read to you parts of the revelations which speak of these things....and that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the Prophet....[3]
Orson Pratt claimed that it was the founder of the Catholic Church in a publication that was later repudiated by the Church
Orson Pratt, in his 1853-1854 periodical The Seer, claimed that the founder of the Roman Catholic Church was “the Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God” and that they derived their “authority from the Devil....”[4] The Seer, however, never achieved sufficient circulation to propagate this idea through the general Church membership. In fact, The Seer was disowned by the First Presidency in 1865 for containing "doctrines which we cannot sanction."[5]
Bruce R. McConkie's first edition of Mormon Doctrine associated it with the Catholic Church, before that edition was refuted by the First Presidency
Bruce R. McConkie is credited with promoting the idea within the modern church that the "great and abominable church" was in fact the Roman Catholic Church. The first edition of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, a book which contained sufficient errors that the First Presidency declared that the book was "not approved as an authoritative book"[6] and that it should not be re-published, contained this rather direct statement:
It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.[7]
The offending language was removed in the second edition of Mormon Doctrine and replaced with language more consistent with the Book of Mormon
When the first edition of Mormon Doctrine went into circulation, the idea that the "great and abominable church" was the Catholic Church became embedded in popular belief, despite the fact that this idea was never sanctioned or preached over the pulpit. A second edition of Mormon Doctrine was eventually released with the offending language regarding the Roman Catholic Church removed. In the second edition, McConkie states:
The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature — whether political, philosophical, educational, economic social, fraternal, civic, or religious — which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God.[8]
This statement more closely aligns with what the scriptures themselves say, without any additional interpretation. Modern church leaders have stayed close to the definition in the Book of Mormon, by identifying the "great and abominable" church as any organization the leads people away from the Church of Jesus Christ.
Response to claim: 136 - The current generation of Mormons is taught a selective view of Church history
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The current generation of Mormons is taught a selective view of Church history.
Author's sources: *Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect," BYU Studies, 21:259 (1981)
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
All teaching is selective, in any domain or field.Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?- Misrepresentation of source: Boyd K. Packer — Mantle and Intellect
- Church history/Censorship and revision
Response to claim: 137 - Many church members are "blissfully unaware" of Brigham Young's practice of polygamy
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Many church members are "blissfully unaware" of Brigham Young's practice of polygamy.
Author's sources: *Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: how does the author know what members know? Brigham Young's polygamy is well known out of the Church. How likely is it that members remain unaware?Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?
Response to claim: 137 - Senior church leaders prefer that members not question changes in temple ordinances
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Senior church leaders prefer that members not question changes in temple ordinances.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Church leaders "prefer" that members keep their covenants and not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temple. Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.: members may discuss the endowment only in the temple; they may ask any question they like there of the temple president.
Question: Why would the Church remove or alter elements of the temple ceremony if these ceremonies were revealed by God?
There is a difference between the ordinance of the endowment and the mechanism used in the presentation of the ordinance
Latter-day Saints believe that the Temple endowment is an eternal ordinance that Joseph Smith received by revelation from God. Why, then, have changes been made to it several times since it was first revealed?
People sometimes confuse the ordinance of the endowment with the presentation of the endowment. The presentation has undergone many changes since the time of Joseph Smith as it is adjusted to meet the needs of a modern and ever changing membership.
Joseph Smith restored the endowment ordinance, but the method of presentation of the ordinance is adapted to fit the needs of the times. There would be no point in having continuing revelation, a founding idea of our faith, if we are not permitted to advance and meet new needs. God’s directives and how He deals with His people may vary according to His people’s understanding and needs. God doesn’t tell everyone to build an ark and wait for a flood. Changes sometimes occur as a result of God dealing with His children according to their changing circumstances.
Response to claim: 138 - LDS ecclesiastical leaders expect "unquestioning obedience" of church members
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS ecclesiastical leaders expect "unquestioning obedience" of church members.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not incredible. The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.
The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?- Authoritarianism and Church leaders
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Unselfish Service," Ensign (May 2009): 93–96. off-site
Response to claim: 139 - The Church "unofficially" discourages prayer to "Mother in Heaven"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The Church "unofficially" discourages prayer to "Mother in Heaven"
Author's sources: AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 1998. "Report of Committee A," Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. Sept./Oct.: 71-4.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Surely it is the Church's privilege to instruct its members in what it believes and condones, and what it does not? Members then make their own decision.
Question: Are we allowed to pray to our "Heavenly Mother"?
It is not considered proper for members to pray to Mother in Heaven since there are no scriptural examples supporting such a practice
Despite these beliefs, Mother in Heaven plays virtually no role in LDS worship or teaching beyond that outlined above. It is not considered proper for members to pray to Mother in Heaven, since there are no prophetic or scriptural examples encouraging such a practice. Members of the Church pray as taught by the Savior, "Our Father, who art in heaven...." (Matthew 6:9, 3 Nephi 13꞉9, 3 Nephi 17꞉15, 3 Nephi 18꞉21, 3 Nephi 19꞉19-21, (italics added).)
Christ specifically says "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father" in Matthew 6:9 and 3 Nephi 13:9. God condemns worship of Asherah (thought by many to perhaps be Heavenly Mother) in the Old Testament.[9]
As President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:
Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests well with me. However, in light of the instruction we have received from the Lord Himself, I regard it as inappropriate for anyone in the Church to pray to our Mother in Heaven...The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her...none of us can add to or diminish the glory of her of whom we have no revealed knowledge.[10]
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:
Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Romans 8:16-18; cf. Malachi 2:10).
Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Numbers 16:22; Hebrews 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.
Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.
For Latter-day Saints, the concept of eternal family is more than a firm belief; it governs their way of life. It is the eternal plan of life, stretching from life before through life beyond mortality.
As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62). In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there. When I leave this frail existence, When I lay this mortal by, Father, Mother, may I meet you In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]
In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).
Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.
Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.[11]
We do not know the exact reason by which God has commanded us to only pray unto him and not Heavenly Mother. Whatever the reason, there are two things we can definitely rule out:
- Heavenly Mother being muzzled by a sexist, patriarchal Heavenly Father or not being in total unity with the Father in their decision to have her be more silent—seeing as she has to be in unity with Heavenly Father to be a goddess (3 Nephi 11:27).
- Heavenly Mother being muzzled by a sexist, patriarchal prophet.
- Heavenly Mother "needs protection" from the blasphemy of her name among us mortals.
She's a mother and a goddess. If she felt that she needed to speak to her children more directly, her power and glory, much greater than any of ours as mortals, could and would be wielded to speak to us.
You are not going to get different answers by praying to Heavenly Mother than you are to Heavenly Father. Again, she is one with God and would answer the same as him. As a goddess herself, she knows that the Godhead works in complete unity one with another. She would do the same.
Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:
Very little has been revealed about Mother in Heaven, but what we do know is summarized in a gospel topic found in our Gospel Library application.[12] Once you have read what is there, you will know everything that I know about the subject. I wish I knew more. You too may still have questions and want to find more answers. Seeking greater understanding is an important part of our spiritual development, but please be cautious. Reason cannot replace revelation. Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed.[13] For example, the Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.”[14] We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother.[15][16]
Response to claim: 140 - Church leaders are "loath" to make unequivocal statements of doctrine
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Church leaders are "loath" to make unequivocal statements of doctrine.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Absurd claim: a review of any general conference demonstrates that leaders are quite happy to make unequivocal statements.- If an area has no unequivocal statements, this is probably because it is not "doctrine," and the Church has no official position. Leaders are rightly wary of being misconstrued in such areas.
Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.
The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?Characteristics of Church Leaders |
|
Succession of the President of the Church |
|
Criticisms related to Church leaders |
|
Doctrine and official statements |
|
Other |
"Approaching Mormon Doctrine," LDS Newsroom (May 2007): "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four "standard works" of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. —(Click here to continue) [17]
D. Todd Christofferson (Apr 2012): "it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine"
The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him. Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members, but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.
At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. —(Click here to continue) [18]
There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." (Mormon 9:31) —(Click here to continue) [19]
What is official or core doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ?
Joseph Smith stated that the fundamental doctrine was "concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven"
Some people are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the Mormons have similar views. They therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any Latter-day Saint Church leader represents Mormon doctrine and is thus something that is secretly believed, or that should be believed, by Mormons.
Joseph Smith defined our fundamental core doctrine:
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.
—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121.
Otherwise, Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (D&C 42: 12-13, 56-60; 104:58-59), after having been submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (D&C 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (D&C 26:2; 28:13).
What have other Church leaders said on the subject?
President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained:
I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church. [20]
B.H. Roberts further explained that only those things within the Standard Works and those presented for a sustaining vote by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles is binding upon the Church and its members:
The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine. [21]
Anything else, including books written by general authorities or general conference addresses, is valuable and may be of use for explanation, elucidation, exhortation, prophecy, and instruction, but does not bear the weight of ‘scripture’ in the LDS canon. Harold B. Lee was equally explicit:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. [22]
Elsewhere, President Lee taught the same principle:
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. [23]
In Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie was equally clear:
The books, writings, explanations, expositions, views, and theories of even the wisest and greatest men, either in or out of the Church, do not rank with the standard works. Even the writings, teachings, and opinions of the prophets of God are acceptable only to the extent they are in harmony with what God has revealed and what is recorded in the standard works. [24]
In areas in which the standard works are not clear, only the President of the Church may establish doctrine definitively:
But there are many places where the scriptures are not too clear, and where different interpretations may be given to them; there are many doctrines, tenets as the Lord called them, that have not been officially defined and declared. It is in the consideration and discussion of these scriptures and doctrines that opportunities arise for differences of views as to meanings and extent. In view of the fundamental principle just announced as to the position of the President of the Church, other bearers of the Priesthood, those with the special spiritual endowment and those without it, should be cautious in their expressions about and interpretations of scriptures and doctrines. They must act and teach subject to the over-all power and authority of the President of the Church. It would be most unfortunate were this not always strictly observed by the bearers of this special spiritual endowment, other than the President. Sometimes in the past they have spoken "out of turn," so to speak. Furthermore, at times even those not members of the General Authorities are said to have been heard to declare their own views on various matters concerning which no official view or declaration has been made by the mouthpiece of the Lord, sometimes with an assured certainty that might deceive the uninformed and unwary. [25]
Notes
- ↑ History of the Church, 5:517. Volume 5 link
- ↑ George Q. Cannon, "PREDICTIONS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON, etc.," (April 6, 1884) Journal of Discourses 25:128.
- ↑ Heber C. Kimball, "OBSERVANCE OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD," (January 6, 1861) Journal of Discourses 9:131.
- ↑ Orson Pratt, The Seer (Washington D.C., April 1854).
- ↑ Deseret News (12 August 1865): 373.
- ↑ Dennis B. Horne, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings (Eborn Books, 2000), [citation needed].
- ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [1st edition] (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1958).
- ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 760. GL direct link
- ↑ "Asherah," Bible Study Tools, accessed June 23, 2022, https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/asherah/.
- ↑ Gordon B. Hinckley, "Daughters of God," Ensign (November 1991): 97.
- ↑ Elaine Anderson Cannon, "Mother in Heaven," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 2:961.
- ↑ See Gospel Topics, “Heavenly Parents.” Another resource providing information on this subject is the Gospel Topics essay “Mother in Heaven” (topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org).
- ↑ Even sincere questions about partially revealed or unrevealed truths can lead us to look “beyond the mark” (Jacob 4:14). In particular, we need to rely “wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save” (2 Nephi 31:19), Jesus Christ. Suggesting the need for something more than what Jesus Christ offers effectively diminishes the scope and power of His infinite Atonement. In so doing we divert our attention from the ultimate “source [to which we should] look for a remission of [our] sins” (2 Nephi 25:26).
- ↑ 3 Nephi 18:19.
- ↑ See, for example, Russell M. Nelson, “Lessons from the Lord’s Prayers,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2009, 47.
- ↑ Dale G. Renlund, "Your Divine Nature and Eternal Destiny," Liahona 45, no. 5 (May 2022).
- ↑ "Approaching Latter-day Saint Doctrine," Newsroom (May 2007)
- ↑ D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," April 2012 General Conference, Sunday Morning Session (1 Apr 2012)
- ↑ Neil L. Anderson, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign (Nov 2012)
- ↑ George Q. Cannon, "Comments," Millennial Star 42 no. 46 (15 November 1880), 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)
- ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, sermon of 10 July 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle, printed in Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.
- ↑ Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.
- ↑ Harold B. Lee, "The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator," Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964.
- ↑ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 111. GL direct link
- ↑ J. Reuben Clark, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” address given to seminary and institute teachers at BYU, 7 July 1954, published in Church News (31 July 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80.
Question: Is "Mormon doctrine" constantly changing?
Each prophet who has lived was called to teach and guide the people of their specific time
Apostles and prophets are human, fallible and subject to their own opinions and emotions just like the rest of humanity. This does not, however, diminish their capacity to speak in the name of the Lord on issues which affect our eternal salvation. We pay heed to the words of the living prophet who has been called to guide the church in our time, while relying upon the standard works to help us understand and confirm these teachings.
It is claimed by some that the Church frequently changes its doctrine. They point to teachings of early church leaders such as Brigham Young (often quoting from the Journal of Discourses) and criticize modern church leaders for not accepting or implementing every pronouncement recorded by these early leaders.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by a living prophet, who is authorized to speak on the Lord’s behalf to the Church to address the issues of our day. We value the words and teachings of prophets who have lived in the past. We are encouraged to study the scriptures in order to apply the lessons taught by these great individuals to our present lives. Each prophet who has lived was called to teach and guide the people of their specific time. The situations which we face in today’s society are unique to us, and dealing with them requires the ongoing guidance of a living prophet.
It is not reasonable to expect that everything taught by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young applies to us today
We are fortunate to have so many detailed teachings of the early prophets of the restoration. There is much wisdom to be gained by studying their counsel. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that everything taught by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young applies to us today. Many things that these men taught were relevant to the 19th century church. In order to help us determine how to apply the teachings of past prophets to our present lives, we have a living prophet.
In 1981, Ezra Taft Benson said:
The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.
Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.[1]
Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time
Prophets are not scientists: Their views of science tend to reflect the prevailing views of the time. For example, Brigham Young expressed a number of opinions regarding science that one would consider very humorous or even outlandish today, such as the suggestion that the moon and the sun were inhabited.
Modern day prophets are no more immune to the current thinking of their day. On May 14, 1961, Apostle (and future Church president) Joseph Fielding Smith declared that “We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it.” As much as critics would like to declare this a “failed prophecy,” would it be reasonable to expect the Church to teach such a thing in light of current knowledge?
The Apostle (and future leader of Christ’s church) Peter denied Christ three times. Applying the same standard to Peter’s statement that the Church’s critics apply to 19th century prophets, one would have to interpret this to mean that future church leaders would be forced to teach that Christ was not actually the Son of God! After all, Peter went on to become the head of Christ’s church, and was therefore a prophet.
Church members need to compare what church leaders teach to the standard works
Joseph Fielding Smith clarifies how members need to compare what church leaders teach to the standard works:
It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.[2]
Response to claim: 140 - BYU's emphasis is on conformity rather than personal freedom
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
BYU's emphasis is on conformity rather than personal freedom.
Author's sources: *Student Honor Code, Brigham Young University
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Absurd claim: the only source is the student honor code. How does this erode personal freedom? Every prospective student is aware of it, and agrees to abide by it. If he/she wants to do otherwise, he/she can easily choose to go elsewhere.Response to claim: 141 - CES insists that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
CES insists that gospel learning takes precedence over secular learning.
Author's sources: *The only sources referred to are "parents."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Why is it strange that a group hired for religious instruction to supplement college or university work should want religion taught?Response to claim: 142 - CES instructs students not to attempt to locate Book of Mormon geographical locations
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
CES instructs students not to attempt to locate Book of Mormon geographical locations.
Author's sources: * No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
This is false.Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.
Members are encouraged not to focus on the geography to the exclusion of the Book's more important spiritual message. BYU and FARMS (now the Maxwell Institute) have published a great deal of member scholarship on geography, however. If the Church opposed this, it could easily be stopped.Ironically, the author knows that there is no official geography (see p. 205) but continues to act as if it scandalous that the Church does not preach a non-official idea as official—perhaps hoping we will conclude that the model he describes is the official one which the Church dare not renounce.
Response to claim: 142 - Limited geography theories advanced by FARMS are "much too controversial" for CES students
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Limited geography theories advanced by FARMS are "much too controversial" for CES students
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Prejudicial or loaded language: where is the evidence for this claim?Response to claim: 142 - Spencer W. Kimball believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Spencer W. Kimball believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography.
Author's sources: *A talk by President Kimball given in 1977 (not listed in "Works Cited" section)
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
So what? Many Church leaders have believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography. Yet, the Church published the Limited Geography model in the official Church magazine, the Ensign.Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque/Appeal to Hypocrisy—The author tries to discredit the validity of someone's position by asserting their failure to act consistently.
The author is determined to represent LDS leaders as either bumbling, ill-informed, manipulative, or overwhelmed. The author never acknowledges that the LDS do not believe in infallibility in their leaders. The author finally admits on p. 205 that there is no official geography—why, then, does he bother to reiterate the views of various leaders as if this were some kind of problem? Since even he agrees there is no official geography, what difference does it make if members and leaders are of differing views, or if they even change their minds?Response to claim: 142 - Church members are shocked at the "limited archaeological evidence" for the Book of Mormon
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Church members are shocked at the "limited archaeological evidence" for the Book of Mormon.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
This is nonsense.Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?Response to claim: 143 - LDS apologists continue to tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong."
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS apologists continue to tell members how "scientists continue to get it wrong."
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Some LDS DNA apologists, for example, are world-class experts in their field. These authors object to the misappropriate and misapplication of science, including that found in the work here under review:- Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link
- John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
- John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
- D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link
- Note that the author merely dismisses these experts, he does not engage their evidence or arguments.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.
<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.
Response to claim: 143 - Most members follow their leaders without question
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Most members follow their leaders without question.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
Most bishops and stake presidents would find this unlikely, if not unbelievable. The author is a former LDS bishop. Did he go contrary to Church teaching and demand this? If so, his action was wrong. If not, he is evidence against his own claim.Logical Fallacy: Bandwagon (Appeal to the Masses)—The author believes that this claim is true simply because all of his or her buddies believe that it is true, despite the lack of actual evidence supporting it.
The author frequently makes claims about what "most Mormons" believe. How does he know? What surveys has he done? The author strives to portray members as gullible, ill-informed, confused, and manipulated. But, he presents no evidence save his opinion. Why ought members trust someone who obviously has such a low opinion of them?- Authoritarianism and Church leaders
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Unselfish Service," Ensign (May 2009): 93–96. off-site
Response to claim: 143 - LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the creation of man
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the creation of man.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Response to claim: 143 - LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the tower of Babel
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the tower of Babel.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Response to claim: 143 - LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the Flood
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
LDS theology supports a literal interpretation of the Flood.
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Response to claim: 143-144 - The perception is that the Church has officially denounced evolution
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The perception is that the Church has officially denounced evolution.
Author's sources: *McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1979.
- Boyd K. Packer, "Our Moral Environment," Ensign, May 1992, p. 66. (This talk does not specifically mention the theory of evolution - Packer is stating that we are not simply "advanced animals," which the author includes in his quote.)
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
This perception, however, is false.- Mormonism and science/Evolution: all official statements.
Response to claim: 144 - Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring) indicated that he could accept evolution
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Henry Eyring (father of Henry B. Eyring) indicated that he could accept evolution.
Author's sources: *Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
If a well-known scientist could publicly express support for evolution and differ with some Church leaders, how does this contribute to the "perception" that the Church has "officially denounced evolution"? The book cited was published and distributed to LDS youth—hardly the act of a Church trying to stamp out any support for evolution.
Response to claim: 145 - Eyring "avoided singling out senior leaders of the church for the bad press that evolution has received in LDS circles"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Eyring "avoided singling out senior leaders of the church for the bad press that evolution has received in LDS circles."
Author's sources: *Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, 1998.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Eyring was not shy about demonstrating where he and (say) President Joseph Fielding Smith differed on this subject.
Response to claim: 146 - The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri
Author's sources:
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
This is correct.
Question: Is it true that Mormons believe the original Garden of Eden was located in Missouri?
There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith taught this
Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.
Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)
This idea perhaps strikes most non-members as odd, but not simply because the Saints have an opinion about the Garden's location—as we have seen, religions of all stripes have had a wide variety of views on the subject. What likely strikes outside American observers as strange is the idea that the Garden is local—the LDS view does not place the Garden in a never-never land, buried in distant time and far-away space. Rather, the LDS Garden is local and somewhat immediate.
Upon reflection, though, the thoughtful observer will realize that this is simply one more manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' uniqueness: rather than believing only in dead prophets, from long ago, in distant lands, in old records, the Church also embraces modern revelation, living prophets, and an on-going divine involvement with God's people. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith does not merely sacralize the past, but the present and future as well—and, it sacralizes both lofty matters and more earthly concerns like farms, hills, and geography.
It is this intrusion of the sacred into the mundane that surprises most observers—the issue of the Garden is merely one more example of a broader phenomenon.
A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center
As the official Church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ... A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."[3]
LDS concepts and perspectives
It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradisiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden.
Response to claim: 146 - Mormons believe that the continents separated only after a global flood
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Mormons believe that the continents separated only after a global flood.
Author's sources: *DC 133꞉23-24
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
Response to claim: 146 - Mormons are "compelled" to believe in a global flood as symbolizing the "baptism of the earth"
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
Mormons are "compelled" to believe in a global flood as symbolizing the "baptism of the earth"
Author's sources: *No sources given.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
How can Mormons be "compelled" to believe in anything? Some Mormons believe this. Others do not. The Church has no official view on the matter.Logical Fallacy: Composition—The author assumes that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
Response to claim: 148 - FARMS' goal is to deter members from reading any book that challenges their faith
The author(s) of Losing a Lost Tribe make(s) the following claim:
FARMS' goal is to deter members from reading any book that challenges their faith.
Author's sources: *The author states that this is an "obvious" conclusion.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The author is Mind reading: author has no way of knowing this.Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion—The author attempts to manipulate the reader's emotional response instead of presenting a valid argument.
<Rather than interact with arguments the author labels "apologetic" (i.e., any interpretation which does not suit his naive view of the matter), the author hopes to marginalize them and reject them from consideration by claiming they are somehow novel, contrary to the Book of Mormon's plain meaning, or driven by desperation.Many statements indicate that these ideas are generally not novel, and were certainly developed well before any pressure from DNA arguments—they arose from the Book of Mormon text itself.
Notes
- ↑ Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," Ensign (June 1981).
- ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 203.
- ↑ "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," from Newsroom: The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders, and the Public (4 May 2007) at lds.org. off site