SYNOPSIS

For many years, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have practiced what they call “friendshipping.” This coined word describes the attitude that Mormons are told to have in their relationships with less active members or those who have no connection whatsoever to the LDS Church. By going out of their way to do kind gestures, Mormons hope to present a positive image of their church and possibly entice friends and neighbors to enter into the missionary lessons. In addition, many Christians are pressured to join the LDS Church when they become involved in romantic relationships with Mormons. While Mormons apparently can date outside their faith as long as their partners are pure and wholesome, they are not supposed to marry nonmembers. Thus, the Christian boyfriend or girlfriend is typically required to join the LDS Church before the relationship can head to the next step, which could be a Mormon temple wedding ceremony. While Christians certainly can and should have friendships with those from other religions, including Mormons, they also need to understand the potential pitfalls when others are trying to convert them to their faith.

My friend and I backed the rented moving truck into the driveway of our family’s new home in Sandy, Utah, a short drive from the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in Salt Lake City. It was 2:00 A.M. on a Sunday, much too late to begin unloading the twenty-seven-foot, packed-to-the-gills truck. We decided to get some sleep, knowing that some friends were scheduled to come by that afternoon to help.

Sunday is a sacred day for members of the LDS Church; Mormons are not supposed to work or recreate on the “Sabbath.” Since more than two-thirds of Utah’s population is LDS, many stores and restaurants throughout the state are closed on Sunday. Because our friends’ schedules did not allow for them to help later in the week and the truck was due back, we hoped our new Mormon neighbors (which, it turns out, includes almost everyone on the block) would understand why we had to work on Sunday.

That afternoon, as the back door to the truck rolled open and we began the backbreaking process of unloading, my next-door neighbor—sporting jeans and a T-shirt with a pair of work gloves on his hands—appeared from around the corner. “Need a hand?” he asked. I knew that he was a former Mormon bishop who had been very friendly to me during my purchase of the home. “Imagine,” I thought to myself, “this man is willing to forego his day of rest to help me move.” In one way, I was duly impressed. But I wondered if “friendshipping” was his main motivation. Regardless, he was one of the hardest workers of the afternoon, sweating profusely and refusing to take a break.

 KIND ACTS AND GETTING A FOOT IN THE DOOR

In the 2005 LDS-genre movie Mobsters and Mormons, a New Jersey “goodfella” and his family are secretly relocated to Utah as part of the Witness Protection Program. The comedy comes as the rough-edged Italian informant—now with the assumed name of George Cheeseman—learns to adapt to the culture that feels to him like Disneyland on steroids. Soon after the Cheesemans move into their home, most of the Mormon families from the neighborhood bend over backwards to welcome the brash newcomers with visits and gifts of baked goods. In addition, it doesn’t take them long to invite this Catholic family to Mormon Church services and activities.

Louise, the local neighborhood gossip, decides she isn’t a fan of these uncouth people, so she warns Kate Jaynes, the wife of the local LDS Church leader, not to be so outgoing to them. “We are setting a standard,” Kate ends up sarcastically responding to her complaining neighbor. “We had the Cheesemans over for dinner. It’s called friendshipping. You know what? You should try it sometime.”

“Friendshipping” is an LDS-coined word that emphasizes the building of relationships with non-Mormon friends and neighbors. It is certainly not a strategy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group that is more likely to knock on our doors, but who will shun their own neighbors and refuse to participate in neighborhood social activities.

According to Sandra Tanner, the founder of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry in Salt Lake City, Mormons have found success through friendshipping. “The LDS Church has long realized that simply going door-to-door is one of the least efficient means of finding potential converts,” she said. “They try to involve the local church member in supplying names of friends and relatives for missionary contact. Often the church member will invite someone over for dinner, along with the LDS missionaries, as a means of introducing the person to Mormonism.”¹

Indeed, Mormon leaders encourage their members to go beyond the comfort of their own homes to engage with nonmembers. Many assume that the Mormon Church’s best tactics to entice potential converts are through direct contact with two of the church’s 52,000 missionaries as well as media campaigns. Yet the results of these two methods are less than impressive. Only two to three percent of those who initially became connected to the church through missionary efforts ever get baptized; just one to two percent of those contacted through a media campaign join the LDS Church. However, twenty to thirty percent of those whose first contact came through a relationship with current members end up getting baptized!²

While using friendships to try to make converts is certainly not new or unique to the Mormon Church, the current idea of Mormon friendshipping began in the 1970s when President Spencer W. Kimball encouraged LDS families to reach out to others in an evangelistic way. “With your family, prayerfully select one or two families to friendship,” he said. “Decide whom of your relatives or friends you will introduce to the Church. Perhaps you could plan a family home evening with them….Then, when these families show interest, arrange through your ward or branch mission leader to invite them and the missionaries into your home to share the message of the restoration. If you will follow this simple procedure, you will bring a number of fine families into the Church.”³

One church manual provides a four-step list to “sharing the Gospel effectively”: “1. Prayerfully select a family. 2. Friendship the family. 3. Introduce the family to the Church. 4. Invite the family to meet with the missionaries.”⁴ Under this final step, the manual gives a sample monologue on how to convince the neighbors to meet the missionaries: “One way of asking friends if they would like to know about the Church is to say: ‘We enjoy being your neighbors. Would you and your family join us in a family home evening tomorrow night at seven o’clock? Two young men from our Church will give a presentation on how our Church began.”⁵

The manual records one convert’s real-life story to prove the point: “Shortly after we moved to a new neighborhood, I was out working in my garden when one of my neighbors offered me a huge armful of tomatoes she had just picked. This was just the beginning of what was to be a forever friendship. In the months that followed, [our neighbors] proved to be the best friends….we had ever met. They were not afraid to be too friendly and took our family in just as though we were their own family.”⁶

The efforts proved to be successful. “We were always invited to Church activities but never pressured to go,” the convert continued. “When we did decide to go, our neighbors’ sweet, dependable daughter came over to babysit for us—and sometimes even refused to be paid for it. After I had had a hard day at home, my friend would ask me to come to Relief Society with her…we knew in our hearts that we wanted a more complete life like theirs.”⁷

This model has continued into the twenty-first century. President Gordon Hinckley told a gathering at the Salt Lake Tabernacle, “The process of bringing people into the Church is not the responsibility alone of the missionaries,” he said. “They succeed best when members become the source from which new investigators are found.”⁸ Speaking to a group of new mission presidents at the Provo Missionary Training Center, Apostle Dallin Oaks said: “Members simply must take a more active role in our missionary efforts at every stage: friendshipping those who are not of our faith; sharing Church materials; sharing feelings about the gospel; inviting friends to Church activities, service projects, and meetings; giving the missionaries referrals to visit our friends; inviting those friends to be taught the gospel in our homes; and fellowshipping and strengthening new converts.”⁹

Young Mormons are especially encouraged to make friends and then introduce the Mormon gospel to them. In one Mormon youth magazine, writer Pat Graham utilized an LDS scriptural verse¹⁰ to explain how to friendship: “President Spencer W. Kimball said that ‘usually we must warm our neighbors before we can warn them properly’ and that we should friendship and fellowship, ‘not scold and scare them.’ How can you show love to your nonmember friends and neighbors? Little kindnesses will help friends feel good about our Church. They will ‘warm’ up to the idea of learning more about the teachings of the Church.”¹¹

The idea of getting friends to become involved in church activities is continually promoted. The official LDS Church Web site includes a section for youth with an explanation of how friendshipping should take place: “Invite your nonmember friends to Church activities where they can learn about your standards and the principles of the gospel. Include them in your midweek activities and your Sunday meetings. Help them feel welcome and wanted. Many nonmembers have come into the Church through friends who have involved them in Church activities.”¹² In a Sunday school manual written specifically to LDS “young women,” the stated objective for one lesson reads: “Each young woman will extend friendship to young women of her own age and encourage them to take part in Church activities and meetings.” For the lesson application, the girls are instructed this way: “Invite the young women to choose a person that they, as a class, would like to reactivate or introduce to the gospel. Have them develop a plan to do this.”¹³

For those who move to a predominantly LDS community, friendshipping will not always look the same as it did in Mobsters and Mormons. Russ East, the director of Utah Partnerships for Christ, has lived in Utah for seven years. He says that he has excellent LDS neighbors; his wife regularly plays Bunco with the ladies in the neighborhood, and his daughter even babysits their children. While there is much interaction, he says, “I have not sensed much in their desire to send the missionaries our way or to get us into the LDS Church.”¹⁴ Bill McKeever, who is the head of Mormonism Research Ministry, hasn’t been friendshipped in his six years living in Utah but does not have any problem with the concept. “If the Mormons really believe they have truth and feel I am in error, I hope they would want to persuade me to their way of thinking.”¹⁵

Yet McKeever points out that Christians who have Mormon friends or neighbors should be grounded in the fundamentals of Christianity in order to understand the differences between the faiths. Since the terminology can be so very similar but with quite different meanings, this is often a difficult undertaking. It’s also hard to stand up for truth when personal relationships are at stake because nobody wants to look argumentative with friends or neighbors. If relationships hinge on a person having to join a church that rejects historic biblical teachings, however, then Christian believers need to take a stand.

Though some Christians in his neighborhood felt that Mormons practicing their “Welcome Neighbor” program were merely offering conditional friendships, Mormon author Darl Anderson believes it shouldn’t be this way. “I learned that our expressions of friendship need to show more sincerity and consistency if we want them to be correctly understood,” he wrote. “Many of our non-Mormon neighbors sincerely feel that every Mormon gesture toward them is devious…We need more communication as friends to know and do what they want for their benefit—not for our personal or selfish desires.”¹⁶

On the opposite end, while Christians ought to desire evangelistic opportunities, attempting to make friendships merely to win neighbors to Christ is also suspect. What will happen to this relationship if the other person continually rejects the Christian faith? Should this really be considered “friendship”?

 THE MISSION FIELD OF DATING

Former LDS President Spencer W. Kimball was very clear in 1969 when he admonished his followers not to date nonmembers. He wrote, “Clearly, right marriage begins with right dating….Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. A girl may say, ‘Oh, I do not intend to marry this person. It is just a ‘fun date.’ But one cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel.”¹⁷

Kimball told his members to not date until they were at least sixteen years old.¹⁸While this rule appears to be followed by most Mormon youth throughout the United States, the idea of dating only those in the church is no longer emphasized. Rather, it seems that high moral behavior is the main requirement. In an article titled “Dating FAQs” published recently in an LDS youth publication, the question was asked, “Should I date someone who is not LDS?” The answer? “Possibly, but don’t date anyone (LDS or not) who, because of low standards, will drag you down.”¹⁹

This idea is echoed on the official LDS Web site, which says Mormons should only date “those who have high standards, who respect your standards, and in whose company you can maintain the standards of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”²⁰ Speaking to youth, current LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson stated, “Begin to prepare for a temple marriage as well as for a mission. Proper dating is a part of that preparation….Because dating is a preparation for marriage, ‘date only those who have high standards.’”²¹

Many local LDS congregations host weekend dances and other social events where their young people are encouraged to invite nonmember friends. With hormones raging, many nonmembers end up becoming attracted to the wholesome Latter-day Saints whom they meet. In the past few months, I have counseled two former Christian high school teenage male students, each of whom had independently become romantically involved with Mormons. They both were encouraged to participate in the missionary lessons and join the LDS Church if they hoped to take their relationships to the next level. Granted, it was the choice of these young men to date outside their faith, but they ended up getting pressured to convert to Mormonism. Neither one had even thought about cajoling the girls to leave Mormonism for Christianity. Despite the fact that they both recognized the falsehoods of Mormonism, they desperately wanted to continue their relationships but didn’t know how, unless they became Mormons.

This “missionary dating” tactic is common. Sandra Tanner believes the problem is especially prevalent with those attending college. “I often get calls from Christian parents who are deeply concerned about their son or daughter because they have started to date a Mormon at college and have gotten involved in the LDS college social group,” she said. “Often the person has joined the LDS Church without even telling the parents, informing them on their next school break. By that time, the person is often in a serious relationship that will lead to a temple wedding, which the parents will not be allowed to witness.”²² Bill McKeever adds, “I have seen far too many cases of Christian young people rejecting their faith in order to win the ‘love’ of a Mormon.”²³

At a recent talk that we gave at a Christian church, two families—one LDS, the other Christian—attended together. Their twenty-year-old college-aged children—the girl is LDS, the boy a Christian—had been dating for several years and were getting more serious in their relationship. In fact, the only college that the boy had applied and been accepted to was LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. The Christian parents were distraught with their boy’s choices, as it certainly appeared that he was moving much closer to Mormonism than she was to evangelical Christianity. Going to one meeting on the topic of Mormonism probably wasn’t going to change the way things were already headed.

It would appear that the advice that Spencer Kimball gave to his people more than four decades ago remains wise. “Mixed faith” marriages are a recipe for disaster, to both the couple and the children. Utilizing the concept of 2 Corinthians 6:14 when speaking to Christian missions teams visiting Utah, Russ East says, “I always send home the message that God does not approve when two oxen are unequally yoked.”²⁴

With the dynamics that can occur between a boy and a girl, this is probably the most dangerous of situations. Love can be very emotional, and when the differences between the two religions are minimized (“We’re ‘Christian’ too!” many Mormons will argue) and ignorant young lovers become confused, the results can be disastrous. Rarely do we hear stories of Mormons becoming Christians in order to save a relationship. Instead, we hear far too often how Christians are becoming Mormons because their relationship with another human means more to them than their relationship with God.

In addition, “missionary dating” is neither biblical nor ethical and should not be a practice of faithful Christians. While the Bible does say that believers should be “shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves,” using “love” in an attempt to change the faith of those they’re dating is certainly a wrong application of this passage. The end does not justify the means. As Bill McKeever puts it, “A Christian who manipulates a Mormon’s emotions for the sole purpose of conversion places his integrity in a precarious situation.”²⁵

It is self-centered as well. If dating is to be considered the first step to courtship, which leads to engagement and ultimately marriage, then a biblically sound Christian has no business getting romantically involved with an unbeliever, even if it’s “just” dating. The risk is high and the fallout ultimately will end up hurting both parties.

 THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF NEIGHBORLINESS

In the short time that my family has resided in Utah, our neighbor is turning out to be one of the best we’ve ever had. He has encouraged my wife in her new business venture. He made sure that we were welcomed to the neighborhood’s Fourth of July party.²⁶ He spent three hours with me one sultry July morning fixing my house’s swamp cooler and helped me repair a lawnmower. And, though he knows I’m not LDS, he has not yet mentioned Mormonism or asked about having my family meet the missionaries.

Have we been targeted for “friendshipping”? An invitation to a local Mormon ward’s barbeque was taped to our front door just two days after moving in. Perhaps he put it there, though I don’t think so. Either way, I’m sure he would love to see our family become members of his church. At the same time, wouldn’t I like to see his family come to know the true Jesus as described in the Bible? Christians certainly should be cautious when entering into friendships with those from other religions. Still, I will do my part to continue this relationship and pray that I, in turn, will “love (my) neighbor as (my)self,” as Jesus said in Matthew 22:39, and be the best neighbor this man has ever known.

Eric Johnson now lives in Utah and works full-time with Mormonism Research Ministry (www.mrm.org). He also teaches college classes and is an associate editor for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students (Holman, 2010).

NOTES

1. Personal e-mail, July 21, 2010.
2. Ensign, March 2003, 54.
3. Sharing the Gospel through Priesthood Missionary Service filmstrip, 1975.
4. Lesson 9, Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part B, 1996, 81–85.
5. Ibid, 85.
6. Ibid, 79.
7. Ibid.
8. “Feed the Lambs, Feed the Sheep,” Ensign, May 1999, 104. From a satellite broadcast given at the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 21, 1999.
9. “The Role of Members in Conversion,” Ensign, March 2003, 55, based on his talk on June 20, 2000.
10. Doctrines and Covenants 88:81 says, “It becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.”
11. “Sharing Time: Friendshipping with Love,” Friend, February 1986, 42.
12. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,30-1-7-4,00.html.
13. Young Women Manual 1 Lesson 20, http://www.lds-youngwomen.com/taxonomy/term/6763/friendshipping.
14. Personal e-mail, July 21, 2010.
15. Ibid.
16. Soft Answers to Hard Feelings (Orem, UT: Granite Publishing, 1998), 80.
17. The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Publisher’s Press, 1986), 241–42.
18. “The Marriage Decision,” Ensign, February 1975, 2–6.
19. “Dating FAQs,” New Era, April 2010, 20–32.
20. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,30-1-7-4,00.html.
21. “Preparation Brings Blessings,” Liahona, May 2010, 64.
22. Personal e-mail, July 21, 2010.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Personal e-mail, July 22, 2010.
26. Because July 4, 2010, landed on a Sunday, this year’s festivities were actually held on July 3. Most secular holidays in the state of Utah are celebrated on Saturdays when they land on Sundays.

The Book of Mormon has been controversial since it was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr., in 1830. Today missionaries from the fourteen-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormon) challenge prospective converts to read and study what Smith called “the most correct book on earth.”

Over the past 180 years, many have criticized the Book of Mormon and doubted its historicity. To counter such claims, Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), a Mormon, compiled his support for the scripture that details how ancient Israelites came to America before the time of Christ. The book includes stories of Christ, who is said to have visited this continent soon after His resurrection in Palestine. The result of Bennett’s research is the book Leap of Faith, which he hopes will show how the Book of Mormon is trustworthy.

Bennett, who became a Utah senator in 1992, once served as a public relations director for Howard Hughes; in fact, Bennett was instrumental in detecting two forgery attempts involving Hughes, including a supposedly authorized biography of the billionaire as well as a fake will of the Hughes estate. Admitting that he is not “a scholar of high academic standing” (p. 18) and utilizing the “standard disclaimer” that his book is “neither commissioned nor sanctioned by the (Mormon) Church” (19), Bennett nonetheless uses his background to lend himself credibility in detecting fraud.

Bennett attempts to deal with arguments against the Book of Mormon that LDS scholars and apologists often gloss over. He says he is trying to take an objective approach because previous “authors who have written about (the Book of Mormon) have started out with a firm conclusion regarding it, for or against, and then assembled evidence to support that conclusion” (11). He is right when he says the conclusion one makes is vital: “If the claims regarding the Book of Mormon are accurate, then the book is genuine scripture. If, however, the Book of Mormon is an invention of human origin-in short, a forgery-then the Church itself is a fraud” (9).

Unfortunately, the reader is expected to make a major “leap of faith” in order to disregard the difficult arguments against the Book of Mormon. The result is that Bennett uncritically takes many things for granted and ends up glossing over many inconsistencies.

For one thing, Bennett places far too much confidence in the credibility of Smith (who was called the “author” as well as “translator” in the original edition). Bennett utilizes standard LDS arguments to uphold Smith’s credibility: he was too young with too little of an education, and he compiled it in too short of a time (two months) to come up with the story on his own. Of course, there has been no way to test Smith’s ability to translate the Book of Mormon plates because they were supposedly given back to the angel Moroni.

However, I never saw any mention made of the Book of Abraham, which Smith said was written by the patriarch on ancient Egyptian papyri that the church purchased from Michael Chandler in 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio. Smith claimed that he could translate the hieroglyphics with his special ability. Today the Book of Abraham is found in the Mormon scripture Pearl of Great Price, which includes the important teaching of the preexistence of humanity. The hieroglyphics code was not broken until the mid-nineteenth century, long after the Rosetta Stone (an Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic artifact) was discovered in 1799. This, unfortunately, meant there was no one to question Smith’s translation in his lifetime.

When Smith was killed in 1844, his wife took possession of the original Book of Abraham manuscripts and sold them. They were later thought to be lost and destroyed. However, the papyri were rediscovered at the Metropolitan Museum in New York in the mid-1960s, finally providing scholars the opportunity to determine if Smith understood the Egyptian language. It turns out that the manuscripts are common funeral papyri, and Smith was not even close in his translation of them, a fact that has shaken the faith of many Mormons.¹ If Smith was creative enough to compile the Book of Abraham, why not the Book of Mormon?

While Bennett says that he is open-minded, it is apparent that his presuppositions limit his ability to be objective. He ends the book by saying he has “made the leap of faith.” While faith in the truth is admirable, faith in something with questionable evidence is neither reasonable nor biblical (Heb. 11:1-2).

-Eric Johnson

Eric Johnson is a high school/college teacher as well as a researcher with Mormonism Research Ministry. He is an associate editor for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students (Holman, 2010).

NOTES

1. See Sandra Tanner, “The Oldest Biblical Text? Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham Examined,” Christian Research Journal 32, 3 (2009): 30-37.

Before 1978, males of African heritage were considered “cursed”¹ and thus were denied the two LDS priesthoods, which meant they could not participate in the “temple blessings” enjoyed by the rest of the Church membership. The Church’s announcement was so earth-shattering that readers who responded to a 1999 poll given by the LDS Church News overwhelmingly voted this as the top news event for the entire twentieth century.²

The Genesis Group, an official LDS group that is comprised mainly of Black members, has celebrated this event every five years since 1978. However, the LDS Church leadership did not participate in these festivities until the thirty-year anniversary took place on Temple Square on June 8, 2008, when about 2,700 people came to the Mormon Tabernacle to hear a variety of speakers and a multicultural choir.

One presenter was Fred A. Parker III, the president of the LDS Atlanta Georgia stake, who admitted to the audience that not allowing Blacks full rights in the Church before 1978 was “unsettling,” yet “Heavenly Father knows best. The Lord may not be inclined to give a simple and universally satisfying explanation.”³

Elder Sheldon F. Child, member of the First Quorom of the Seventy, was the highest official LDS Church representative and the evening’s only white speaker.⁴ While some thought that perhaps an apology was forthcoming, others knew it was improbable. “Since no members of the LDS First Presidency or the Council of the Twelve were scheduled to appear, we were confident that no official apology for the prohibition would take place,” Bill McKeever, director of the Utah-based Mormonism Research Ministry, said.

Folklore or a Doctrine? Darius Gray has been a faithful Mormon for forty-four years and in 1971 helped organize The Genesis Group. While he supports his Church’s leadership, Gray admits that facing the racist history of the Mormon Church is painful. “Before this church can move forward,” he said, “we need to acknowledge the dead mule in the room, clean it out and air it out. For me, an apology isn’t the issue (but) teaching the correct principles is.”⁵

When Marvin Perkins was asked whether or not an apology ought to be given by his Church’s leadership, the co-producer (with Gray) of a two-volume DVD series titled Blacks in the Scriptures responded, “I don’t think so simply because President (David) McKay said it’s not a doctrine. There never was a curse against the blacks. It was a practice.”⁶ Yet despite the fact that Mormon leaders had elaborated on the idea that those who were less valiant in a preexistent world were cursed with black skin,⁷ Mormon Church spokesperson Mark Tuttle stated, “This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church.”⁸

Darron Smith, an outspoken Black Mormon who lost his job as a professor at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University in 2006, disagrees and feels that he and other Blacks deserve an apology. He believes it is a cop-out to claim that only God knows why it took so long to lift the ban. “We don’t know why the Lord did this?” he asked. “Bull——. It’s called racism.”⁹

The fact is that skin color has played a role regarding a person’s individual spirituality within Mormonism. For instance, when speaking of the dark-skinned “Lamanites”—ancestors of the Native Americans—2 Nephi 30:6 in the pre-1981 editions of the Book of Mormon indicated the Lamanites would become “white and delightsome” as they became more righteous. This phrase was changed to read “pure and delightsome,” which seems to be an obvious reaction to the 1978 course correction, especially since previous leaders had used this as a proof text in support of the teaching that banned Blacks from the priesthood.¹⁰

The structure of the LDS Church also needs to be considered, as Mormons are taught that they are being led by living men who are ordained by God in these “latter days.” In fact, speakers from the LDS general conference pulpit have many times elaborated on the inferiority of Blacks, including second president Brigham Young who bluntly stated, “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”¹¹

Contrary to the “folklore” argument being used by a Church spokesperson, the First Presidency gave a statement on August 17, 1949, that declared how the priesthood restriction was not just a policy, but “doctrine.” The statement reads in part, “The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.”

Reaction from the Membership Today. Having to deal with Mormonism’s racist past causes great consternation for a number of Black members, including thirty-four-year-old Tamu Smith. When she visited the LDS temple in Salt Lake City for the first time to participate in her marriage ceremony, she was confronted by an older white man who angrily asked her what a [racial epithet] was doing there. Instead of reprimanding him, temple workers came to the man’s defense because they said he didn’t know any better.

“I don’t mind defending my faith to my black friends and family,” Smith said, “but I do mind having to defend my race to my fellow Mormons.” She added, “For racism to stop, we need to hear it condemned at Conference as often as pornography or abuse are. The brethren don’t want to open up old wounds, but those wounds have never healed.”¹²

Vanna Cox, who last year was Provo (Utah) High School’s first black student-body president, said that she constantly “heard the [racial epithet] all the time when we were kids at [LDS] church activities by kids who knew us.” Yet she isn’t ready to quit the Church because her involvement is “definitely something that helps me. I do love it. But the priesthood ban is always going to be a question for me. It hurts. It sucks.”¹³ —Eric Johnson

notes

1 For example, see Abraham 1:24 in the LDS scripture Pearl of Great Price, Journal of Discourses 7:290 and 10:250, and Apostle Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (1966), 108–9.

2 The Church News, December 19, 1999. ”Proliferation of temples across the world” was a distant second.

3 Catherine Reese Newton, “LDS 1978 Blacks-in-the-Priesthood Decision: Why Did It Take So Long?” Salt Lake Tribune, June 9, 2008, http://www.sltrib.com/

portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9525797&siteId=297.

4 In fact, there are no blacks in the highest Mormon leadership called “general authorities.”

5 Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Mormons and Black: Grappling with a Racist Past,” Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 2008, http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_9497769.

6 http://www.blacksinthescriptures.com/clips.html.

7 For example, see McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (1966), 527–28, and Apostle Mark Peterson’s “Race Problems—As They Affect the Church,” BYU address on August 27, 1954.

8 “Mormons and Black: Grappling with a Racist Past.”

9 Ibid.

10 See http://www.mrm.org/topics/book-mormon/white-and-delightsome-or-pure-and-delightsome-a-look-2-nephi-30-6.

11 Journal of Discourses 10:110.

12 “Mormons and Black: Grappling with a Racist Past.”

13 “Mormon and Black: Vanna Cox Has Questions,” Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 2008, http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_9497771.

By the time of Smith’s death, he had translated only a portion of the papyri that was attributed to Abraham. While this new record followed the creation story, it varied in significant ways from that of Genesis. Smith’s claim, if valid, would make these papyri the oldest biblical manuscripts in existence. Writing in 1938 Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, of Brigham Young University, boasted of the importance of the find:

The Book of Abraham will some day be reckoned as one of the most remarkable documents in existence…the author or editors of the book we call Genesis lived after the events recorded therein took place. Our text of Genesis can therefore not be dated earlier than the latest event mentioned by it. It is evident that the writings of Abraham…must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis. I say this in passing because some of our brethren have exhibited surprise when told that the text of the Book of Abraham is older than that of Genesis.

Although the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945 would eventually push the date of the oldest Bible manu scripts back to the second century BC, they still would not be as old as Smith’s claim for the writings of Abraham. Thus, if Smith’s assertion were accurate, the papyri in his possession would be priceless. The importance placed on the papyri can be seen by the fact that in 1835 the Mormons negotiated with Chandler to buy his collection for $2,400, a significant amount in the cash-strapped community.

Many people are aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormons) has additional writings it considers scripture besides the Bible. The most well known of these is the Book of Mormon, whose main storyline deals with an ancient group of Israelites who migrated to the Americas about 600 BC. However, few people are familiar with their other two sacred texts, the Doctrine and Covenants, containing revelations given to their prophets, and the Pearl of Great Price, composed of the Book of Moses (a revelation), the Book of Abraham (purported translation of papyrus), an extract from Joseph Smith’s revision of the Bible, and extracts from his Church history. While each of Smith’s additional scriptures are open to criticism, we will focus on the problems associated with his Book of Abraham.

THE PAPYRI

After Joseph Smith’s death, when the Mormons were forced out of Illinois in the 1840s, most of the Church papers were brought west with Brigham Young. The Smith family retained possession of the Egyptian material, however, which later changed hands and over the course of years the papyri dropped from public view.

Like the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith professed to translate the Book of Abraham from authentic ancient records. During this time the study of Egyptian hieroglyphs was in its infancy, which no doubt left Joseph Smith feeling free to offer his interpretation of the papyri without challenge. While Frenchman Jean-François Champollion had been involved in deciphering the Rosetta Stone in the 1820s, which proved to be the key to translating Egyptian hieroglyphs, his research was little known in the United States during Smith’s lifetime.

Joseph Smith first developed his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar using various hieroglyphs from the papyri and then composed an English explanation. In July of 1835 he recorded in his history, “The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”²

He worked on his translation for the next several years, finally publishing it in the March 1, 1842, issue of the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons. The Book of Abraham was next printed in England in 1851 as part of a booklet, the Pearl of Great Price, which was later canonized in 1880. Included in the Book of Abraham were three illustrations taken from the papyri, labeled Facsimile No. 1, 2, and 3. Below are the three scenes with a brief explanation.

Facsimile No. 1

Smith described this as “Abraham fastened upon an altar” and “The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.”³ However, Egyptologists would later identify this as a standard scene from the Book of the Dead,⁴ showing the god Anubis overseeing the embalming of Osiris. Underneath the couch are four canopic jars used to store the person’s organs, representing the sons of Horus.⁵

Facsimile No. 2

In Smith’s purported translation of the text, he explained that the central figure represented “Kolob,” the first creation nearest to the “residence of God.” Other figures related to priesthood, various planets and stars, the measurement of time, and “God sitting upon his throne.”⁶ However, this object is known as a hypocephalus, a magical disc placed under the head of a mummy to aid the person in his journey after death.⁷ The figures represent well-known Egyptian deities. The Mormon copy is similar to a number of other such objects in various Egyptian collections around the world.⁸ Smith identified Figure 7 (lower right area) as “God sitting upon his throne,” while Egyptologists identify the figure as Min, the Egyptian god of male sexual potency, shown with an erection.⁹

Facsimile No. 3

Joseph Smith explained that this was a picture of “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne,” with Pharaoh standing behind him. Abraham is said to be “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy.”¹⁰ However, Egyptologists identify this as the Judgment Scene from the Book of the Dead, showing Isis standing behind the seated figure of Osiris. Standing in front of the seated figure, according to Smith, is a “Prince of Pharaoh.” Smith identified the next figure as “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters” and the black figure as “Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.” However, the three figures in front of Osiris have been identified as Maat (the goddess of truth), the deceased person (for whom the papyrus was made), and the black figure is the half-man, half-jackal deity Anubis.¹¹

SMITH’S TRANSLATION UNDER SCRUTINY

By 1860 Egyptology had advanced to the point where it could be used to test Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator. Even though the papyri were no longer known to be in existence, the printed facsimiles from the Book of Abraham could still be scrutinized. They were submitted to the French Egyptologist M. Theodule Deveria, who not only accused Joseph Smith of making a false translation but also of altering the scenes shown in the facsimiles.¹²

By the turn of the century the study of Egyptology had progressed considerably, as seen in the 1895 classic The Egyptian Book of the Dead, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge. The growing body of knowledge on Egyptology led Rev. F. S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop of Utah, to contact eight leading scholars of his day and request their evaluation of Joseph Smith’s illustrations in the Book of Abraham. These statements were published in 1912 under the title Joseph Smith Jr., as a Translator.

One of the scholars who examined Smith’s work was James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, who wrote: “These three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrate that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”¹³

The other Egyptologists whom Spalding contacted rendered similar verdicts of Smith’s erroneous interpretations.

That same year the New York Times ran a large article with the startling headline, “Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet.” The article quoted the various Egyptologists contacted by Bishop Spalding and gave an overview of the problems with Joseph Smith’s interpretation. The article explained, “Much of Bishop Spalding’s work was done in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in this city. The ten rooms of the Egyptian collection yielded proof in such abundance that any layman, even in Egyptology, can take the drawings as published in the sacred Mormon record and reproduced on this page of THE TIMES, and find dozens of duplicates of certain figures in them on the walls of the Museum and in its cases of Egyptian objects.”¹⁴

The following year saw another challenge to the facsimiles. Noted scholar Samuel A. B. Mercer published his article “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian” in 1913. Dr. Mercer observed, “No one can fail to see that the eight scholars [quoted in Bishop Spalding’s booklet] are unanimous in their conclusions. Joseph Smith has been shown by an eminently competent jury of scholars to have failed completely in his attempt or pretense to interpret and translate Egyptian figures and hieroglyphics.”¹⁵

Marvin Cowan, a Baptist missionary working among the Mormons, had been told by various Mormons that the pamphlet by F. S. Spalding was outdated, so in 1966 he decided to ask various scholars for their assessment. He sent copies of the Book of Abraham facsimiles to Richard A. Parker, of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University, and requested his opinion of the photos. Parker responded: “The pictures you sent me [from the Book of Abraham] are based upon Egyptian originals but are poor or distorted copies.…The explanations are completely wrong insofar as any interpretation of the Egyptian original is concerned.…Number 1 is an altered copy of a well known scene of the dead god Osiris on his bier with a jackal-god Anubis acting as his embalmer.”¹⁶

One has only to look at any credible source on Egyptian deities to see that the figures in the Book of Abraham facsimiles are standard images from the Book of the Dead.¹⁷ To suggest that Abraham would use pictures of pagan gods to illustrate the true God is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Old Testament. Genesis 17:1 records that God revealed Himself to Abraham saying, “I am the Almighty God.” Later God instructed Moses, “I am the LORD: and I appeared unto Abraham…but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them” (Exod. 6:2–3 KJV). In the Ten Commandments God specifically stated that He had delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt and that they were to reject all pagan deities, specifically stating that no one was to make any image or likeness of God (Exod. 20:2–4). Joseph Smith’s identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary.

Today the Book of Abraham contains the same claim of being an authentic translation of the papyri as was originally published in the Times and Seasons: “The Book of Abraham, Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith. A translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”¹⁸

While the facsimiles have come under attack, there was no way for the scholars to test Smith’s purported translation of the papyri, as it was assumed they had been destroyed. However, Smith’s translation would be put to the test in 1967 when a number of pieces of the long-lost papyri were presented to the LDS Church by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.¹⁹

After Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, the mummies and papyri were retained by his widow, Emma Smith. Some of these were later sold to the Chicago museum, which burned to the ground in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Thus it was assumed that the papyrus designated as the Book of Abraham had been destroyed. Actually, some of Smith’s papyri had been preserved and were eventually purchased by the Metropolitan Museum in 1947.²⁰ Since the papyri were only dated to the time of Christ, and the museum had a number of examples from that period, the museum felt they could divest themselves of the pieces. Working through Prof. Aziz Atiya, of the University of Utah, they arranged the return of the papyri to the LDS Church.²¹ This was not exactly a gift, but had been made possible by an anonymous gift to the museum.²²

Once photos of the papyri were printed in the 1968 Improvement Era,²³ the official LDS magazine, scholars began the search to determine which piece Smith had utilized in his translation. The piece was identified by comparing Joseph Smith’s translation papers and his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar with the papyri.²⁴ It was soon determined that Smith had used characters from the piece of papyri identified as “XI. Small ‘Sensen’ text (unillustrated),”²⁵ also referred to as the Book of Breathings (a condensed version of the Book of the Dead). On pages 30-31 is an illustration of the way the hieroglyphs line up on the papyri and the way they are aligned in Smith’s manuscript next to the English.

All of the first two rows of characters on the papyrus fragment can be found in the manuscript of the Book of Abraham that is published in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.²⁶ Other manuscript pages show that he used almost four lines of the papyrus to make fifty-one verses in the Book of Abraham. These fifty-one verses are composed of more than two thousand English words!²⁷ A person does not have to be an Egyptologist to know that it would be impossible to translate more than two thousand words from a few Egyptian characters.

This piece, Joseph Smith’s XI Small “Sensen” text, has been translated by several Egyptologists with virtual agreement. Contrary to Smith’s version, the English translation takes up just slightly more space than the actual hieroglyphs. Professor Parker’s translation was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

1. [……]this great pool of Khonsu 2. ‘Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise. 3. After (his) two arms are (fast)ened to his breast, one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is 4.with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed (at) his left arm 5.near his heart, this having been done at his 6.wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then 7.He will breath like the soul(s of the gods) for ever and 8.ever.²⁸

Mormon scholars, realizing the problems of defending a literal translation for the Book of Abraham, have now proposed that either (1) Smith didn’t use the “Sensen” text and the piece Smith did use no longer exists or (2) it doesn’t have to be a literal translation of the papyrus, but could be a revelation triggered by looking at the artifacts. Some also propose that Smith used the drawings from the papyri only to illustrate his revelation, not that they originally were drawn to illustrate a composition by Abraham.²⁹ However, the heading of the Book of Abraham still carries the official statement that it is a translation of the papyrus. If the Book of Abraham is a product of revelation, not an actual translation, and the facsimiles were not drawn to illustrate Abraham’s text, one wonders why the Mormons needed to invest so much money to acquire these pagan documents in the first place? In Joseph Smith’s day, the papyri were certainly presented to the public as actually being Abraham’s record.

DOCTRINAL INNOVATIONS

The Book of Abraham consists of five chapters and three illustrations. The text begins with Abraham in “the land of the Chaldeans,” bemoaning the fact that his forefathers “were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”³⁰ The four gods that are listed are the same as Smith’s identification of the gods in Facsimile No. 1. Smith seems to have assumed that the Chaldeans (in the region of Iraq) shared the same religion as the Egyptians, with their priests answerable to Pharaoh. Chapter 1:2–3 relates Abraham’s ordination to the priesthood, wherein he is made a High Priest (thus reenforcing the LDS concept that the priesthood is necessary to act in God’s behalf). The chapter goes on to describe the founding of Egypt by Egyptus, a daughter of Ham. Verse 27 tells us that Pharaoh was “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood.” This passage was long used as the scriptural justification for the LDS Church not to give its priesthood to blacks. Since 1978, when the Church finally gave blacks the priesthood, this verse has been ignored. In the current LDS college manual, The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, the verse is not discussed. There is instead a quote from the First Presidency about the granting of priesthood to all worthy men “without regard for race or color.”³¹

Chapter 2 redefines the Abrahamic covenant as being the priesthood and endless posterity. This has been interpreted as meaning celestial (temple) marriage.³² The Book of Abraham was published at a time when Joseph Smith was trying to secretly introduce the doctrine of plural marriage to a few of the Church leaders and this text would have served as a reenforcement of his new teaching on the need for plural wives in order to increase ones’ posterity, to fulfill the law of Abraham.³³ The chapter ends with God instructing Abraham to lie about Sarai being his wife and to say she is his sister. This contradicts Genesis 12:12–13 where it is Abraham, not God, who comes up with the idea of lying. One assumes that Smith redirected this story to justify himself to the Church leaders for his lying to his wife and the public about his secret polygamy. If God could tell Abraham to lie, why not Smith?

Chapter 3:21–27 introduces the concept of premortal existence, that men and women had a prior life (“coexisted”³⁴) with God before being born on earth. Those who were “noble” in their pre-earth life (man’s first estate) were to be the “rulers” on earth (man’s second estate). This led to an interpretation that everyone’s birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven, thus the belief that those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white.³⁵ The Bible, however, clearly teaches that only the Godhead has eternal existence. We are God’s creation and did not have a spiritual existence prior to our birth on earth. When Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58 KJV), He was claiming to be truly God and that Abraham had a beginning. In Zechariah 12:1 we read that God “formeth the spirit of man within him” (KJV).

Chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham seem to be a rewrite of the Genesis creation story with the addition of multiple gods involved in the process. For instance, verse 3 reads, “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.” Curiously, this contradicts his earlier revelation of Moses’ account: “And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.”³⁶ If Moses was as inspired as Abraham, why didn’t he understand that the creation was accomplished by a council of gods? During the early years of Mormonism, Joseph Smith preached the standard doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, by the 1840s he had begun to teach a plurality of gods, completely ignoring the biblical doctrine of one eternal, unchanging God and even contradicting his earlier writings.³⁷

TEST THE SPIRITS

The Bible calls us to “test the spirits” and examine the teachings of those professing to be prophets.³⁸ When we apply these tests to Joseph Smith and his book of scripture, we are left with (1) a book that is not an authentic translation of a document written by Abraham and (2) a text that teaches heretical doctrine. Therefore, the only course for the Christian is to reject both Joseph Smith and his scripture.

notes

1 Joseph Smith, The History of the Church, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 236.

2 “Figures of the Past,” in Among the Mormons: Historical Accounts by Contemporary Observers, ed. William Mulder and Russell Mortensen (New York: Knopf, 1958), 136–37.

3 Sidney B. Sperry, Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, Course of Study, Adult Department, M.I.A. (1938), 83.

4 Smith, vol. 2, 238.

5 Book of Abraham, Explanation of Facsimile No. 1, Pearl of Great Price, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

6 Richard A. Parker, “The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Preliminary Report,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3, 2 (Summer 1968): 86.

7 http://www.akhet.co.uk/4sons.htm.

8 Pearl of Great Price, Explanation of Facsimile No. 2.

9 Rt. Rev. F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., as a Translator (Salt Lake City: The Arrow Press, 1912), 26. Photo reprint by Utah Lighthouse Ministry under the title Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham.

10R. C. Webb, Joseph Smith as a Translator (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936), 130, 165, 173, 175, 177, 179.

11 “Min Is Not God,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 111(November 2008), http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/min.htm.

12 Pearl of Great Price, Explanation of Facsimile No. 3.

13 Spalding, 23; http://www.egyptologyonline.com/gods_and_goddesses.htm.

14 Deveria’s work was originally published in French in 1860 and then reprinted in English in A Journey to Great Salt Lake City, by Jules Remy and Julius Brenchley (London: W. Jeffs, 1861). Then in 1873 T. B. H. Stenhouse included Deveria’s work in his book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons (New York: D. Appleton and Company). Included were side-by-side comparisons of Smith’s interpretation with Deveria’s explanation of the facsimiles, 513–19.

15 Spalding, 26–27.

16 “Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet,” New York Times, Magazine Section Part Five, December 29, 1912; http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus.htm.

17 Samuel A. B. Mercer, “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian,” The Utah Survey 1, 1 (September, 1913): 11.

18 Letter by Richard A. Parker, Dept. of Egyptology, Brown University, March 22, 1966.

19 http://www.egyptologyonline.com/book_of_the_dead.htm.

20 Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

21 Jack E. Jarrard, “Rare Papyri Presented to the Church,” Deseret News, November 27, 1967, 1.

22 “The Facsimile Found—The Recovery of Joseph Smith’s Papyrus Manuscripts—An Interview with Dr. Fischer,”Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 2, 4 (Winter 1967): 56.

23 “The Facsimile Found: The Recovery of Joseph Smith’s Papyrus Manuscripts—A Conversation with Professor Atiya,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 2, 4 (Winter 1967): 51.

24“An Interview With Dr. Fischer,” 64.

25 “New Light on Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri,” Improvement Era, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (February 1968), 40–41.

26 Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, “The Source of the Book of Abraham Identified,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3, 2 (Summer 1968): 92–97.

27 Improvement Era, February 1968, 41. See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 311.

28 Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, photo reprint by Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1966.

29 Tanners, 312–13.

30 Richard A. Parker, “The Book of Breathings (Frag. 1, the ‘Sensen’ Text, With Restorations from Louvre Papyrus 3284),” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Summer 1968): 98.

31 See articles on Book of Abraham in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 1, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 132–38.

32 Book of Abraham 1:1–6.

33 The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, Religion 327, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000, 32.

34 PGP Student Manual, 34.

35 Doctrine and Covenants 132:30–32.

36 “Premortal Life,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1123.

37 Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests’ Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, 30.

38 Book of Moses 2:3, PGP.

39 Isa. 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:5. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977), 345–47, 369–73. For his earlier teaching on God, see Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:27–29; 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Lectures on Faith, Section V; 1981 Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.

40 Deut. 13:1–3; 18:22; 1 John 4:1; 2 Pet. 1:15–16; Acts 17:10–12.

SYNOPSIS

When it comes to stereotypical caricatures, Islam and Mormonism could very well be the two religions most misunderstood in the Western world. When Islam is the topic, images of airliners crashing into buildings and terrorists strapping bombs around their bodies to blow up innocent bystanders are in the minds of many Western people, including a number of evangelical Christians. Bring up the topic of Mormonism—the religion of those belonging to the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and many not familiar with this religion can only think of polygamy. There is no doubt that some Muslims are terrorists and that some nineteenth-century Mormons once practiced polygamy, but these stereotypical notions unfortunately have made it difficult for Christians to break through the mire in communicating truth to their Islamic or Mormon neighbors. Islam and Mormonism have their foundations in two different millenniums, in two different hemispheres, while advocating two different belief systems, but they share a number of similarities that, at first glance, are not readily detectable. From their original founding to their view of scripture and their perspective on the human condition and salvation, most adherents from these two religions view evangelical Christians as apostates who lack the authority to lead people to the true worship of God. Understanding the mindsets of both the Muslim and the Mormon is necessary if the Christian hopes to reach out effectively to them with the gospel.

Two of the fastest growing religions in the world today are often misunderstood by those outside their ranks. Since the tragic events of 9/11, many think of bomb threats when they hear the words Islam or Muslim, despite the fact that relatively few Muslims would consider engaging in acts of terrorism. Meanwhile, many uninformed Americans joke about polygamous relationships whenever they hear the word Mormon, despite the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), which is based in Salt Lake City and is the largest and most widely known church that follows the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr., has not advocated polygamy for more than a century.

Being misunderstood is not the only thing these two faiths have in common, however. When the two faiths are placed side by side, a number of interesting parallels make them ripe for comparison, despite the fact that they are poles apart in their doctrines, practices, and the places in the world where they thrive.

Islam began in the early seventh century when a 40‑year‑old man named Muhammad said the angel Gabriel appeared to him, revealing the words that later became the Islamic scripture known as the holy Qur’an. Today it is estimated that there are more than one billion Muslims who belong to the Saudi Arabian–centered religion. Mormonism, meanwhile, traces its beginnings to the first half of the nineteenth century when a teen named Joseph Smith, Jr., claimed he was visited by God the Father and Jesus, as well as by an angel named Moroni. The latter eventually directed Smith to ancient plates made of gold that chronicle the story of the ancient American peoples. Smith later translated these plates and called the new scripture the Book of Mormon. There are more than 12 million Mormons today, with a slight majority residing outside North America.

Islam and Mormonism may not initially seem comparable, but the comparison is actually not new, going back to a few years after the founding of the Mormon Church in 1830. Writing in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Arnold Green observed, “The initial comparison was perhaps made in 1834, when the anti‑Mormon Pastor E.D.Howe suggested that Joseph Smith matched Muhammad’s ‘ignorance and stupidity.’…American Protestants vilify[ied] the Church and its prophet by likening them to Islam and Muhammad, long presumed fraudulent by Christians.”¹ Green later noted that LDS leaders have “cast Islam in a positive historical role” since “Muhammad and other nonbiblical religious leaders and philosophers ‘received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations,’” adding that Islam “was divinely instigated to ‘scourge’ apostate Christianity and to curb idolatry.”²

At any rate, there is certainly apologetic value in comparing these two growing religions. The mindset of the Muslim, who adamantly holds to the authentic prophethood of Muhammad and the veracity of the Qur’an, has striking commonalities with that of the Mormon, who celebrates the bicentennial of Joseph Smith’s birth this year while claiming that the Book of Mormon is the “most correct book on the face of the earth.”³ Grasping these similarities will enable concerned Christians to better understand adherents of these religions and to better share the biblical faith.

WHAT IS SIMILAR ABOUT ISLAM AND MORMONISM?

A number of similarities could be discussed (see table1), but we will limit ourselves to four main areas: founders and origins; scriptures; restoration claims; and teachings on the human condition and salvation.

A Look at Founders and Origins

The beginnings of both Islam and Mormonism are quite similar, especially when one considers the backgrounds and ideas of Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Consider that both men:

· came from poor families;

· had little education;

· wanted to unite the religions of their day;

· believed their new religions were a continuation from ancient biblical times;

· maintained that the Bible prophesied their own appearances on earth;

· claimed to have had revelations from God, allowing for their chosen lifestyles;

· were leaders of their own militias;

· started out monogamous but became polygamous;

· held that heaven would be filled with many physical pleasures, including sex.

In addition to similarities in the founders, the origins of the religions are also similar. Both Muhammad and Smith actively sought spiritual experiences. In the case of Muhammad, the angel Gabriel supposedly revealed the Qur’an during a 23-year period. For his part, the 14-year-old Smith misappropriated James1:5 as a command to pray for spiritual truth and then allegedly had an encounter with both God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove located in New York state. Three years later the angel Moroni showed Smith the Book of Mormon’s golden plates in the Hill Cumorah, but Smith was not allowed to take possession of them until September1827. Both Muhammad and Smith, then, claimed to receive direct divine revelation through angels.

Muslims, Mormons, and Scripture

Another similarity between Islam and Mormonism is revelation leading to new scripture. In the case of Muhammad, the Qur’an was not translated; rather, it was received orally via direct revelation. After the death of Muhammad, it was realized that the sayings of the Qur’an were known only by memory. Following a battle that resulted in the deaths of many who had memorized the Qur’an, Uthman, the head of Islam at the time, organized the effort to write down the sayings, which were then preserved on a variety of materials. Uthman then determined what would be included as authoritative and had the other portions destroyed. To Muslims, the Qur’an is the perfect holy book and is highly revered in its original Arabic.⁴

Mormons today believe that the Book of Mormon—a scripture that claims to tell the history of Jews who traveled from the Holy Land to the Americas—was translated by Joseph Smith through the power of God.⁵ The Book of Mormon also speaks of the alleged postresurrection appearance of Jesus to the peoples living in the Americas. After the translation was complete, Moroni reclaimed possession of the plates.

Both Islam and Mormonism, then, add new scripture. Moreover, neither religion can claim to substantiate such new revelation by means such as textual criticism.⁶ Since there are supposedly no other authoritative copies from the time of the Qur’an, it is practically impossible to determine what was left out. In the case of the Book of Mormon, since the plates are no longer available, the end result is the same as with the Qur’an; namely, there is no way to validate the book or its source.

Restoring Lost Truths?

Both Islam and Mormonism claim to restore the true worship of God. During Muhammad’s day more than 300 deities were worshiped in a Meccan shrine known as the ka’ba. Muhammad’s initial work as a religious leader involved the proclamation that there is only one God (Allah) to whom people must submit and that a day of judgment is coming. Not surprisingly, Muhammad’s views were unpopular with the polytheists.⁷ In addition, Muhammad did not think that the Jews and Christians in his area were properly worshiping the one true God.

Islam claims Allah is the same God who revealed himself to Moses and through Jesus, two of the most important of Islam’s traditional 124,000 prophets that culminated in the last prophet, Muhammad. As Islam developed, Muslims took the position that the Old and New Testaments were corrupt.⁸ As a result, Christian belief in doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ are said to be wrong and blasphemous. Only through the revelation of the Qur’an is Allah’s truth fully revealed.

In Mormonism’s case, it is clear from Joseph Smith’s own words that his initial calling by God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ involved the condemnation of all extant forms of Christian worship at the time as false. In fact, Mormons claim it was soon after the death of Jesus’ disciples that true Christianity vanished from the face of the earth, only to be restored by Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century. Smith even recounted how God told him not to join any church because they were all false.⁹ It is on the basis of the four LDS scriptures, along with continuing revelation and guidance given by their living prophet and apostles, that Mormon leaders argue that the LDS Church is the most correct on earth.

The Human Condition and Salvation

Traditionally, both Islam and Mormonism hold to the view that human beings are born in an innocent state, in contrast to the Christian idea that the fall of humankind had extreme consequences resulting in depravity that touches every aspect of one’s being. Islam sees the nature of human beings as basically good. Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb observe, “Despite some general similarities to the biblical version of man’s fall, there are radical differences between the Christian and the Islamic interpretations of Adam’s transgression. Whereas in Christian theology man’s disobedience is considered a fundamental turning point in his relationship to God, according to the Muslim perspective this was only a single slip on Adam and Eve’s part that was completely forgiven after their repentance. It had no further effect on the nature of man and the rest of creation (emphasis in original).”¹⁰

As a result, since human beings are not fallen, there is no need for salvation (or a savior) in the radical Christian sense. In Islam, human beings are good in general, with their good and bad deeds weighed on the scales of Allah, hopefully in their favor. This position should not be misunderstood as stating that Muslims do not believe in sin, as they clearly do.¹¹ With the exception of death in jihad, Muslims generally do not hold to an assurance of salvation. As such, “Islam is not a redemptive religion.”¹²

The issue of the human condition is relevant to greater worldview matters such as salvation and redemption. In Mormonism, for instance, human beings are viewed not only as being born innocent, but the very fact that they were born into this earthly life is a positive sign of progression. This is because all souls who once lived in a preexistent state (the “first estate”) behaved admirably in order to be allowed to live on earth (the “second estate”). Moreover, while Mormons believe that the best outcome for a person is to convert to Mormonism in order to strive for exaltation to godhood in the celestial kingdom, practically all humanity will be saved in one of Mormonism’s three levels of heaven, including those who reject Latter-day Saint teachings in this life and even the next.¹³ As a result, the stakes of rejecting Mormonism are not as high as the rejection of Christianity or Islam, both of which declare an eternal hell for those who don’t make the right choice in this life. As a result of their outlook on sin, it follows that both Islam and Mormonism hold to a weak understanding of the need for salvation and redemption.

For Mormons, Jesus brought salvation only in the sense that His death and resurrection allow humankind to be resurrected in bodily form with the ability to pursue exaltation to godhood via the system of the Latter-day Saints, particularly temple ordinances such as baptism, eternal marriage, and work for the dead. In Islam, since humans are not fallen, salvation and redemption are not pressing matters. What is important is submission to Allah, doing good works, and appealing to Allah’s mercy on the day of judgment. It is true that the Muslim will often refer to the mercy of Allah and that the Mormon speaks about “salvation by grace,” but both religions teach their adherents that they must earn their justification before God through good works.¹⁴

WHAT’S DIFFERENT ABOUT ISLAM AND MORMONISM?

There are not only many important similarities between Islam and Mormonism, but also significant differences.

Creation: Out of Nothing or Out of Something?

Along with Christians, Muslims believe that God created all that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing). Mormonism is quite different in its cosmology, claiming that God fashioned the universe out of preexisting material.¹⁵ God is eternal in some forms of LDS theology, but so is preexisting matter, including the material used by God to create human beings.¹⁶

By positing that God created out of preexistent matter, Mormonism has more in common with ancient pagan religions and ancient Greek philosophy than it does with the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief in creation ex nihilo.¹⁷ In contemporary terms, Mormonism advocates naturalistic explanations of the universe, explaining that matter of some kind has always existed. As a result, Mormonism also inherits a multitude of scientific difficulties that accompany this perspective. Moreover, the issue of creation relates to other significant worldview issues, such as the source of moral values, the problem of evil, and God’s power. It is important to note that one’s belief in creation has significant consequences and, in the case of Mormonism, the solutions are inadequate. For instance, is the Mormon God too weak to create ex nihilo? If so, then is he less than omnipotent? In contrast, the Christian explanations of creation ex nihilo, the fall, and redemption offer better explanations of the observable universe and of moral values.¹⁸

God: Unitarian vs. Monarchotheism

In many respects, Muslims agree with Christians on important points, such as God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Both are adamant regarding the monotheistic understanding of God. Muslims, however, stress the singular nature of Allah, rejecting the Trinity and believing that God is so transcendent that He is beyond the reach of a personal relationship with human beings. Christian theism acknowledges God’s transcendence but also explains that God is immanent, even to the point of coming to earth in the form of a man, Jesus, in order to redeem sinful humanity by His death and resurrection.

While certain theologians within contemporary Mormonism affirm the existence of one eternal God and believe that “exaltation” refers to individual deification to a lesser degree than that of Elohim, traditional Mormonism claims that God was once a man and became God. One reason some contemporary Mormon scholars are moving away from this traditional model, which was originally taught by Joseph Smith, is because it is philosophically weak. One ends up with an infinite regression of gods with no adequate explanation for how the system began. As for LDS theology, Christian scholar Stephen Parrish argues that the best term for this contemporary Mormon concept of deity is monarchotheism, which is “the theory that there is more than one God, but one God is clearly preeminent among the gods; in effect, he is the monarch or ruler of all the gods.”¹⁹

Jesus: One God among Many or Merely a Human Prophet?

Latter-day Saints affirm the divinity of Christ and His virgin birth, miracles, and bodily resurrection. This may seem orthodox, but a closer look at LDS teaching reveals significant points of disagreement with Christian positions on these doctrines. For instance, while LDS leaders say Jesus is the “Son of God” and “the Only Begotten Son in the flesh,”²⁰ they do not hold that He is God in the flesh or the second person of the Trinity. In Mormon theology, Jesus is one god among many. Also, Mormons have claimed that the virgin birth involved a physical union between God the Father and Mary.²¹

Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet and accept His virgin birth,²² sinlessness,²³ and miracles,²⁴ but they adamantly reject His deity as well as His death by crucifixion. Some Muslims argue that someone else died in the place of Jesus.²⁵ Because Muslims often interpret in a literal fashion the Christian doctrine of God “begetting” a Son, they hold that Christians add another being to the nature of God. This is blasphemous to the Islamic mindset, since Allah is the only God and can therefore have no companions.

Humankind’s Final State

Muslims believe that after they face the judgment of Allah, human beings will live forever either in a heavenly paradise or a painful hell. There are no second chances in traditional Islam. Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, posit a system that comes close to universalism. While not everyone will be saved in Mormonism, the vast majority of people will make it into one of three levels of heaven. “Outer darkness” is reserved for Satan and the demons as well as certain Mormon apostates.

APPLES AND ORANGES?

Are Islam and Mormonism apples and oranges? Yes and no. There are indeed important differences, but there are also a number of striking similarities that are significant enough to warrant specific comparison. In addition, the exceptionally rapid growth of both Islam and Mormonism underscores the need to analyze these faiths both individually and comparatively. In closing, it should be noted that both religions must overcome challenging apologetic obstacles in order to substantiate their claims, such as demonstrating that new and authoritative written revelation was necessary, that true worship was in need of restoration, that the Bible is unreliable, that human beings are good by nature, and more. At any rate, a discussion of Islam and Mormonism offers an opportunity for more than a mere academic comparison of the two faiths. It also highlights the importance and interconnectedness of key doctrines such as views of scripture, the human condition, salvation, creation, and—most importantly—the nature of God and Christ. As Jesus said, “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John17:3NIV). Unfortunately, Islam and Mormonism fall short of worshiping God “in spirit and in truth” (John4:24).

Table 1

notes

1. Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4 (New York: Macmillan, 1992), s.v. “World Religion” by ArnoldH.Green. The term “anti‑Mormon” is often used by Mormons in reference to anyone criticizing the teachings of the Latter-day Saints, regardless of the spirit in which such criticism is offered. We agree that there is no place in legitimate apologetics for ad hominem arguments, caricatures of another religion, or openly hostile attacks of any kind against another religion and its adherents. At the same time, Jude3, 1John4:1, and 1Peter3:15–16 clearly indicate that Christians must at times engage in legitimate criticism of other worldviews.

2. Ibid. This idea was communicated in the LDS First Presidency statement on February15,1978, regarding God’s love for humanity, which said, in part, that Muhammad was one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who helped “bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

3. Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:461.

4. On page 46 of Readings in the Qur’an (New York: Harper Collins, 1988), Kenneth Cragg observes, “It is the firm conviction of Muslims that without its Arabic the Qur’an ceases to be itself. A non-Arabic Qur’an is a contradiction in terms.”

5. Later authoritative LDS scriptures are the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants. The King James Version of the Bible is also utilized and considered Scripture.

6. Textual criticism includes appeals to extant documents, comparisons of such documents, etc.

7. Whereas Muhammad called people to monotheism, a case can be made that Mormonism, in the end, calls people to polytheism or, at the very least, the variant known as henotheism. Monarchotheism is mentioned later in this article.

8. While some Muslim apologists will argue that sacred texts such as the law of the Old Testament and the Gospels are merely misinterpreted, the majority of Muslims seem to take the approach that these texts were corrupted over time. Muslims revere the Law, Psalms, and Gospels.

9. Joseph Smith—History1:19. Some contemporary Mormons argue that, in retrospect, the personages who appeared to Smith and their condemnation of other beliefs meant only that he should join none of the local churches in his region, as those particular churches were all corrupt. As Ron Rhodes notes in The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, 59–60): “This revisionist line of reasoning fails because, if this were so, all Smith had to do was move to a neighboring community and seek out a minister who was not corrupt. It would not have been necessary to completely ‘restore’ the church of Jesus Christ on earth by founding the Mormon church.”

10. Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993),42.

11. For more on the Muslim view of sin, see Chawkat Moucarry, The Prophet and the Messiah: An Arab Christian’s Perspective on Islam and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), chap.7.

12. Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998),92.

13. Mormonism teaches that the fall of humankind is a blessing rather than a curse (2Nephi2:25; Moses5:10–11). In addition, salvation after death can be attained via work in the temple by living people in proxy for those already dead.

14. Mormons often disagree that salvation in their religion comes by works. It is important to distinguish between the two types of salvation found within Mormonism. General salvation (saved by grace) is the ability for all humankind to make it to one of the three levels of heaven while individual salvation is the performance of good works, which are necessary for a person to attain “exaltation” in the celestial kingdom. The Christian should thus be aware that language can be similar (e.g., “salvation by grace alone”) when meaning is different.

15. See Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo,” in The New Mormon Challenge, ed. FrancisJ.Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, 95–152 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).

16. John Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960), 150; Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 400,478,869.

17. Christian apologist Richard Abanes points out on page 130 of his book Becoming Gods (Eugene: Harvest House, 2004) how ironic it is that LDS scholars attempt to undermine the Christian doctrine of the Trinity by claiming it originated from Greek philosophy even though their own religion “shares many beliefs with pagan Hellenistic thought: for example, the eternality of matter, the pre-existence of spirits, and human deification. The LDS acceptance of many gods also mirrors the pagan beliefs of several ancient cultures: among others, the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians.”

18. See FrancisJ.Beckwith, “Moral Law, the Mormon Universe, and the Nature of the Right We Ought to Choose,” in The New Mormon Challenge,219–41.

19. Stephen Parrish, “A Tale of Two Theisms,” in The New Mormon Challenge,195.

20. “Jesus Christ,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802‑1,00.html.

21. See Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 43–45.

22. See Suras3:37–45; 19:16–21.

23. Sura19:19.

24. Sura3:49.

25. About Christ’s death, Sura4:157–158 says, “But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, But so it was made To appear to them…Nay, God raised him up Unto Himself” (A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary [Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corp., 1983]).

SYNOPSIS

Critics and supporters agree that the veracity of Mormonism hinges on Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844), the founder and first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church). Smith began his own church with just six people and saw it grow and thrive, despite the many persecutions it endured. He and his brother Hyrum Smith were murdered on June 27, 1844, by an armed mob, an event that has prompted Mormons to classify them as martyrs. It has caused others, however, to raise the question whether someone who dies in a gun battle fighting against his enemies can be considered to be a martyr. A close examination of the term reveals that one must meet specific requirements to be considered a martyr, which involve, for example, the reasons why one is put to death and the way one faces such a death. An investigation of the reasons why Smith was murdered and the actions he took to avoid this fate inevitably makes it difficult to maintain that Smith was “like a lamb led to the slaughter.”

Joseph Smith, Jr., was a simple, noneducated young man who insisted that God the Father and Jesus Christ commissioned him to restore the Christian church in 1830 from its state of “apostasy.”¹ Claiming to have “translated” the Book of Mormon, a literary work detailing how Jesus Himself visited descendants of the Jews in America after His resurrection in Palestine, Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church). Smith began his church with just six people and saw it grow and thrive, despite the many persecutions it endured.

It was 1839 when enemies of Smith forced him to leave the state of Missouri. Together with fifteen thousand of his followers, Smith ended up in Commerce, Illinois, a swamp-ridden town on the Mississippi River that he later renamed Nauvoo and that quickly flourished under his leadership. Today, the LDS Church looks to Joseph Smith as a beacon of truth, and although Mormons do not worship him, they certainly revere him. As Donald Staheli, a Mormon official in Nauvoo, Illinois, put it: “If one can not square with Prophet Joseph, we have nothing as a church. If Prophet Joseph and his mission are true, then the church has everything. If it’s not true, we become a fraud.”²

There are basic facts leading up to Joseph’s imprisonment and eventual death that need to be considered in determining whether or not he should be considered a martyr in the traditional sense of the word. First, Smith’s adulterous affairs with other women and his eventual revelation of plural marriage (which is called “the new and everlasting covenant” and later was incorporated into Mormon scripture³) upset many of the local citizens, especially since teenage girls and married women were involved. A group of former Mormons criticized Smith, largely because of this and his political aspirations, when they put together the only issue of The Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper printed on June 7, 1844.

When Smith, who was Nauvoo’s mayor, realized that they were planning future publications of the Expositor, he convinced the Nauvoo City Council to declare the paper a “nuisance” and order the destruction of the Expositor’s press and type. Even LDS historian B. H. Roberts called the legality of the destruction “questionable.”⁴ Then, on June 19, Smith declared martial law and put his four-thousand-member Nauvoo Legion militia on alert before he and his brother Hyrum Smith escaped across the Mississippi River. They returned home when Joseph read a letter from his wife Emma pleading for him not to run from his charges.⁵ Two days later, Joseph and Hyrum were arrested for treason and placed in a minimum-security cell at the Carthage Jail, which is about twenty-two miles away from Nauvoo. On the way from Nauvoo to Carthage, Joseph Smith said that he believed he was about to be led “like a lamb to the slaughter.”⁶

On the morning of June 27, Joseph wrote a letter to Emma, saying, “[I am] very much resigned to my lot, knowing I am justified and have done the best that could be done….” After he finished his note, however, he found out that the Illinois governor, who was supposed to be protecting him, had departed for Nauvoo, leaving him vulnerable to his enemies. According to History of the Church 6:605, Smith had Emma tell church leader Jonathan Dunham to direct the people to stay home and to “let there be no groups or gathering together, unless by permission of the governor.” Smith biographer Fawn Brodie writes, however, that Smith later “hastily scribbled an order to Jonathan Dunham to bring the Legion, break the jail, and save him at all costs. Within seconds two messengers bearing this order and the letter to Emma were off at a frantic gallop on the fifteen-mile trip to Nauvoo.”⁷

At 5:00 p.m. about two hundred armed men with blackened faces stormed the two-story Carthage Jail, with the two Smiths, John Taylor, and Willard Richards remaining inside. Joseph “sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel,” and the others for nearby canes.⁸ Shots were fired into the room, and Hyrum Smith was killed when he was hit in the face. Joseph Smith then grabbed a six-shot Pepperbox revolver, “pulled the trigger six times into the hall, dropped the pistol on the floor, and sprang to the window. With one leg over the sill, he raised his arms in the Masonic sign of distress. A ball from the doorway struck his hip, and a shot from the outside entered his chest. Another hit under the heart and a fourth his collarbone. He fell outward, crying, ‘O Lord my God!’”⁹ After Joseph and his brother Hyrum Smith were killed, they were said to “be classed among the martyrs of religion.”¹⁰

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEEMING SMITH A MARTYR

“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—He was murdered in cold blood.”

—Joseph Smith¹¹

To say that Joseph Smith was martyred rather than simply murdered is important to many Latter-day Saints. Mormon apologist Samuel Katich argues that “Joseph was, and always had been, willing to die for his faith, his God, and his people. Illustrating this willingness, Daniel Bachman cited an 1838 incident when Joseph and Hyrum were in the hands of their enemies and were sentenced to be executed. Did he resist? No!”¹²

Brigham Young University (BYU) professor Robert Millet explained how Mormons consider Smith’s death to be similar to the death of Jesus when he wrote: “The life of Joseph Smith was in some degree patterned after that of the Master, Jesus Christ. That pattern holds true even when extended to its tragic conclusion. Like his Master, Joseph Smith also shed his blood in order that the final testament, the reestablishment of the new covenant, might be in full effect (see Heb. 9:16).”¹³

One famous LDS hymn references Smith’s death this way:

Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;

Honored and blest be his ever great name!

Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,

Plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame.

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!

Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.

Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;

Death cannot conquer the hero again.¹⁴

THE FALLACY OF DEEMING SMITH A MARTYR

Based on the following syllogism, however, I do not believe it is accurate to classify Joseph as a martyr:

Premise 1: A martyr is someone who, at the risk or cost of his own life,

willingly dies for his faith.

Premise 2: Joseph Smith did not die willingly, or:

a. he would not have attempted to call on the Nauvoo Legion, and

b. he would not have shot at his attackers.

Premise 3: Joseph Smith did not die for his faith but rather for:

a. his imposition of nonbiblical practices upon his people, and

b. his illegal destruction of a newspaper printing press.

Conclusion: Therefore, Joseph Smith was not a martyr for his faith.

The Meaning of the Word Martyr

To determine whether Joseph Smith is in fact a martyr, for Premise 1, we need to define just what it means to be a martyr. Many LDS apologists utilize the dictionary to support this designation for Smith. For instance, Mormon apologist Lance Starr says that those who say Smith was not martyred “must take some creative liberties with the English language,” and that “some anti-Mormon writers have taken the term martyr and subtly changed its definition to suit their own needs. The new definition would probably read something like this: Martyr: a person who chooses to suffer or die rather than give up his faith or his principles without any resistance or effort at self-defense on his part whatsoever”¹⁵ (emphasis in original). Starr later concludes, “A martyr is simply someone who dies defending his or her faith.”¹⁶

W. John Walsh, another Mormon apologist, criticizes anyone who stops at the definition used by Starr, but he still defends the classification of Joseph Smith as a martyr when he writes:

If you reexamine the dictionary, you will find that you skipped over parts of the definition of martyr and definitions of related words. Webster’s also states that to martyr is “to put to death for adhering to a belief, faith, or profession.” In addition, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1991) states that a martyr is: “1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.; 2. A person who is put to death or suffers on behalf of a cause.; 3. A person who undergoes severe or constant suffering.” There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was finally murdered, after suffering severe and constant afflictions, because he would not renounce his religious beliefs or prophetic claims. Therefore, there can be no doubt that he was martyr.¹⁷

Former LDS bishop Stephen R. Gibson writes, “Joseph Smith certainly fits this definition of a martyr. To say differently is to either invent a new definition or to be ignorant of the facts regarding the last few days of the prophet’s life.”¹⁸

Here is a popular Internet definition for the noun martyr from Dictionary.com:

–noun

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause….

3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering….

4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.¹⁹

If we use this along with the other definitions provided by the Mormon apologists, there are three main meanings of martyr when used as a noun. To summarize, they are:

1. those who “choose” death (or allow themselves to die) for their beliefs or for a cause,

2. those who suffer for their beliefs but are not killed, and

3. those who attempt to gather sympathy by exaggerating their difficulties in life.

To be sure, the Mormon apologists are not referring to the secondary meanings of the noun martyr. They are focusing, rather, on the primary meaning, essentially claiming that Joseph Smith chose to allow himself to die for his principles of faith. While comparing dictionary definitions, perhaps we ought to consider a primary source that was in use during the 1840s when the word martyr was first ascribed to Joseph Smith by Taylor in Doctrine and Covenants 135. This is how Noah Webster‘s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun martyr:

n. [Gr. a witness.] One who, by his death, bears witness to the truth of the gospel. Stephen was the first Christian martyr.

To be a martyr signifies only to witness the truth of Christ.

1. One who suffers death in defense of any cause. We say, a man dies a martyr to his political principles or to the cause of liberty.²⁰

Webster’s 1828 dictionary, then, actually bases the idea that a martyr is a person who voluntarily chooses death to remain true to his principles (definition 1: “One who suffers death in defense of any cause”) on the original definition that a martyr is one who, by death, “bears witness to the truth of the gospel.”²¹

True Martyrs in Comparison

Besides Stephen, as Webster mentioned, other New Testament martyrs are John the Baptist, James, and Jesus Himself. Using a side-by-side comparison, let’s consider the martyrdoms of these men and how their deaths are examples that bear “witness to the truth of the gospel”:

A Comparison of Biblical Martyrs²²

There have been many who have died for their Christian faith since the days of Jesus and the apostles. The classic Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which was compiled by John Foxe in the sixteenth century, documents the stories of many Christians who paid the ultimate cost for their commitment to Christ.²⁴ In the twenty-first century, more than four hundred Christian martyrdoms take place every day.²⁵ Consider just one example:

Two evangelists in [Bangladesh] were stabbed to death around midnight…. Liplal Mardy (35) and Tapan Roy (30) had been showing the Jesus film, as well as health education films, in villages around the area. They had received at least two verbal threats from the head of the local madrassa (Islamic religious school), telling them to stop showing the film. After the second threat they stopped their work and were planning to leave the area, but they were murdered before they could do so.²⁶

Joseph Smith in Contrast

Mardy, Roy, and the biblical martyrs were killed for nothing more than their commitment to Christianity and desiring to spread the gospel; what about Joseph Smith? The accusations against Smith as detailed in the Nauvoo Expositor, including the practice of plural marriage, were true, and the behavior unjustifiable. The final straw for Smith’s enemies was the destruction of the paper’s printing press. Joseph Smith’s deeds—not merely his Mormon beliefs—were what upset the non-LDS population of Illinois. Perhaps Smith’s aspiration to be king and the perceived abuse of power that they saw him and his followers wield since their arrival in Nauvoo made the non-LDS population believe that the end result of this man’s death justified the means of their unlawful action.

Some wonder how Smith obtained the gun that he used against his attackers. Early LDS Church leader Cyrus H. Wheelock smuggled the Pepperbox six-shooter to him during a visit to Smith in the Carthage Jail. As he was about to leave, Wheelock took it out and said, “Would any of you like to have this?” As Taylor writes: “Brother Joseph immediately replied, ‘YES, give it to me,’ whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket.”²⁷

Joseph Smith took his pistol out after Hyrum Smith was shot and began firing at his attackers. Regarding the use of force by the Mormon prophet, Walsh writes:

You seem to imply that there is something wrong or immoral about defending either yourself or others from unlawful attack….Also, you seem to believe that the early Christian martyrs all died willingly without any resistance. Somehow I suspect that they did not step willingly into the mouths of lions. When they were alone with the lions in the arena, I imagine that they tried to run, hide, or even fight back. Their resistance did not disqualify them from being martyrs….When Paul faced a similar mob who had decided ‘it is not fit that he should live.’ (Acts 22:22), he used his Roman citizenship for protection….²⁸

Certainly Smith was morally justified to defend himself in the circumstance that he was in because it is simply reasonable to defend oneself. Such action, however, can hardly be compared to the Jesus who reprimanded Peter, saying “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52 KJV), no matter how unjust His arrest was.²⁹ Also, it is absolutely blasphemous for Smith to make a comparison of his situation (“I am going like a lamb to the slaughter”) to the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ. To even insinuate that the scriptures Isaiah 53:7 and Acts 8:28–33 had anything to do with his circumstances is completely missing the mark. As former Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner pointed out, “While we agree with the Mormons that there is no way to justify the unlawful and brutal acts of the mob at Carthage, we feel that it is going beyond the facts to compare the death of Joseph with that of Jesus.”³⁰

MURDER IS NOT MARTYRDOM

Just because a person is murdered does not make him a martyr. If simply being murdered is grounds for martyrdom, then David Koresh, Mussolini, and anyone else who has ever been killed for his or her ideology should also be considered martyrs. If merely dying for one’s faith is the lone prerequisite, then Smith’s death and the “martyrdom” of suicidal Islamic terrorists would have more commonality than dissimilarity. The Latter-day Saints are free to venerate their founding prophet, but it is not accurate to call Joseph Smith’s death an instance of martyrdom.

notes

1. Joseph Smith—History 1:17ff. (“Joseph Smith—History” is the name of a selection from the Mormon scripture The Pearl of Great Price that contains excerpts from Smith’s official history.)

2. “Pageant Rekindles Smith Debate,” Deseret News, August 6, 2005, available at http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600153800,00.html.

3. Doctrine and Covenants 132.

4. History of the Church 6:38.

5. Emma told Joseph that people were accusing him of being a coward. See Milton R. Hunter, “Love of Fellow Men,” Conference Report, April 1948, 31, LDS Library, http://search.ldslibrary.com/article/view/172978#173080.

6. Ibid., History of the Church 6:555.

7. Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Vintage, 1995), 391–392. The message in the note addressed to Dunham was not obeyed, although it is not known why. That was a curious command, at any rate, for if the Legion had come—and there were many more in the Legion than in the outfit supposedly guarding the jail—there would have been much more bloodshed.

8. History of the Church 6:617.

9. Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Vintage, 2007), 550. According to History of the Church 7:100–103, Smith’s bullets hit three men, killing two of them. Some Mormon apologists argue that these men were not killed; regardless, the history records that Joseph did fire at his attackers and apparently hit them.

10. Doctrine and Covenants 135:1ff. This idea is confirmed in History of the Church 6:629–631.

11. Doctrine and Covenants 135:4.

12. Samuel Katich, “Joseph Smith,” Mormonism 201, Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20117b.html.

13. Robert L. Millet, “Joseph Smith among the Prophets,” Ensign, June 1994, 22.

14. William W. Phelps, “Praise to the Man,” Hymn no. 27, Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985).

15. Lance Starr, “Was Joseph Smith a Martyr or a Murderer?” FAIR Papers (Mesa, AZ: FAIR, May 2003), available at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/jsmartyr.pdf. Concerning the false dichotomy in his title, Starr says “critics claim that Smith is a murderer because two of the three men he wounded died.” Leaving only two choices creates an “either/or” logical fallacy. I, for one, do not claim that Smith is a martyr, but I would not call him a murderer, either.

16. Ibid.

17. W. John Walsh, “Was Joseph Smith a Martyr?” Mormonism, Response to Criticism, Questions about Mormonism, LightPlanet, www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm.

18. Stephen W. Gibson, “Was Joseph Smith Really a Martyr?” Mormonism, Response to Criticism, One-Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions, LightPlanet, www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/martyr.htm.

19. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (New York: Random House, 2006), s.v. “martyr,” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martyr.

20. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (np: 1828), http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,martyr.

21. This is confirmed by the careful layout of Webster’s 1828 dictionary (which he began when he was 43 and did not publish until he was 70), and clarified in subsequent early editions, such as Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (Springfield, MA: G & C. Merriam, 1913). See “Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828),” The ARTFL Project, http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=martyr&use1913=on.

22. Names of persons being compared are in order by date of death.

23. Eusebius, Church History 2.9.2-3, available at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.x.html.

24. See John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile Press, 2007). Foxe explains, for instance, how all of the apostles (except John) were martyred for their faith by various means, including crucifixion, beheading, and stoning.

25. There will be 175,000 annual Christian martyrdoms by mid-2008, up from 160,000 in mid-2000, according to a 2008 survey. See David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, “Missiometrics 2008: Reality Checks for Christian World Communions,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 32, 1 (January 2008), available as “Status of Global Mission, 2008, in the Context of 20th and 21st Centuries,” Center for the Study of Global Christianity, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=52&f=10&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php.

26. Barnabas Fund, “Two Bangladeshi Christians killed for showing Jesus film,” The Barnabas Fund 5 (August 2005), http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/archives/ article.php?ID_news_items=48.

27. History of the Church 7:100. Joseph Smith also had a second gun smuggled in, though he never fired it during the gunfight.

28. Walsh.

29. Christians running away from lions or Paul’s legal maneuver in an attempt to save his life—as mentioned by Walsh—is not even close to the example provided us in Jesus Himself.

30. Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, “Jesus and Joseph Smith,” Online Resources, Tracts, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, www.utlm.org/onlineresources/jesusandjosephsmith.htm.

A recent word change to the introduction of the Book of Mormon has once again brought attention to the question regarding the historical reliability of one of Mormonism’s most sacred texts. Another change affirms the teaching that the Book of Mormon alone contains the fullness of the gospel.

Native American Origins. Since its founding in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church) has assumed that Native Americans are descendants of a people group described in the Book of Mormon as Lamanites (descendants of Laman). Recent conclusions from DNA research, however, have caused the LDS Church to rethink some of its earlier positions.

Basic Book of Mormon Content. Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that in 1823 he was visited by an angel named Moroni, a resurrected fifth-century “Nephite” warrior who, before his death, was commissioned by his father Mormon to bury a record that was written on gold plates. According to Moroni, the plates, written in Reformed Egyptian, gave “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 1:34). The book describes three migrations to the New World: the Jaredites who came from the Tower of Babel around the time it was built, Lehi and his family who came from Jerusalem around 600BC, and the Mulekites who came from Jerusalem a few years later.

Much of the narrative focuses on the descendants of Lehi, a prophet from Jerusalem who was told by God to flee the city before it was captured and destroyed by the Babylonians. Lehi and his family sailed to the western hemisphere, but once they landed, a schism broke out between Lehi’s rebellious son Laman and his younger brother Nephi. This divided the family, resulting in a bloody conflict that lasted several hundred years. As a result of the Lamanites’ wickedness, God “did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them,” so that they might not be “enticing” to their “white and exceedingly fair and delightsome” counterparts, according to a verse in the Book of Mormon (2Nephi5:21).

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1:143), the Book of Mormon is an “ancient Hebrew lineage history” that for thirteen million Latter-day Saints, speaks of real people and real events. Its very existence testifies to Mormons that Joseph Smith was a true prophet sent by God to restore Christianity after centuries of apostasy. Skeptics have argued that the book is nothing more than a nineteenth-century novel promoting commonly held theories about early migrations to the New World, sprinkled with Bible verses.

The “Principal Ancestors” Change. The one-page introduction to the Book of Mormon, which gives a brief overview of its contents, was added in 1981 when the LDS Church released a revised text of the Book of Mormon. The introduction was written by Mormon Apostle BruceR. McConkie, at the time considered to be one of the church’s most prominent theologians. The introduction stated, “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

New editions published by the LDS Church, however, will no longer include the phrase “principal ancestors.” They instead will read that the Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the American Indian. This new alteration has already appeared in copies of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday.

Critics believe that this recent alteration is anything but inconsequential because, in recent years, science has been challenging long-held Mormon beliefs regarding the origins of the American Indian people. Sandra Tanner, cofounder and director of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry based in Salt Lake City, sees this change as a “concession in light of the DNA research that has been done in the last few years.” Despite what the Book of Mormon claims, genetic research does not support the notion that American Indians are of Hebrew origin; instead, research has confirmed the theory that they are of Asian descent.

Mormon apologists and scholars are conceding that genetic research does not help their cause. Dr.Daniel Peterson, a Brigham Young University professor and active Mormon apologist, has stated, “To the best of my knowledge, no serious Latter-day Saint scholar or scientist contends that, to date, research on Amerindian DNA provides significant affirmative support for the Book of Mormon” (“Prolegomena to the DNA Essays,” FARMS Review15:2, 2003, p.32). Dr. Trent Stephens, an LDS professor at Idaho State University, concurs, “No genetic evidence specifically supports the hypothesis that Native Americans descended from Middle Eastern populations. Furthermore, there is little reason to assume that additional data will reverse the current conclusions” (“Now What?” Sunstone, March2004,26).

The Intermarriage Theory. In order to conform more closely to scientific findings, Mormon apologists have had to revise currently held views regarding Indian origins. They have also had to reject claims made by past LDS leaders and either reinterpret or outright reject some of the actual text of the Book of Mormon. Supporters see no conflict with the revision. They insist that when Lehi arrived in the New World, his group was met by indigenous people of Asian descent. Over the course of time, intermarriage with other cultures eventually diluted the gene pool, thus obliterating the genetic evidence that directs the lineage of the Indians back to the Middle East.

Opponents insist that such an interpretation is incredibly strained. “Even the use of the word ‘among’ is without any support,” says Tanner. “There is nothing to indicate that any of the Indians prior to the arrival of the Europeans were of Semitic descent.”

According to the title page of the Book of Mormon, the book was written “to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to the Jew and Gentile.” Tanner asks, “If we can’t determine who a Lamanite is, [how can the Mormons] know who to take the book to?”

That Lehi’s group intermarried with those of other cultures is deemed by many to be not only an argument from silence, but a contradiction of the text. In a November7,2007, letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, reader Philip Long pointed out that the LDS Church is either mistaken or not being honest when its official Web site states, “Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by people of Asiatic origin.” Long noted that a prophecy given in 2Nephi1:8 precludes such a conclusion when it states, “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” Long insists that that was exactly what he was taught as a Mormon, “that the Americas were uninhabited until the Book of Mormon people arrived.”

Statements from past LDS leaders concur with Long’s statement. For instance, in a general conference message titled “Our Divine Constitution,” Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson cited 2Nephi1:8 and concluded, “For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days.” Benson was among several LDS leaders who felt that this prophecy did not come to fulfillment until the arrival of Christopher Columbus (Ensign, November1987,4).

The Significance Question. Some Mormons feel that because the change does not affect the actual text of the Book of Mormon, it is not as significant as some critics assume. Kevin Barney, a board member of the Mormon organization Foundation for Apologetics Information and Research, told the Salt Lake Tribune that he has always felt “free to disavow” the language in the introduction, as well as in other noncanonical portions of the Book of Mormon, such as the footnotes and dictionary (“Single Word Change in Book of Mormon Speaks Volumes,” Salt Lake Tribune, November8, 2007). Barney sees the change as a positive step because it shows that his church is paying attention to progressing scholarship.

The Mormon Church has used this Indian/Lamanite connection extensively in proselytizing efforts. It remains to be seen how this gradual reinterpretation of what actually constitutes a Lamanite will affect members who see this relationship as a special place of honor.

Undesirable Methods. Hugo Olaiz, a third-generation Mormon from Argentina, welcomes the word change in the introduction, but expressed his disappointment at the timing and method of announcing the change. In his Sunstone article titled, “How Is It That Ye Could Have Fallen!—A Requiem for the Lamanites” (December2007,69), he expressed dismay “that instead of announcing the change to Church members, LDS leaders chose a back-alley way to implement it; instructing a non-Mormon publishing house…to make the desired revision….The media learned of the change only through Doubleday senior editor Andrew Corbin, who is quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as saying he was told the new wording was ‘in accordance with future editions the church is printing.’ This method of announcement,” said Olaiz, “reminds me of the way the First Presidency ended church-sanctioned polygamy—not by communicating directly with the members who had sacrificed so much for the doctrine and practice, but by sending a telegram to Washington.”

To Olaiz, his church “seems to be moving towards the notion that the only good Lamanite is a dead Lamanite—one who lived centuries ago in an undisclosed location.” Olaiz fears “that most white Latter-day Saints will fail to ask themselves the most important question: What does this change mean for millions of Latter-day Saints who have been told—and many of whom have treasured the knowledge, that they are the children of Lehi?”

The “As Does the Bible” Change. Another change in the introduction that has been given very little notice is found in the first paragraph. “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.” New editions of the Doubleday printing have deleted the phrase, “as does the Bible.” This alteration seems to comport more closely with several passages in the Doctrine and Covenants that speak only of the Book of Mormon as containing the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” (Doctrine and Covenants27:5). In 1841, Joseph Smith left little doubt regarding the Book of Mormon’s superiority over the Bible when he announced that a man would get “nearer to God” by abiding by the precepts in the Book of Mormon “than by any other book” (History of the Church4:461).

In what some believe was a response to the accusation that Mormons do not place a lot of value in the Bible, Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard gave a conference talk in April2007 titled “The Miracle of the Holy Bible.” In it he insisted that Latter-day Saints were “true and full believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and in His revealed word through the Holy Bible” (Ensign, May2007,80). He began by stating that the Bible’s four thousand years of sacred history were recorded and “preserved” by the prophets, apostles, and inspired churchmen. Missing from his talk, however, was any mention of Article Eight of the Articles of Faith, considered to be official doctrine by the LDS Church since 1880. It reads, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”

LDS leaders and scholars understand Article Eight more in terms of how the Bible was “transmitted” rather than how it was translated. In October1843, Joseph Smith declared that the Bible was corrupted by “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests.” This view has not been relegated to Mormonism’s past. In the March2008 edition of Ensign, Mormon Apostle BoydK. Packer spent considerable space discussing the LDS notion that the “Bible once contained the fulness of the gospel,” but had been corrupted by the “great and abominable church” mentioned in 1Nephi13:26 (emphasis added). Packer wrote, “Jacob defined the great and abominable church in these words: ‘Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God’ (2Nephi10:16).” For many Bible-believing Christians, statements such as these will no doubt keep the embers of suspicion burning for quite some time.

— Bill McKeever

Not since Mormon historian Juanita Brooks bravely penned her groundbreaking book The Mountain Meadows Massacre has so much attention been given to the wagon train led by Alexander Fancher and John T. Baker. For the past century and a half, most of the anniversaries of the massacre passed with little commentary. This tragic event, unheard of by most Americans, was brought to the forefront, however, in 2007 with the release of September Dawn, a film by Christopher Cain. The film recounts the treachery and brutal murders committed by more than fifty members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against 120 innocent men, women, and children on September 11, 1857. Only seventeen children, “too young to tell the tale,” survived the carnage.

September Dawn opened to a dismal box office attendance and received poor reviews. Mormon critics tended to run out of adjectives when expressing their disdain for the film. Bob Lonsberry, an excommunicated Mormon who still believes Mormonism is true, called the film a “carefully crafted attack on the LDS Church” and an “anti-Mormon sermon” replete with “distortion and bigotry.” The “entire movie is a vendetta,” he wrote, and “a heavy-handed smear job” (http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2214&go=4).

Buried Evidence and Elusive Facts. Sorting out the truth about the massacre has been a difficult task. Speaking at a Mormon History Association conference in July 2007, LDS historian Richard Turley conceded that much of the evidence has long been destroyed. What little evidence remains has been under the control of the Mormon Church and emigrant diaries that could shed light on the incident are nowhere to be found.

Traveling from Arkansas to California, the Fancher-Baker party could not have picked a worse time to cross the Utah territory. Misunderstanding between the Mormons and the U. S. government had led President James Buchanan to detach a large contingent of soldiers to remove Brigham Young from his position as governor. Unable to purchase supplies from the Mormons, the train headed south to fatten their cattle before making the arduous trip across the desert. According to Mormon Will Bagley, author of the book Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, “once the Fancher Party left Salt Lake City, it disappeared into a historical maze built on lies, folklore, popular myth, justifications, and few facts.”

For years depreciatory comments against the emigrants have made the rounds in Mormon circles, giving many LDS faithful the satisfaction that somehow the victims deserved their fate. Such thoughts are now being rebuffed by a contemporary LDS Church that is not being allowed to let old fictions go unchallenged. For example, eight pages in the September issue of the Mormon magazine Ensign were devoted to the massacre. In this article, Turley addressed some of these rumors and concluded that they “are not accurate.”

Brigham Young and Bypassed Blame. Without question, September Dawn’s greatest offense was in showing Brigham Young to be directly complicit in the killing of the emigrants. While there is no extant evidence clearly indicting Young, there is enough circumstantial evidence available to keep the controversy alive. Richard Turley has joined two other LDS historians, Ronald Walker and Glen Leonard, in writing an LDS version of the event. The book, which is to be published by Oxford University Press, is expected to blame Isaac Haight, a stake president (an intermediate-level leader with authority over several congregations) from Cedar City, for giving the order to kill the emigrants. For some, the thought of devout Mormon men willing to kill innocent civilians mercilessly on the orders of someone so low in the priesthood chain of command is untenable.

Walker admits that “there were statements made both in Salt Lake City and by local leaders down in southern Utah that tended to inflame emotion. There is a measure of culpability,” he said. Sermons calling for “blood atonement,” strict obedience to the leadership, and the threat of cutting the throats of “miserable scoundrels” who came to “Zion” certainly did not help calm the tensions Mormons were experiencing at the time.

Addressing the fact that evidence had been tampered with and destroyed, Bagley cites attorney Andrew Hamilton (1676–1741), who said that “the destruction of evidence ought always to be taken as the best evidence.” In a lecture given in downtown Salt Lake City, Bagley noted, “These documents were not destroyed because they vindicated Brigham Young.” Bagley feels that the LDS Church’s efforts to place blame solely on local leaders in southern Utah does not match the available evidence. “Brigham Young was the man in charge, and that’s where the orders originated,” he told a Salt Lake television station.

Bagley links the demise of the Arkansas wagon train to a Mormon temple oath repeated by participants vowing to “avenge the blood of the prophets” and to the May 13, 1857 murder of a Mormon apostle named Parley Pratt who had been killed in Arkansas by the estranged husband of a woman he had taken as his plural wife. Bagley believes that the “rantings” of Pratt’s widow to Brigham Young caused Young to view the emigrants as enemies. There is no evidence linking the Arkansas travelers to Pratt’s murder, but Bagley believes “it would forever be linked to their fate.”

Brigham Young’s first and only visit to the Mountain Meadows was on May 25, 1861. Two years earlier, soldiers under the command of Brevet Major James H. Carleton collected the still-exposed skeletons of thirty-four of the victims and buried them beneath a twelve-foot-high rock cairn. On top of the monument they placed a wooden cross that read, “Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.” Young, after reading the Romans 12:16 passage on the cross, added, “And I have taken a little.” Within moments the monument was completely torn down by those accompanying Young. Bagley agrees with historian David Bigler, author of Innocent Blood, that with this statement Young both “defined the authority and motive for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.”

In recent years the LDS Church has been compelled to face the tragedy at Mountain Meadows publicly, but it has come short of offering descendants the apology many seek. In his commemoration message on the 150th anniversary of the massacre, Mormon Apostle Henry Eyring again declared Young’s innocence, and after blaming local leaders, he offered “profound regret” for the incident. Local Salt Lake media outlets interpreted this as an apology. Many Mormons also applauded their church for bringing closure to this issue, but it had not truly done so. Church spokesman Mark Tuttle later stated, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.’” For many of the victims’ descendants, the failure of the LDS Church to offer an apology means their wounds have yet to heal.

— Bill McKeever

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:6–9 NIV).

In 1823, the angel Moroni allegedly visited Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and divulged the location of some golden plates containing the “fullness of the everlasting gospel.” These plates—abridged by Moroni and his father, Mormon, 1,400 years earlier—were written in “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics.” Along with the plates, Smith found a pair of magical eyeglasses that he used to translate the cryptic writing into English. The result was a new revelation called the Book of Mormon and a new religion called Mormonism.

How millions can take the Book of Mormon seriously is almost beyond comprehension. First, while Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as “the most correct of any book on earth and the keystone of our religion,” its flaws run the gamut from the serious to the silly. In the category of serious, the Book of Mormon contains modalistic language that militates against the biblical doctrine of the Trinity (Ether 3:14). In the category of silly, a man struggles to catch his breath after having his head cut off (Ether 15:31).

Furthermore, while archeology is a powerful testimony to the accuracy of the Bible the same cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. Not only is there no archeological evidence for a language such as “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics,” there is no archeological support for lands such as the “land of Moron” (Ether 7:6). Nor is there any archeological evidence to buttress the notion that the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites migrated from Israel to the Americas. On the contrary, both archeology and anthropology demonstrate conclusively that the people and places chronicled in the Book of Mormon are little more than the product of a fertile imagination.

Finally, Joseph Smith asserted that the golden plates were translated “by the power of God” and produced “the most correct of any book on earth.” Joseph F. Smith, the sixth president of the Mormon Church, went so far as to say that the words were not only correct but “every letter was given to [Smith] by the gift and power of God.” In reality, however, the Book of Mormon has had to be corrected thousands of times to compensate for Smith’s poor grammar and spelling.

The Book of Mormon is fraught with other errors as well. For example, “Benjamin” was changed to “Mosiah” when Mormon leaders realized that in the chronology of the Book of Mormon King Benjamin had already died—thus he would have been hard pressed to “interpret” the engravings mentioned in Mosiah 21:28.

Perhaps the greatest crack in the credibility of the Book of Mormon is that whole sections were derived directly from the King James Version of the Bible—this despite the fact that according to Mormon chronology, the Book of Mormon predates the King James Version by more than a thousand years. Little wonder that Mormons accept the Book of Mormon based on a “burning in the bosom” rather than on history and evidence.

— Hank Hanegraaff

1. Adapted from Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book (Nashville: J. Countryman, 2004).